Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. To enter additional comments edit the current main page and link to this page for context if needed.

Contents

Long term COI Spamming by Toughpigs

“ "Hi, I'm Danny. I'm the founder of a bunch of wikis on Wikia about the Muppets, Flash Gordon, John From Cincinnati, Bionic Woman, Journeyman, Chuck, and Pushing Daisies." ”

—User:Toughpigs

? See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Long term COI Spamming of related sites by Toughpigs

There seems to be a consideral ammount of promotional spamming from this user which began with his 3rd edit[1] on 16:46, 14 November 2005. Since that time there are very few edits outside of promoting his site own site http://toughpigs.com, and all the related wikia wiki's he's founded (See below). many of these links have been converted in to templates.


The following is only a sample of the thousands of COI edits this user has made.

Additions of toughpigs.com by "Toughpigs (talk · contribs)" ref [2] dating back from 2005 - june 2006

[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

Additions of flashgordon.wikia.com or {{wikia|flashgordon|Flash Gordon}}
Flash Gordon (2007 TV series) [12][13]
Flash Gordon (serial) [14][15]
Flash Gordon (film) [16]
Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe [17][18]
Flash Gordon [19][20][21]
Flash Gordon (1954 TV series) [22]
Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars [23][24]
Flash Gordon (TV series) [25][26]
Alex Raymond [27][28]

Additions of jfc.wikia.com or {{wikia|jfc|John From Cincinnati}}
John From Cincinnati [29][30]
David Milch [31][32][33]


Additions of muppet.wikia.com or {{wikia|muppet|The Muppets}} ref [34]
[35][36][37][38] [39] [40] [41][42] [43][44] [45][46][47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52][53][54][55] [56][57][58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] [80][81] [82][83][84] [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94] [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104] [105][106][107] [108][109][110][111][112][113] [114][115][116][117][118][119][120]

I had to stop, It is extremely excessive in its scope and nature. this is just a sample dating back from 2005 - june 15 2006. It seems the majority has occurred this Mid july and earlier. Very possible this may even require Imposing community sanctions, or even a Community ban--Hu12 08:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking a rfc on user conduct here, but I wonder how much spam has slipped under the radar due to the use of interwiki links. MER-C 09:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As a user, let me say that I find the Muppet wiki a very useful and impressive resource. It doesn't appear to me to be an inappropriate spamming; someone should be adding links to the wiki (as long as it's to appropriate articles), and why not the person who created it? I don't have an opinion on the other wikis being linked. THF 13:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Seconding THF - have you actually asked members of the Wikipedia community involved with the pages concerned whether or not they are appropriate links, or are you just offended that someone would add links to a site they contribute to, no matter how relevant they are?
The whole point of having external links at all is that Wikipedia cannot or does not want to contain certain information. This often results in such information being moved to a related wiki, and a link to that wiki being inserted instead, so that people who want to learn more can do so with the understanding that they are not getting it from Wikipedia. This procedure is a good solution to "fancruft" (true but not necessarily verifiable or overly-detailed information) which satisfies those wishing to preserve such information, those wishing to learn it, and those wishing to remove it from Wikipedia.
Such sites are of interest to Wikipedia readers - the average visitor to WikiFur from Wikipedia reads even more pages and spends more time on the site than a Google search visitor (average 8 pages / 10 minutes vs. 5 pages / 7 minutes for August 2007). Wikia site administrators are unlikely to gain material benefit from such traffic; there is no ad revenue share or similar. They add the links because they are experts in the topic and know it is a good source of information, and they remain on Wikipedia articles because other users agree. GreenReaper 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Kandisky123 - Promotion of commercial website

Kandisky123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This editor has been inserting an external link to the website, "Faux Like a Pro," where the person appears to have a personal interest in the site based on WP:COI. The same external link to the website was inserted in the articles Paint, Graining, Faux, Painterwork, Refinishing, Distressing, Glaze, Shabby chic, Trompe-l'oeil, Venetian Plaster, Color Wash, Strie, Rag Painting, Interior decoration, Interior design, Painter and decorator, Decorative art, Faux Painting, Refinishing and Marbleizing. This editor was warned on August 7 by another editor about WP:3RR and WP:SPAM issues concerning improper reverts and spamming the external link in the Stencil article before I posted a warning on that person's Talk page about spamming issues in other articles.

Image contributions seem to indicate exclusive uploading from the same website whose references to the external link were removed from various articles. A few of the images featured a reference to the website in the image caption, such as what can be seen in image captions within the article space here. Information about some of the images even feature the named artist of the work created in connection with the website, such as what can be seen here and again here (named female is indicated as the artist in both cases). This editor has even tried on one occasion to warn users away from removing the link to the website by posting a message right in the space of one of the articles, including the posting an e-mail address to direct concerns from others about the link insertion in Wikipedia articles. That message was reverted by another editor.

I've already posted a final warning about the insertion and reinsertion of the questioned link to the website. The editor appears to contribute useful NPOV information for the subjects within that person's expertise, albeit the spamming aspect to promote the website. ?Lwalt ? talk 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no problematic edits since the final warning. Follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.fauxlikeapro.com

fauxlikeapro.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Shall we remove the links? MER-C 06:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Took care of deleting the links to the external site where found. A Wikipedia search brings up references to the company in articles that link to images uploaded to the Image library (the editor released the images from the commercial website into the public domain), since the company name was written in the edit summary by the editor. WHOIS lookup stills shows 9 Wikipedia hits, though. ?Lwalt ? talk 09:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Give it some time to update to empty. MER-C 11:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes...the editor is PO'd and demanded a response as to why the link to the site cannot remain, although the editor later tempered the message to this in spite of the specific warnings regarding that editor's actions. ?Lwalt ? talk 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Scottrade

I have collected a bunch of diffs from the Wikipedia Scanner originating from Scottrade's St. Louis offices. I think Chris X. Moloney is most likely the main editor. Edits are made to Scottrade their business interests, the bio linked above, as well as concepts that Chis promotes in his books and speaking engagements. There were many other innocuous edits to Scottrade, like updating the number of braches or employees that I have left out. It is also possible he has an interest in the article Parago, but I didn't include those diffs as the article has such a short history with the only IP being the one concerned with Scottrade. I don't know how these things are unraveled with such extensive edits, so I am leaving the evidence to all of you more experienced people--BirgitteSB 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

209.144.55.6 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

COI is Confirmed as it's a Scottrade IP. Range is 209.144.55.0/24. Cannot comment on the editor behind it. MER-C 09:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is a big bunch of advertising. If it hadn't been kept on an AFD back in Dec of 06, I would recommend deletion as spam. As it is it needs work. --Rocksanddirt 17:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've stubbed it. If the COI editors return, make sure they've been appraised of WP:COI. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tidal power

In response FIG has a bias for alternative technology Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that user "Tidalenergy" keeps adding details of the activity of a Commercial company "Tidal Energy" to the Tidal power page.

It is in keeping with other content about similar tidal stream technologies. FIG does not tell the whole story and mistreats and abuses the system here with this complaint while sustaining his own blatant actions.

The company website is http://www.tidalenergy.net.au/

The link was added as a citation --- or how else does one sustain the comment?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User Tidalenergy claims elsewhere on the talk page that: "I hold the world record for the world’s most efficient turbine design."

True, but it is made on the talk page in defence of a sustained attack on my comments by FIG. In an effort to share that I have considerable industrial experience (now retired). What experience or credibility does FIG have?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that on the Tidal Energy Pty Ltd website the company history notes that: "Following from feasibility studies in the late 1990's Aaron Davidson and Craig Hill achieved a world record in turbine efficiency in 2002."

http://www.tidalenergy.net.au/?D=54

True but again taken out of context. FIG attempts to pervert the course of this debate by suggesting a COI of interest when it is clearly declared. You can'y have it both ways. Either you have no facts shared or you allow those authoresed to share info"Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that user "Tidalenergy" is an employee of the company "Tidal Energy". He has been warned many times for repeatedly removing valid content from the page (content which, coincidently, is not in the commercial interests of the company "Tidal Energy"), and was eventually blocked for a short while. Since then he has decided that my reverting of his edits amount to persecution, bullying, and just about everything else. Fig 12:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am retired! That's the truth! Believe it or not. FIG and co exploited my lack of knowledge about editing and had me blocked when I down talked his bias for barrages, in particular the Severn Barrage that he says will soon be built and I say will never be built. Since then his ego has been dented as he has tried and failed to debate me on the facts. When logic and reason fail he resorted to personal attacks on my good name.Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
210.9.237.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is the same user. Fig 13:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The only inappropriate edit I see so far might be this one: [144] - and that is only inapripriate because of the COI. It could really be fine if it was discussed on the talk page. Most of the mainspace edits from this account that I see are perfectly acceptable. Do you have any examples where they edited the article inappropriate? What is it that you seek here? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This would have ended here if it were not for FIG allowing other UK and EU technologies. My question is does FIG reside in the UK or EU and if so what are his affiliations?Tidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What about these [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153] ? What I seek here is some arbitration. I grow tired of defending the impartiality of this article against a sustained campaign by someone whose financial interest makes them considerably more motivated and persistent than I am. It is pointless me putting another warning on the user's page, since Tidalenergy now believes I am operating some kind of psychotic vendetta against him, and now slings mud at me at every opportunity. What I'd like is to be able to remove this page from my watchlist with the knowledge that other editors are aware of the COI of this user and scrutinise his edits accordingly. Perhaps a warning on the Talk:Tidal_power page? Fig 12:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The COI is declared and the comments on the main page are in line with the page as a whole. Nothing more is said then any other technology mentioned! Double standargs are FIGs best attempt to end the debate in his favourTidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
When logic and free speech fail in any debate FIG resorts to smear and inuendo with comments about psychotic vendettas. Read below what is siad on the main page that he objects to and see for your self. He objects to my comments about a shrouded technology while allowing other more blatant comments along with full colour photos'
While FIG hides behind his veil of hypocracy he slyly solicits in a campaign to have me blocked.
If one looks at the comments on the main page they are in line with others made about similar technologies. Read it for yourself here below. My edits are in bold.
Several commercial prototypes have shown promise. Trials in the Strait of Messina, Italy, started in 2001[8] and Australian company Tidal Energy Pty Ltd[9] undertook successful commercial trials of highly efficient shrouded turbines on the Gold Coast, Queensland in 2002. Tidal Energy Pty Ltd has commenced a rollout of shrouded turbines for remote communities in Canada, Vietnam, Torres Strait in Australia and following up with joint ventures in the EU.


The SeaGen rotors in Harland and Wolff, Belfast, before installation in Strangford LoughDuring 2003 a 300 kW Periodflow marine current propeller type turbine was tested off the coast of Devon, England, and a 150 kW oscillating hydroplane device, the Stingray, was tested off the Scottish coast. Another British device, the Hydro Venturi, is to be tested in San Francisco Bay.[10]
Why allow this on SeaGen above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Although still a prototype, the world's first grid-connected turbine, generating 300 kW, started generation November 13, 2003, in the Kvalsund, south of Hammerfest, Norway, with plans to install a further 19 turbines.[11][12]
Why allow this on Kvalsund above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
A commercial prototype "open turbine" design will be installed by Marine Current Turbines Ltd in Strangford Lough in Northern Ireland in September 2007. The turbine could generate up to 1.2MW and will be connected to the grid.
Why allow this on MCT above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Verdant Power is runnng a prototype project in the East River between Queens and Roosevelt Island in New York City [10].
Why alloow this on Verdant above and not mine FIG man?Tidalenergy 23:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be a a double standard if these can be put on the page and the most exciting new advance in turbine technology is to be left out. How can one be allowed and the other NOT? Can anyone here see this or is it just me? Tidalenergy 23:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The editor was unblocked after promising to behave himself on August 4. Has the editor made a promotional edit since August 4? THF 12:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The edit you identified above was Aug 17 and was the one that prompted my raising the issue here. Fig 16:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not J. Smith. I've warned the editor sternly. I don't have admin power to block, so if another admin feels that is appropriate, they can (I'd give one last chance myself, given that the edits have not been entirely promotional). THF 16:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
THF has been solicited into the debate by making threats on my home page. This does nothing to sustain a fair and just system when people are allowed to get away with this type of behaviourTidalenergy 23:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This is Tidal Energy here folks. I am new to this but am learning quickly that if the FIG man pushes his barrow on barrages he will pollute the information being broadcast about an emerging industry that holds the single greatest potential for clean green energy for an energy starved world.
FIG and his growing band wish to alienate me. He has systematically mailgned my good name and reputation in an attempt to promote a pie in the sky proposal for a wall to be built across the ten mile wide entrance of the Severn River in south west Britian.
FIG has no industry experience so criticises those who do!
From his own account "his people" are promoting the proposal of the pie in the sky Severn Barrage. He pushes barrages as the end game for an energy hungry world when three exist globally with potentail of only a miserable 300 mega watts. Perhaps we need to live in tents and pee in a hole in the ground while we brush our teeth with electric tooth brushes as this will be the only thing that we will have energy to run if FIG has his way.
FIG has turned a blind eye to the dozens of tidal stream technologies that are being deployed or have been deployed in a fruitless attempt to convince peopel that his flat earth barrage technology is the cats whiskers. Sad fellow is Mr. FIG.
I have placed large amounts of data that is freely available on the net out there for discussion for his enlightenment and have repeatedly asked for him to engage me in open forum debate to no avail. He has sustematically altered my edits leaving them either wrong or highly milseading. He has continued to exercise his greater knoweledge and pimped his skill in using Wiki to foster ill will toward my edits to the point of securing others to do his dirty work in an attempt to have me blocked.
FIG has taken quotes and twisted them to malign the free stream technology even to the point of misquoting science. Just where will FIG stop!
His gripe seems to be centred around a free stream tidal turbine technology that includes a shroud that surrounds a turbine allowing it to harvest grester volume of flow then a open or free stream turbine. Yes it is new to tidal energy technology but that does not diminish the significance of the potential for the technology. Shrouded turbines are the first significant advance to the industry since the middle ages --- believe it or not!
For the record I am a retired career engineer and was dismayed to read nothing about tidal shrouded technology and little if any factual evidence about tidal free stream technology. I added it to the horror and contempt of the FIG man. Sorry FIG. If Wiki wants to have creditible edits then it should be encouraging people like me with access to information and the right to place it on the the pages. FIG man's ascertion that I have a conflict interest is not founded in fact and is hypocracy in the extreme when there are propriety companies advertising their technology on the Tidal Power page, e.g. MCT and Blue Energy to name two. There seems to be little an honest broker can do when people like FIG are allowed catre blanche to run amok.
FIG in an attempt to have me blocked is exercising anarchy to the point that he would have any thing to do with an alternative to his pet barrage on the Severn River promoted to the exclusion of all else. This is fundamently wrong!!! It simply should not be allowed. He should not be allowed to get away with this.
Finally THF has come onto my page with threats and has warned me of inappropiate behaviour in answering comments made on my page. This sux! If I am not allowed to answer comments on my own page it defeats the ethic of freedom of speech. While I have said nothing wrong I find THF and his manner offensive and would appeal to those who have the power to remonstrate with this person about ethical beaviour. As THF says "my edits are not entirely promotional" so if they are not promotional where's the problem if not a secret agenda or else so what business is it of yours? Do you have a less noble agenda? I suppose we will never really know will we THF? Tidalenergy 00:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Scottish Knights Templar

Users:

Article:

This user appears to be using the article, particularly the discussion page Talk:Scottish Knights Templar for self promotion, affecting the WP:NPOV of the article. See (diff) Talk: Scottish Knights Templar which is a large cut and paste from his own website www.scottishknightstemplar/news.htm. The user appears to have a 2nd username GSGOSMTH and has used at least 3 different IP addresses to promote his group, which may be legitimate but suggests sock puppetry. See Paulmagoo talk. He reverts edits to the article in respect of his group. See (diff) Scottish Knights Templar--Sannhet 15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There are worse cases, but the press release on the talk page is a bit much, and others have already objected. If he is asked to remove that and be more careful in future, the rest is probably ok. --Kyndinos 14:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)as
The press release has been removed from the talk page, and as Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is monitored by other editors to ensure NPOV recommend this case be closed. --Quaerere Verum 10:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't close yet. User:GSGOSMTH needs to be indef blocked as an unauthorized role account, and improper username, and a COI-only account. Let's keep digging to make sure we clear this up completely. - Jehochman Talk 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Paulmagoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has just put his press release back on Talk:Scottish Knights Templar. I have put a note on the talk page of the user who had refactored the text. --Sannhet 09:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I refactored it again to remove the release. Is there a sympathetic admin who'd like to talk to this user? He's having lots of problems and needs guidance. - Jehochman Talk 15:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

George McFarland

I left a long note at User_talk:68.93.60.180. I suspect this is a drive-by addition and that we won't see anything new from the IP. If that's what happens then the appropriate way of dealing with this is by standard editorial mechanisms (facts tags already added, sourcing, etc.).--Chaser - T 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

NeuStar

  • NeuStar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Jvsheeran (talk · contribs) claims to be an official in the organization, and is repeatedly deleting anything in the article which does not match the corporation's corporate-approved boilerplate text. I have explained to him that the article on Wikipedia does not belong to NeuStar, and they can comment on the Talk page about the article, but he should not keep deleting all of the content which does not meet their corporate approval. Corvus cornix 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll warn the user not edit the article again. Clearly he doesn't understand our policies. - Jehochman Talk 16:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Proctor

  • Aaron Proctor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Not a super high priority, but I'd appreciate if a couple other people could add this to their watchlists. In a nutshell: I expanded an article about a young California political candidate / wrestling promoter (yes, both) who was briefly living in St. Louis. I corresponded with him about the article, to obtain photos and get him to doublecheck the biographical data. But I've got a sneaking suspicion that he may have been the one to create the bio in the first place, and he or someone on his behalf keeps coming in to tweak the bio, add inappropriate trivia, and now he's evidently trying to change the picture to non-licensed images. I have cautioned him frequently about not editing his own bio, but either he's not listening, or he has overzealous fans. In any case, some help watching things would be appreciated. --Elonka 06:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Business Wire

As can be seen from his upload and summary at Image:Business Wire logo.png, Mr. Becktold is the Vice President of Marketing for Business Wire. Since account creation, he has made numerous, and virtually exclusive, edits to the Business Wire article, including the removal today of negative information with the edit summary "Removed competitor's edit."

Normally, I'd just revert the edit and slap a {{uw-coi}} message on his talk, but this might need the attention of others with more experience, authority, and political finesse. Thank you, Satori Son 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left a warning, and am watching the user's edits. Some of the material added is of very promotional nature only, and i have also left a notice about that. DGG (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Search Engine Strategies / Search Engine Watch

I'm one of many speakers at SES, and a very occasional columnist for SEW. Even though these are relatively minor connections in my view, I'd like some extra eyes to look at these articles. The problem is that User:Lafmm is a VP of marketing for the owner of these,[154] and he's been editing the articles to make them reflect the corporate point of view. I've left him good COI advice, so hopefully he will restrict future editing to the talk pages. - Jehochman Talk 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The party contacted me offline, and has made the necessary adjustments. I expect no further difficulties. - Jehochman Talk 03:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Week & Space Technology

User:198.45.19.39 - This IP address's talk page states that it comes from Macmillan/McGraw-Hill School Publishing Company and has been previously warned for posting link spam for one of the company's publications (Architectural Record Magazine). It's at it again, and is posting link spam about Aviation Week & Space Technology which is another of the company's publications. See: [155] and [156]. Nick Dowling 08:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

User:ChaplainSvendsen has a WP:COI since he seems to be a board member of that institute. He repeatedly tried to transform that article into a soapbox promoting the curriculum and whitewashing critique:[157][158][159]--Raphael1 10:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the links you gave. All of that material was information Eclectek suggested on the WHINSEC talk page be put in the article. Namely more information concerning just exactly what the school teaches and information on how one visits the school. If you removed it your are guilty of attempting to sabotoge legitimate information which others believe is needed on the site. So I wish to file a complaint about you and your attempt to prevent legitimate information about the school from being posted. ChaplainSvendsen 18:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a COI. I am not a board member of the school. I am a member of the Board Of Visitors. I neither work for the school nor am I paid in anyway for my activities as part of the Board Of Visitors. I've said this so many times. Why doesn't anyone interested in this subject actually go to the WHINSEC website to check their facts. Rather then link you I'll print it out here.

"When Congress passed the Defense Authorization Bill for 2001 and President Bill Clinton signed it into law, that created WHINSEC. The law called for a federal advisory committee, the Board of Visitors, to maintain independent review, observation and recommendation regarding operations of the institute. The 13-member BoV includes members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, representatives from the State Department, U. S. Southern Command and the Army Training and Doctrine Command; and six members designated by the Secretary of Defense. These six include representatives from the human rights, religious, academic and business communities. The board reviews and advises on areas such as curriculum, academic instruction, and fiscal affairs of the institute. Their reviews ensure relevance and consistency with US policy, laws, regulation, and doctrine.

The BoV is an independent organization designed to study and watch the schools activities from inside the organization. Again, I am not a spokesperson for the school. I speak as an independent social justice advocate. I was asked to serve on the board because of my activities in reading Peace and Justice materials parroting SOA Watch type of materials that were distributed within my denomination. I was appauled at the accusations and according to my religious beliefs, when you have a problem with somebody you go directly to them and attempt to help them find the right path and attempt to find reconcilliation. They were happy that I had a number of things that fit the requirements of the law. 1. I am a human rights advocate, board member of my conference Board Of Church and Society in the Norhtern Illinois Conference, and in addition have been involved with using materials from organizations like the Voice Of The Martyrs to speak out against torture, injustice, and intolerance. 2. I'm from the religious community. I'm an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church with almost nineteen years of ministry experience. 3. I'm a military chaplain with that training and experience. 4. I'm second career in the ministry and my military experience goes back to Vietnam. So I have military training and experience in enlisted service training, line officer (line officers are officers who are not specialized such as chaplain's, medical, just advocates, etc.) and the chaplaincy. I know military training schools and how they function. 5. Academic: My academic training includes not only a BA in Religion and Philosopy and a M-Div and all the military training schools for non conmissioned officer (enlisted) training and Officer Candidate School, Engineer Officer Basic, Chaplain Candidate, Chaplain Career, plus a whole laundry list of other military classes. I have been invited to guest teach one day classes in relationship building and personality development in two public schools. I am trained to lead retreat weekends for couples relationship building seminars. I've put together from scratch community programs of similiar interest. I also have taught classes on Suicide Prevention, Consideration Of Others, as well as many others. I organized and led a Muslim / Christian dialogue session aimed and educating both sides about each other. And there are others. My articles on various topics have been plublished in numberous publications. 6. I've actually been to Central America both in a military capacity and in mission work with trip number five coming up soon. That's already way too much material. Oh yes, and I served as the chaplain for a year to JDOG which is the detention camp located in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Finally I'm an outspoken social activist who speaks out not only concerning denominational issues but social issues as well. I've been seen challenging organizations at county board meetings, school boards, news publications, on the floor of annual conference, protest sites, and in the public square. I have been praised by generals for my activities in the military and given bad reviews by commanders because I refused to let issues drop such as the time a group of minority soldiers came to me with accusations of discrimination. I almost found myself out of the service because of that one.

What I'm not is an ostrich with my head stuck in the sand simply parroting miliatry PR. When I went looking at the school it was with a critical eye to catch them in a lie and find any dirt that was there to find. If at any time someone, anyone, can convince me that WHINSEC is doing anything improper I will turn in my resignation, pick up a picket sign, and join the protest. My passion for defending the school (as an outside and independent source) comes from the outrage I have at those who seem to actually know very little about them and then speak as if they know everything about them. My futher outrage is the fact that many in the academic world who would require their own students to do complete research on a subject before speaking about it are themselves parroting repeatedly things they have read on websites like that of SOA Watch. And if you say it enough times and get people of reputation to repeat it enough times and reputable publications to print it the information becomes truth in and of itself regardless of how damaged and full of untruths it might be. ChaplainSvendsen 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say there is a clear conflict of interest, among other issues. Chaplain Svendson has been canvassing by email. Chaplain Svendson is also a somewhat notable figure. That notability is relevant to this COI report. He is the individual who wrote an article for Esquire, and appeared on (mostly neocon/conservative-orientated) talk shows, denying the ill-treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. This establishes some history of contradicting the conventional wisdom in regards to accusations of torture and similarly distasteful practices. I do not believe Chaplain Svendson is being dishonest in his advocacy. However, the canvassing, the speeches and notably his "outrage" over what the majority of reliable sources report, in combination with his notable place in the Gitmo debate, certainly lead me to believe he has a clear conflict of interest and even more troubling, that he is attempting to use Wikipedia to "right great wrongs". Vassyana 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Please get your facts straight. I didn't write any article for Esquire. I was interviewed by a writer for Esquire. I had not control as to what that writer wrote. Again all I did was answer his questions about what I actually heard and saw. I have repeatedly stated that I did not know what went on in the interrogation rooms and was not making statements about everything that went on there. I do know as one of the briefers for incoming guards that every guard received a briefing on the protection of human rights and instructions on the Geneva Conventions. They received instuctions to not violate the human rights of the detainees. This included even using demeaning or insulting language or showing disrespect for their dignity and religious practices. They were told to refuse orders to mistreat the detainees. To refuse to particpate in violations. They had direct orders to take actions to stop it if they saw it. And to report it to authorities if they saw it. That is what the general population of guards were taught and held accountable to. If any guard became stressed out or showed a potential for being abusive they were given duty outside of the camp. ChaplainSvendsen 04:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)ChaplainSvendsen 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The "conventional wisdom" of Gitmo is that there is no torture. There are legitmate questions about the legality of holding prisoners there. There are questions about whether the Geneva Convention covers these prisoners. There are legitmate questions about whethter they have the right to Habeus Corpus (it's interesting to note that Geneva Convention and Habeus Corpus are usually exclusive). But the accusation of torture is an extreme position that has not been supported by credible evidence. --DHeyward 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You must not know of this.:Report of Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt •smedley?butler• 06:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the first sentence? "but not tortured" is the most prominent phrase. Good source for "no torture at Guantanamo" though. --DHeyward 06:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you download and read the report? Did you read what almost all Human Rights Orgs say? The vast majority view of almost everybody but BUSHGOV is that its torture. But then BUSHGOV claim that it doesnt torture. Like Abu Gharib. No torture there? Sorry but the small minority view of the same GOV responsible for Abu Gharib and Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch that they 'don't torture' and that they don't waterboard, but if they did waterboard it wouldn't be torture anyway, is not the 'world view' of a worldwide encyclopedia like Wiki. That is a fringe view. •smedley?butler• 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, the source you provided says it wasn't torture. Your own personal interpretation is not relevant. Your screed against what you perceive as "BUSHGOV" is even less relevant. There is no evidence of "torture" at Gitmo and that belief is not mainstream. --DHeyward 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You can believe what ever you want. Some people believe that the moon landing was fake. Torture, Cover-Up At Gitmo? This issue is the Chaplain's COI after all. "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC" •smedley?butler• 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
So this new link was refuted by the precious you gave as it was the investigation into that report. Nice try again but no cigar. --DHeyward 19:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue is Chaplain Svendsens COI. "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC" His defense of GITMO and why the BUSHGOV doesnt admit to 'torture' when almost everybody else in the world calls it that Proof are for somewhere else, not this board. Maybe you are looking for the GITMO article. Please quit distracting the issue away from COI. Thank you. •smedley?butler• 19:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Vassayana and I posted some of my feelings on the article page. IMO (no attack) he does not understand WP especially about promotion as he wanted to include information on how readers of the article could visit the school and on RS and VS as he wanted to include some claims from un-published papers he has. Maybe he needs a Mentor. He canvassed me too. •smedley?butler• 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No COI as no link established. --DHeyward 05:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What? "I was appointed by the DOD last year as an official board member" 8/24/07 Link "I am not a board member of the school." "Chaplain Kent Svendsen BOV Member WHINSEC"(above) •smedley?butler• 06:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no problem with this distinction. I am a board member of the BoV but the BoV is not part of the school. So I am not a board member of the school. That would imply some vested interest in the school and would be a COI. The BoV is an independent organization made up of people who have the education and knowledge to evaluate its work. ChaplainSvendsen 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Since the "Board of Visitors" gets discussed in the article as well, User:ChaplainSvendsen who is a member of that board does have a conflict of interest.--213.235.193.1 13:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I also believe this is a conflict of interest, more importantly, Major Svendsen has been violating WP:SOAP, WP:POINT, WP:OR, etc. and has been canvassing. His edits have been almost exclusively to the WHINSEC article. However, I think a mentor would help and I would be glad to do what I can if he wants some help. I may not agree with him, generally, but editors don't have to agree to collaborate, since our own opinions should never influence article content. Once he understands the relevant WP policies and the consensus process better, I think he might be a good editor. User:Pedant 11:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is it not true that policy does not require editors with a conflict of interest to refrain from editing the article in conflict but merely to take greater pains to use appropriate editing techniques such as providing references and maintaining a NPOV etc.  ? COI editors can edit even though they have a conflict of interest? User:Pedant 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been accused of soliciting support. What I did was to e-mail everyone who I could get addresses for who had edited the article informing them of the activity that was going on. In my mind it was an attempt to get the consensus everyone was talking about. You find people who are knowledgable and interested in the article and you get their imput. I certianly don't consider that soliciting support. I'd gladly accept a mentor and have been very grateful for the suggestions I have received. I'm thankful for the numberous additions to the aritcle of "neutral" information which have been made by taking the information I provided and neutralizing it so to speak. With my military background I respect rules and understand the neew to follow them. So here's a question which I keep asking but get no response. I have numberous reports which are public record which were distributed at the various BoV meetings. It verified facts which are authenticiated by the various school officials. How can they be used as citations? ChaplainSvendsen 04:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources can only be used if they are published by a reliable source.WP:PSTS Because such a source would count as self-published as well, we would have to make sure, that it is not unduly self-serving, there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it and the article is not based primarily on such sources. WP:SELFPUB --Raphael1 09:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiki (musician)

(Moved from WP:AN/I per a suggestion by Tango)

  • ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • Yskent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
    I, by chance, landed myself right into a good faith, yet very burocratic and ownership-oriented crusade on the article Yoshiki (musician) on the IRC help channel (#wp-en-help). The users Yskent (talk · contribs) and ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) (the record label Yoshiki works for), along with perhaps others (not confirmed), are promoting the artist's POV by adding information that he himself approved (Yskent has confirmed over IRC that he is a member of Yoshiki's staff) and planning to fully protect the article once it is added, and even canvassing to become administrators in order to edit it when it is protected (confirmed over IRC and by [160] and [161]). Of course, the RfAs and/or RFPPs of these users will never succeed, but action needs to be taken. ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) has already been indefinitely blocked per WP:UAA, but further action, IMO, needs to be taken. These accounts are single-purpose accounts, yet they have no knowledge of Wikipedia policy, and are not really trying to engage in bad behavior. If they can understand the rules here, I feel they can become constructive contributors, and I would gladly mentor them if they wish to contribute. Happy editing, Arky ¡Hablar! 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    Yoshiki is rather famous and I doubt that he is sitting around watching over his Wikipedia article. It seems more likely some fans of Yoshiki and/or his band. They may be biased, but that does not make it a COI. I added referenced information to the Yoshiki article: In May 1998, his former X Japan band member Hideto Matsumoto committed suicide.[8] In August 2002, Yoshiki had 4 million yen in cash and other items stolen from his car in a parking lot in Tokyo's Shibuya Ward.[9] If it is removed, the best thing to do is follow the dispute resolution procedures if you believe such material belongs in that article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Louise Glover

Louise Glover (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This article has just gotten a whitewashing from User:Louiseglover. Can someone take a look at what should be restored to the article and what should be removed? Also, please take a look at the edit summaries. --After Midnight 0001 23:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I restored the sourced information, kept out the unsourced disputed material, and left a note on her user talk page. This appears to really be Louise Glover. We're not WP:BLPN, though, and I've referred her there. DurovaCharge! 03:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Durova. I was hoping that you or Jehochman would be able to handle this. I'm glad that it drew your attention. --After Midnight 0001 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
82.35.89.51 (talk • contribs • logs) had editing troubles similar to Louise Glover (talk • contribs • logs), only 82.35.89.51's edits were between 12/17/2005 and 12/13/2006. Also, I asked Dismas to take a look at the article, since he is a top contributor to that article per stats. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jabaker75 and Cera Products-related articles

Articles:

User:

(Above added by me. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Jabaker75 is apparently a single-purpose account out to publicise Cera Products' products on Wikipedia. I've been away for a while and am not a good arbiter of notability anymore, but someone should take a look at Cera Products, CeraSport / Cera Sport, CeraLyte and prod/AfD/cleanup as needed. Resurgent insurgent 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user and asked them to comment here. Additionally I've gone over the affected articles. More follow up is needed. - Jehochman Talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I went through Cera posts and cleaned things up. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

John W. Henry

Obvious conflict of interest with editor claiming to be his sister adding many details. But to me, her edits don't look POV, so this is not a big deal. However, then a new editor User:Bill Veeck, apparently a SPA removed some material that looks pretty important. Somebody else may want to check this out (or re-check my re-insertion). doesn't look like a high priority to me and I'm not married to my edits here. Smallbones 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Odyssey (TV Series)

Articles:

Users:

Persistent attempt to add identical advert text for TV series. First two attempts were disguised as user pages (now deleted), and one version has already been deleted as spam. Active page above is a redirect to a different show. Calton | Talk 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lennox Yearwood

Lennox Yearwood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs): the subject of this article was arrested yesterday in the Senate building; the article was edited yesterday by the US Sergeant of Arms [162]. The Wednesday Island 18:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite an interesting edit. I've left a message on the IP's talk page and opened a thread at WP:AN for broader feedback. I've seen COI editing before, but this looks particularly sensitive. DurovaCharge! 06:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Officiallornaluft

Claims to be a representative of Lorna Luft's official website, making POV and peacocky changes to the Lorna Luft article. Corvus cornix 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion looks good. Recommend a note to the user talk page and a referral to WP:COI and WP:NPOV pages. Follow up here if problems continue. DurovaCharge! 06:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-stuttering devices

Anti-stuttering devices (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is the work of Tdkehoe (talk · contribs), who wrote of the article at Peer Review: "The obvious issue is that I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices. I've tried to avoid bias but let me know if I missed something." I left {{uw-coi}} on the author's talk page. The user has edited other COI topics such as Stuttering too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement

Jim Fetzer, who is mentioned in this article, is making edits that appear to violate the neutral point of view policy. I asked him politely to stop, and he didn't. I'm going off break; would another admin like to take over? -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reiterated the warning. Please watch and supply diffs if there is any POV pushing. - Jehochman Talk 18:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael Lucas (porn star)

Resolved. All the commenters in this thread appear to be satisfied with the result. EdJohnston 21:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Case archived, can be found here Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_17 listed as inactive. An editor has removed all tags for fact, original research, templates requesting improvements, and so forth. A reworking of the entry by an uninvolved editor would be welcome. Semi-protection in the meantime would save us from edits by Lucas and his helpers. Thanks. -Jmh123 14:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the recent offending edits are by IPs, so semi-protection would be useful. The 'credits' section looks way excessive, and I think it would be easier to keep tabs on a much shorter article. If material winds up being removed because the COI-editing subject of an article is causing trouble, then so be it. I think it would be reasonable to see if administrators would consider semi-protection before undertaking the work of shortening the article, and I invite comments as to whether shortening is the right thing to do. Another section needing shortening is 'Lectures and columns, blogs and controversies', which contains a lot of non-notable material. EdJohnston 12:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Semiprotection has been tried before so this time I've implemented it indefinitely. This went through RFC many months ago. Recommend POVectomy and strong warnings to the offending accounts. I'm ready to implement some lengthy blocks if this goes any further. DurovaCharge! 14:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone who has been following this give their impression of who are the COI-affected editors? Everyone involved seems to be quoting Wikipedia policy, and it's hard to figure out who are the 'good guys.' I see a clash of opinions as to what content should be relevant for the article. Please clarify if I'm missing something obvious. The editors listed at the head of this report are mostly inactive at present. EdJohnston 00:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Something particularly nasty is going on here and it's time for serious investigation. Someone created an impersonation account today. DurovaCharge! 01:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The most recent situation is really hard to follow, but if you look at the edits of the various anon IPs the situation revolves around porn stars/directors. User:216.57.17.234, who is probably Lucas, has been editing other porn star entries, and seems to have a slight negative interest in the Chi Chi LaRue page. Following Lucas' involvement is difficult because in at least one instance a number of anons appeared to make self-serving edits on the Lucas page which appeared to have been engineered by Lucas himself, perhaps via his blog (this based on the fact that the anons were making the same edits as User:216.57.17.234 had made). In addition to the pro-Lucas element, there is someone or several someones who appear to have a strong personal animosity towards Lucas himself, and a sense of frustration that the entry isn't being edited as they think it should be. As I said on the talk page, the article appears to have begun with a self-serving autobiography, which was then interspersed with very negative material against Lucas. Some of both has been removed in the last few days since I posted this new COI notice. The participation of some uninvolved, NPOV editors who could take a fresh look at the entry could probably lessen the conflicts. I've been there too long, and I think both "sides" have had it with me. -Jmh123 01:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and if I hadn't answered an article content WP:RFC on this article many months ago that's exactly where I'd send it. Mostly I've watched this from a distance; you're familiar with the lay of the land. Which account(s) and IP(s) are the source of this negative material, and in your opinion how much of it violates WP:BLP and WP:RS? I'd appreciate a jump start for this investigation. Thanks, DurovaCharge! 03:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's see. Most recently Special:Contributions/209.244.42.65 and Special:Contributions/76.86.123.229 complained that the article is terrible, and 76.86.123.229, who claimed on Talk to be just a friend of 209.244.42.65, edit-warred to keep lots of tags and templates on the page. I stated on talk and in edit comments that these tags should be judiciously placed and the correct templates used, and spent way too many hours yesterday checking refs and verifying that material was accurately cited, removing what little was not. User:Roz Lipschitz had placed tags and templates on the entry on August 29 ([163] and [164] and other edits before & after these diffs). Special:Contributions/209.244.42.67 placed the same tags a few days ago: ([165], [166] and more diffs).
Prior to this most recent disagreement, most of the conflicts were between 216.57.17.234, Michael Lucas, the Shape, and Lucasent (all listed above) and one individual with a floating IP. All the discussion on the Talk page from here: Talk:Michael_Lucas_(porn_star)#Anon_editor_216.57.17.234_Improper_Activity to here: Talk:Michael_Lucas_(porn_star)#1_month_semiprotection is between them.
Except...1) from this diff [167] to this diff [168], between June 18 and June 20, there was edit warring by 216.57.17.234 (Lucas?) and a number of anons. This is when I first reported a COI/N. And 2) Durova protected the page on August 14 after Special:Contributions/72.68.31.164 reverted a number of edits made by 216.57.17.234 [169], after another spat of edit-warring by 216.57.17.234 and various anons versus various anons. I'll bet that didn't help much. Sorry. -Jmh123 05:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Note: this edit comment by 216.57.17.234 [170], "Chi Chi's page has it." and on the Chi Chi LaRue page, [171] "not allowed on Michael Lucas' profile, not allowed here," [172] "readers do not come to Wikipedia to access Chi Chi LaRue's retail website." If nothing else, 216.57.17.234 has a special interest in Michael Lucas's business and making sure he gets equal rights. His edits are more than a little single-minded: [173]. -Jmh123 05:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
How much of the material violates BLP and WP:RS?? Almost all the sources I checked yesterday panned out, and are reliable. Anons have questioned some personal autobiographical material--whether Lucas has a law degree, for example--which is sourced only to his profile at Lucas Entertainment. As I understand it, that's acceptable, barring some indication that he has lied about himself. It's a no-brainer that he runs Lucas.blog and Lucas Entertainment, and the categories of porn he offers are right on his website, so I don't see any question there, but anons have tagged those statements in the past. Anons have tagged statements such as Lucas produces and stars in porn films; again, there seems to be no doubt about this. I'd say BLP is also not an issue at the moment. Material 216.57.17.234 had objected to, such as the statement that Lucas is Jewish (verified by his own statement), or that he started his business from funds earned as a prostitute (Yale Daily News--his own statement) has been verified. I verified the judge's statement that "there were serious issues raised regarding trademark infringement or tarnishment" to a transcript published by the WSJ. The original research tags are a greyer area that I'll leave to others to decide. -Jmh123 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So far this all checks out, then, and no BLP problem exists with the current version. I have now indeffed two impersonation accounts, which is completely unacceptable. Long term semiprotection is merited. If that doesn't resolve the problem then this can progress to a long term vandalism report with indefs on the sock/meatpuppets and long term blocks on some IP addresses. Back in August I referred these people to appropriate venues when I semi'd the page, so they know the legitimate options. DurovaCharge! 06:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I've implemented six month blocks across a sockfarm. Details are at ANI. DurovaCharge! 04:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of improvements were made in this entry in response to the COI. Thanks to all involved for helping make that happen. It would be a good idea to continue to keep an eye on 216.57.17.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)'s edits on Michael Lucas and on porn star pages in general to make sure he isn't editing with bias or an eye to salesmanship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh123 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2007

User:Roxxee et al.

Resolved. External links have been removed. The submitter of this report believes it can be closed. EdJohnston 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Users connected with a donation-soliciting foundation and its subscribe-to-read support group, who object to their external link spam being deleted from Wikipedia, are now retaliating against me by (1) personal remarks, including lies (e.g., that I have been banned from Yahoo Groups) and would be outing (that I was a member of their support group) and (2) retaliatory deletion of external links I made to a public support group in which I am involved. I have not reverted the external links they deleted, but I am tired of the personal remarks. Would an admin please examine their logs and tell me how many people seem to be involved? These users are involved are note above. Does this look like a case where blocking is in order? --Una Smith 15:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe it was this edit of mine that prompted Una to make the above complaint. I would like to offer another view of what is going on here, there are definitely two sides to this story. The topic of conflict is external links to the Teratoma Support Foundation site. The Teratoma Support Foundation is a group of volunteers who provide information and support to the families of babies who have been diagnosed with a teratoma. Unrelated to Wikipedia, Una Smith has had a personal conflict with some of the members of that group. Subsequent to that conflict, Una helped to found an alternate support group, Teratoma Free Discussion or TFD. Previous to Una's tenure as a Wikipedia editor, there was an external link to the Teratoma Support Foundation on the Teratoma page. Una removed the link, calling it uninformative, and later replaced it with a link to her group, more here. As noted by Una above, several people have attempted to restore that link, sincerely believing it to be of value. There is more information about that here and here. The Teratoma Support Foundation does not endorse any of these actions, like Wikipedia and other groups, it is a collection of individuals who represent themselves. The quarrel that Teratoma Support Foundation members have with Una is that some of them believe it is her who has a conflict of interest over these articles. Nobody claiming to be a member of the Teratoma Support group has vandalized any of Una's edits. I sincerely believe that Una decided unilaterally and with bias to remove those links. If unbiased members of the Wikipedia community asked to have those links removed, I believe there would be no conflict. The most recent link that Una removed was this one:
*Baby with a large facial teratoma cured by surgery (with photos) Many believe this link complements the teratoma article nicely, there are no photos in the article and it is an informative story of how a facial teratoma can be cured. As regards my most recent edit, Una herself added a link to her own support group. She has recently used her support group as a forum to air her personal disputes with the Teratoma Support Foundation. For that reason in addition to the reasons I have already mentioned, I and others do not believe that link has any place on Wikipedia. -- Roxxee 20:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not know why Roxxee insists on claiming I was ever a member of Roxxee's private support group, nor why Roxxee thinks any part of Roxxee's own personal dispute with any former member of Roxxee's support group belongs on Wikipedia, nor why Roxxee and Roxxee's friends have made me their target. Anyway, this has gone beyond a question of COI, and it certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. --Una Smith 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't believe that any of the links to support groups mentioned above belong in any of those articles, and I support all the link removals, whether by one party or the other. See WP:EL for the rules for external links. If there are charges of spreading false information, that is normally considered quite serious and would better be posted at WP:ANI. Before posting there, the case would need to be very carefully stated with diffs provided for the alleged statements. EdJohnston 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur with EdJohnston. Having looked at both sites, I can’t see that either offers much in the way of basic encyclopedic education on the subject that cannot be better cited to a formal, neutral medical source than a support group site. In any case, Wikipedia is not in the position of advocating one group over another, and members of competing groups should not be adding their or removing their competitors’ links in the first place, as this is a clear conflict of interest. As for off-Wikipedia conflicts, these should remain off Wikipedia; if one side or the other cannot refrain from carrying them here or there is a problem with personal attacks, then WP:RFC is the proper forum for first dealing with such issues. If the parties do not agree to take it there, then WP:ANI is likely the next step. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this issue can be closed out. I agree with EdJohnston and Askari Mark that external links to support groups (and their patient stories) do not belong on Wikipedia. Because some links of this kind were present when I first began editing the pages in question, I had been reluctant to remove them and I tried adding a few myself. Here we see the result, and it is not good. I am learning. Re the defamatory remarks and attempts by Roxxee and Tcstart75 and their anonymous sockpuppets to expose and/or humiliate a supposed ex-member of their support group, I recommend that they ask an admin to delete their contributions. If they do not do it themselves, I will pursue the issue. --Una Smith 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The web sites for the competing support groups appear to be at:
Use of Special:Linksearch shows that mainspace contains no links to either one at present. There are no new postings to this thread since 24 September, and the submitter (above) thinks it can be closed. Marking this as Resolved. EdJohnston 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I've left the user a warning. - Jehochman Talk 02:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Brimstone Press was kept at AfD and the other articles were addressed at AfD as well. My impression was that references added to the article did not support the material added to the articles. In other words, it appeared to me that the references were added to give an impression meeting of WP:N without actually meeting it in fact. Consensus has spoken, so there you go. -- Jreferee T/C 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Musikvergnuegen

I've cleaned up a bunch of promotional-type COI edits from Damienchock. The above two articles need to be checked. My initial reaction was to delete them as spam, but I think these would probably pass the notability requirement if we do some digging for sources. - Jehochman Talk 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Walter Werzowa meets WP:N. Musikvergnuegen might meet WP:N. I added a reference to the Musikvergnuegen article. -- Jreferee T/C 18:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's on First?

Describe the dispute using the following format:

I received an email from Teneriff indicating that "Plummer is an authorized, published biographer of Abbot and Costello, and my father, Will Glickman, was the writer who polished the sketch into it's final form for them in 1938, when it was first performed on radio." Both Teneriff and Plummer have conflicts with the Who's on First? topic and Teneriff has a conflict with the Will Glickman topic. There are no issues at present, but I just wanted to note it on this board for future reference (seeing how JZG is having Wikipedians with articles deleted and suggests that COIN is the place for such information). -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bev Harris

A subject appears to have edited an article about herself. Just quickly scanning it, I am a bit concerned about the statement and sources added about Jeffrey Dean and John Elder. The sources are primary court documents which are published on a website she controls. I'm not sure if this violates WP:SELFPUB or not, but it would seem to on a couple of points. The footnoted text that hyperlinks to these documents seems like it also violates WP:BLP, at least in tone. The statement that these primary documents supports says that she "broke the story", but there are no secondary sources cited. I'm cross-posting this to COIN and BLPN. - Crockspot 19:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

At first glance the edits seem to comply with site standards. I don't see POV pushing, and the info is sourced appropriately for the article. I've left the editor advice because she needs to know that COI editing has drawbacks, and I've suggested ways to avoid creating the appearance of a problem as she's done here. Also, when reporting something on the boards, try to leave the editor a message so she can participate in the discussion. - Jehochman Talk 20:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User Benderson2 and TREC

Resolved. Article was trimmed down; controversy has quieted for the moment. EdJohnston 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation

User:Benderson2, webmaster and marketing advisor of TREC" (translation from userpage: "I work … on the supply of information about the non-profit initiative TREC … Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation), is a COI SPA: a single-purpose account with a professional and corporate conflict of interest and clearly evident article ownership issues. — Athaenara ✉ 22:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed he added some PR-type peacock language, so I left a gentle reminder on his talk page. Hope this clears things up but if not, let us know. Raymond Arritt 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
A search for news coverage found articles about several other organizations with the same initials (e.g. the Twin River Energy Center: "Power plant seen as boon" in The Times Record, 19 July 2007) but none about Benderson2's organization.
Reliable sources with in-depth coverage of related and pertinent topics (e.g. "Arab countries urge solar future" in The Times of Malta, 8 July 2007) did not mention a "TREC" organization.
The article as written by its webmaster and marketing adviser is extremely unbalanced. It will not conform to NPOV policy without extensive copy editing. — Athaenara ✉ 02:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I suspected as much. If it's not fixable WP:AFD is just a few doors down the hall. Raymond Arritt 02:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. — Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I opened the Afd because the issues need discussion, not because I personally want the article to be deleted. As warned on every new article page, Wikipedia is not an advertising service and articles created as part of a marketing campaign will be deleted, but it may be salvaged by neutral editing.

To recap, User:Benderson2 is "Michael Straub, Webmaster and Marketing Advisor of TREC." He identified himself and declared his conflict of interest on his single-purpose account user page in March 2006:

"Ich arbeite … an der Bereitstellung von Informationen über … TREC … "
Translation: "I work on the supply of information about TREC"

This week, Straub revised his declaration after his conflict of interest and its results had drawn comment from neutral editors on the article talk page, on this noticeboard, and on the Afd:

"Ich … pflege den Artikel über … TREC … "
Translation: "I maintain the article about TREC"

Timeline:

2006 - March — user COI declaration on user page.
2007 - July — user COI noted by neutral editor on article talk page.
2007 - July — user COI noted by neutral editor on COI/N.
2007 - July — user COI noted by neutral editor on Afd.
2007 - August — user COI declaration revised on user page.

In spite of the visibility of the encyclopedia's policies and guidelines and the open discussions of how they apply in this case, Straub/Benderson2 (see recent contribs) is continuing to assert ownership of the article he wrote about the organization as part of his employment by it. — Athaenara ✉ 07:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption 1
(Corrected userlinks for 90.186.62.36.) — Athaenara ✉ 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Some users (e.g. Athaenara) complain about missing references and delete them (and half of the article) as soon as I add them. Thats Wikipedia:Vandalism! 90.186.46.196 17:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Before my first post here today, I listed the references in question with {{reflist}} display format for review and discussion on Talk:Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation#Cleanup. — Athaenara ✉ 18:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Several NPOV editors (who include Raymond arritt, Rocksanddirt, Kickstart70 and me, among others) have tried to bring this article into compliance with this encyclopedia's policies and guidelines. I have listed the article on requests for page protection, asking that the article be semi-protected against anonymous IP editing. — Athaenara ✉ 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruption 2

Three (so far) on 189.* IPs:

Five Four (so far) on 90.* IPs:

After the article was protected against IP-editing, the most recent 90.186.40.137 IP was used to post a strange message on a user talkpage (diff) and copy it three minutes later to the article talkpage (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 14:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to whine, but I could really use some additional npov-backup on the article and its talk page. The POV-editors turn very easily to blaming me personally for policies and edits in conformity with them, and imputing motives to me which don't exist. — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Added userlinks above for the fifth anon IP, 90.186.190.128, which became active after one week article semi-protection expired. — Athaenara ✉ 18:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Another German wikipedian, Nis Randers (contribs), posted a "TREC ^2" message on my user talk page in mid-September; I forwarded it with my reply to User talk:Nis Randers, where the user replied (rather sarcastically) once. I'm noting that here because this is a more or less central location where related discussions are linked. Athaenara ✉ 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The article Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation survived an AfD on 8 August. I would like to close the COI report. Though the AfD voters decided to Keep the article, there were many critical comments about the current state of the article. A few of the problems have since been fixed. To accelerate closing the COI report, I would like to go ahead and remove all the statements in the article that are marked with 'Citation needed.' Please comment if you have a view on this. I'll also propose this on the article Talk page, and send a notice to Benderson2, who is the COI-affected editor, since he is the webmaster of their site. EdJohnston 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Richard H. Brodhead

User:Hershel Parker is an academic scholar who has written numerous books and article about Herman Melville.[174] Richard H. Brodhead, President of Duke University, has also studied Melville. Apparently, Brodhead called Dr. Parker's biography of Meville "unrealiable"[175] and Parker took great offense to that. Parker has thus been attacking Brodhead on his wikipedia page with these edits (Special:Contributions/Hershel_Parker) even using his own article attacking Brodhead as a source ([176]). I believe this is a clear conflict of interest. Parker detests Brodhead (perhaps understandingly). He also keeps adding quotes from the book Until Proven Innocent by KC Johnson, which attacks political correctness in US academia and specifically attacks Brodhead's character. I personally liked Johnson's book and agree with many of the concepts, but it is still a largely opinion piece. Because of all of this, Dr. Parker should not be allowed to edit Richard H. Brodhead. -Bluedog423Talk 02:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's much more than just COI problems. Hopefully he'll respond to the comments on his talk page. --Ronz 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks like a block will be required to get him to respond to the comments and warnings he's received. --Ronz 15:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't edited since Ronz's last warning, but I think he's had enough of a chance to understand that he needs to stop. I would support a temporary block (say, for one week) if the behavior continues; if so, notify WP:ANI where the response time is faster. Shalom Hello 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology

Sir Syed University of Engineering and Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm forwarding a notice from User:White Cat at WP:ANI, warning about spam at this article. It's a serious concern, but deleting the whole article is not an option. Shalom Hello 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dale Smith (playwright)

The user is admittedly the subject of this biography, and is the single most significant contributor. I have properly tagged the article, and notified the user with the {{uw-coi1}} template. VanTucky Talk 00:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seems pretty clear-cut. I'd leave it at this unless the user continues to edit their own article after the warning, as it seems like they're simply unfamiliar with our policies. Cheers, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 00:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of the sources provided do not verify the text. Tagged accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
User seems to also be editing under sp Snide Paul (talk · contribs), mainly on articles about Dale Smith books. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the policy surrounding sock blocking, should there be one for that account? VanTucky Talk 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
No need to softblock an SP, unless there is disruption. Assuming good faith, the user may not have been familiar with WP:COI and on using SP accounts to edit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ogilvy & Mather

The article needs cleanup for peacock terms and COI editing. - Jehochman Talk 09:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Long term Quirkee COI spamming

Fairly obvious COI spamming, going through from July last year. Issued a spam4im + coi warning to stop the spam and buy some respite, as this user has done nothing but add links to his own website. MER-C 12:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Goecke

Spamming Special:Linksearch/*.wholeearthfilms.com - cleaned up, warned, may come back, because of course it could not possibly be spam, since it's such an important resource. Or something. . MER-C 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Awaskow

The article is not that bad. Needs some more sources but was not the puff piece it might be, there are worse offenders. --Rocksanddirt 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
AfD isn't an option since Arthur Waskow appears to meet WP:N. -- Jreferee T/C 05:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


Brown Derby (company)

As I was recent-changes patrolling, I saw that this anon had replaced the page with a disclaimer that the company did not create or maintain the article. I looked at the history, and noticed that this was the last of a series of five edits made by the anon, all in a row and all reverted by ClueBot. IP resolves to Missouri. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 21:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some references and categories to the article and banners to the talk page. -- Jreferee T/C 16:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Unclear there is any notability at all . This is a chain of 18 liquor stores in Springfield, MO. Here's one of their comments:
In recent years the Brown Derby has gained a place in pop culture among college aged students and young adults who live in or frequently visit Springfield, MO.
Very exciting indeed. There is also a claim of having a high rank among the nation's retailers: "One of America's 10 Best Retailers" Liquor Store Magazine. However a mere statement of the name of the magazine does not constitute a reference. The only online-viewable reference includes a 150-word segment where they interview a guy at the store about how he is selecting wines this year. No third-party assessments (viewable on line) about how great the store is. Sounds like a deletion candidate to me. Any other comments? EdJohnston 04:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Freelife


Freelife is a Multi-level marketing company. Recently there has been deletion of "Controversy" material and placement of apparent marketing material by user:Jsteelefreelife. Based on the username, appears to possibly be a Freelife MLM distributor.

Editor did this twice, and has been warned; has not offended since last warning. Will keep an eye on things. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The editor has a clear coi as indicated by his recent comment [178]. --Ronz 00:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Noted, and also I observed that in the emails posted in the above diff, it is clearly stated that one or more reps from the company "rewrote" the article at one point in July or August. In the interest of full disclosure, I've asked on the article's talk page that the other reps step forward and identify themselves, as Jsteelefreelife has only been editing for a few days. Also, in response to the above diff, I've posted a pretty blunt caution against further COI editing. I'll be watching this board and the article talk page, but if there's further offense, please feel free to ping my talk page so that I'll get the orange banner alert. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I rearranged the article and added references. -- Jreferee t/c 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Jahcommunications

Jahcommunications (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Lauren Fix (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Repeatedly creating an article on Lauren fix, despite multiple deletions for being nn. Jahcommunications is the name of a PR firm, I've listed the name over at WP:UAA, but so far nothing has been done there. How can we get them to stop editing the article? Corvus cornix 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on their talk page explaining our COI guidelines and asking them to refrain from editing their client's articles. As an aside, I declined to speedy delete Lauren Fix because I felt that notability was asserted (she is the host of a show on a major cable network in the U.S.). Whether the subject will stand up to WP:N is a different question that AfD is designed to answer. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Spammer was blocked indefinitely. MER-C 09:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I added some references to the article. -- Jreferee t/c 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a bit of copy editing. This article should be watched for a while to make sure COI editing doesn't resume. When archiving this thread, please remove the {{COI}} from the article. - Jehochman Talk 20:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

uSwitch and Energy switching services in the UK

uSwitch and Energy switching services in the UK is repeatedly being edited by representives of the uswitch company. After warning user claims he is just removing false claims and making the article neutral here is an example of a deleted entry from Energy switching services in the UK:

uSwitch, however, has been been accused of a lack of transparency in its comparison results. Articles in the Guardian[1] and Mirror [2] claimed that uSwitch have manipulated their results to reflect larger commissions from some suppliers ...

  1. ^ uSwitch accused of misleading customers, Guardian, December 11, 2006
  2. ^ FAULTY SWITCH, The Daily Mirror, November 29, 2006

The users that are editing the article are User:USwitch and User:OwenBlacker. Legitimate controversies surround this company and others like it. Removing sourced references to these issues seems to be a major CoI. -- Ridernyc 10:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Oh I would also like to point out that it is nearly impossible to research anything on uSwitch since they have what seems like hundreds of mirror/spam sites. In fact a google search shows wikipedia as being the only independant site on the first page of results for uSwitch. -- Ridernyc 10:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of order. It is very easy to find references if you do a Google News search. This eliminates all the affiliate sites, and gives you the third parter references. Just click the news link at the top of the search results page. - Jehochman Talk 21:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I can tell you exactly how many accounts from within uSwitch have been editing the article — four: User:Stu0707 (who left the business a while ago and is no longer an active user), plus myself, User:Joecross (who won't be editing the article in future, as it's not immediately apparent that he works here) and the newly-created User:uSwitch (which was specifically created to make it obvious that it is actually us). We're trying to improve the article — in a neutral fashion — whilst being entirely transparent that the edits are being made by us (and you'll note that we've been flagging all edits by uSwitch personnel with a note highlighting the conflict of interest, so other editors can review our edits (as has been happening) in the full knowledge that we do have a vested interest here. I disagree completely that the edits were vandalism. Sure, there may be parts of them that you're unhappy with; why not edit them, rather than simply reverting them? We do want the article to be an accurate, encyclopedic article about the company. We don't, however, want it to be a biased article against us, any more than you (or we, or anyone else) want it to be biased in our favour. I'm an established Wikipedian, as you can see from my contributions and my activity in the various WikiProjects of which I'm a member. I'm actively trying to ensure that our corporate use of Wikipedia is responsible, open and transparent — hence helping our copywriters create an account that's explicitly ours, rather than going to a webcafé and making edits from there. I'm gonna revert your reversions, so that the article — including the changes made this morning — can be edited by consensus, as opposed to by one editor simply reverting an edit rather than amending the sections with which he has a problem. Regarding the point you highlighted from the article Energy switching services in the UK, I think the edits demonstrably made the article more neutral. The entire industry has been criticised for exactly the issues mentioned in the article, which is why we made the paragraph more vague, rather than it only referring to uSwitch — a line, incidentally, that was added by a competitor. The references we've added to the articles are more up-to-date than the ones we removed. The phrasing of the text we removed was thoroughly biased and inaccurate and, as it mentions in the text we replaced it with, the criticisms are industry-wide, not just targeted at us. In an article about the whole industry, surely it's non-neutral that a single company be singled out for criticism when the criticism in the media has genuinely been about the industry in general. We understand completely that WP:NPOV is one of the most important policies of the Wikipedia — indeed if articles become biased we become a poorer encyclopedia as a result — but I strongly believe that we are abiding by the spirit of that policy completely. - OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I think these editors should be considered as sockpuppets. Their editing is in violation of WP:COI, and at least one of them has made it clear he's aware of WP:COI even as he violates it. We probably need a block if this continues. --Ronz 20:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This a blatant disregard of COI. These two editors should placed on a clear final warning that any further edits to articles related to uswitch will result in an immediate block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:COI doesn't say that people with a conflict of interest can't edit their conflicted articles, it just says they should take steps to ensure that their edits aren't bad, and suggests ways to do this. I would encourage the users in question to read the guideline and follow the suggestions of posting intended edits to the talk page and seeking consensus before making the edit. I haven't checked out the actual edits, although it sounds like they would not have received consensus. SamBC(talk) 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The uSwitch account sounds suggestive of a group or role account, which isn't actually allowed. Accounts belong to people, not organisations or roles. SamBC(talk) 00:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the uSwitch account should be blocked as a multi-user account. If the COI editors are prepared to discuss their proposed edits on the talk pages and to seek consensus, that'd be fine, but so far they shown no ability to judge NPOV. So I'd change my previous suggestion to saying that given the history of POV/COI edit-warring, the uSwitch editors should be warned that they will be blocked for editing those pages unless the proposed changes have first achieved consensus support on the talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I would support the blocking of User:USwitch as a role account, and the warning of other uSwitch editors as you describe. As a note to uSwitch, if they want to have accounts for the use of their PR department or similar, then those individuals should have accounts of their own, and their COI-inducing position may be noted on their userpage. SamBC(talk) 12:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reported User:uSwitch at WP:UAA and requested a block. Sam, the COI guideline recommends that COI affected editors request changes on the article talk page and let neutral editors make the changes. Please, let's not create confusion by suggesting that COI editors judge when there's consensus and then make changes themselves. COI editors are particularly bad at judging consensus, and when they add material, they are usually bad at maintaining WP:NPOV. If requests at a talk page don't get attention, you can see that the header of this page invites such editors to post a request here for help if they need more eyeballs. We all should try hard to help COI editors who have a legitimate need and who play by the rules. OwenBlacker, could you please use the article talk page only, and we will gladly review your requests and work them into the atricle as may be appropriate. Thank you! - Jehochman Talk 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent the guideline. I think I meant that they can "have the edits made" rather than actually make them. Of course, they are allowed to directly make a range of non-controversial edits. In this case, however, the edits were not of that sort.
I believe that the uSwitch folks seriously intended to handle the situation acceptably, just got it rather badly wrong in a number of regards. I do agree with your advice to OwenBlacker, which presumably also goes for any other uSwitch staff (or similar COI situations) who may turn up. SamBC(talk) 20:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup. I think this is a case of a newcomer acting in good faith who doesn't fully understand how things work. If we show them the right way, I am confident they will make the necessary adjustments. - Jehochman Talk 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Copy of conversation on User talk:Ronz - For the reference of other editors engaging in this discussion, I'm pasting a copy of the conversation between myself and User:Ronz on their talk page. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Discussion here: User_talk:Ronz#OwenBlacker_COI_discussion (Removing copy of discussion.) --Ronz 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Charley Kazim Uchea

Resolved. Not a COI. EdJohnston 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi i just wonder if someone could talk to UpDown and tell him that its OK to write a new text about a subject that was earlier deleted after a Afd discussion and pelase tell him that reverting pages without any discussion isnt OK. Its about Charley Kazim Uchea and it has comed new information on many shows and her own show that will soon air on TV. This the user totally dismissed and just simply reverted the page just leaving some sort of strange excuse. Im talking about mainly 4 new shows she has starred on and alot of other information. I ask that Ucheas page gets reverted back to her own page and so on. Even tough i now reality show stars arent popular on wikipedia.:) Updown also has an attitude that is very mutch like this, everything is everyone elses fault and that is quite disturbing.Zingostar 11:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be closed out as not a valid COI. There was a freestanding article on Charley Kazim Uchea that was nominated for deletion on 2 September by User:UpDown. The result of the the discussion was 'Redirect' to List of Big Brother 2007 housemates (UK). Since this article has already had the benefit of the full process, and there is no assertion above that User:UpDown has a conflict of interest, I'm not sure what you hope to achieve with this posting. If you think the AfD was wrongly decided you could try WP:DRV. The submitter of this COI report, User:Zingostar, was blocked 24 hours for sockpuppetry during the AfD itself. The voting during the AfD was mixed, but a number of !voters expressed the opinion that Charley Kazim Uchea was not notable outside Big Brother, and drew attention to the lack of reliable sources. The last version of Charley's article prior to the redirect was [180], and you can take a look at the type of sources offered there. EdJohnston 18:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Molefi Kete Asante

Resolved. No objectionable edits to the article during September, except one by an unaffiliated IP. EdJohnston 20:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Article subject seems to be doing major edits to his own article. Videmus Omnia 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Even stated that he is "renowned". Videmus Omnia 01:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
This required some digging. I tried to remove COI additions by Masante and 24.126.96.187, but I may have messed it up. Shalom Hello 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been working on the cleanup also; I think Shalom's changes were very much needed. — Athaenara ✉ 03:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
September 2007update

I restored the encyclopedic version as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#MIRROR but I don't expect it to stick unless this most recent of several Coi spas, which were previously doing the same, gets some administrator attention. — Athaenara ✉ 01:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about closing this entry. The original COI editing seems to have gone away, but here is a recent contribution by an IP, not included in the list of COI-affected editors above, who seems merely eccentric. Thanks to User:Athaenara for the major improvement on 8 September. EdJohnston 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about it, too. The COI editing continued for two months after the problem was listed here in June. The COI SPAs seem to show up every month or so. If the COI editing resumes after this discussion is archived on MiszaBot II's next 14-day round, npov editors who watch the page will undoubtedly catch it, though. — Athaenara ✉ 17:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Sakina

i am concerned that there's a COI on the above article involving Dhushara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - who is intimately related to the websites sakina.org and dhushara.com (as shown on his user page). the article has undergone a major revamping by Dhushara, which includes the promotion of both sakina.org (as an EL) and dhushara.com (as a source) therein. he has also been inserting material, while not actually sourced, has been clearly obtained from pages on his website such as [181][182][183][184][185]. once having introduced his changes to Sakina in conformity to the unconventional views expressed on these pages (which don't appear to be otherwise verifiable), he has advertised the wiki article on the website.[186]. i had raised this issue on his talk page a few days ago,[187] but i received little other than counter-allegations of COI.[188] ITAQALLAH 12:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

  • i have attempted to go about removing some of the novel material authored by Dhushara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (which is, in essence, present on his website and personal writings), but these changes have brought complaint from Dhushara, along with counter-claims of COI on my part (!). i would appreciate advice on how to go about this, or if a third party could look into the issue. thanks ITAQALLAH 03:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
There's a coi by Dhushara's own admission. Also, Dhushara has spammed sakina.org and dhushara.com (follow-up spam investigation is needed for dhushara.com). --Ronz 03:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I quickly looked through the links and didn't see any spam that hadn't already been addressed. --Ronz 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
User:Dhushara has not contributed since 20 August, but a linksearch for www.dhushara.com finds 36 entries, all of which should probably be removed, since the site is not a reliable source. Links to dhushara.com have also been inserted by other editors. At present WP has no remaining links to www.sakina.org. EdJohnston 16:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
While the existing links may not be spam or related to this coi case, many appear to link to excerpts from copyrighted material that's being copied in a manner that's probably not appropriate. The links should be replaced with references to the original works instead. --Ronz 03:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Chris de Freitas

Resolved. No new concerns expressed since Raymond's original posting. EdJohnston 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Slightly unfavorable but well-sourced material is being replaced by more favorable material from non-reliable sources, by an IP that traces to the subject's academic institution. The IP editor has extraordinarily close knowledge of the inside details of one of the episodes covered in the article, as well as the subject's academic accomplishments. Raymond Arritt 01:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • AfD is out since Chris de Freitas appears to meet WP:N. -- Jreferee T/C 05:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment. The above IP editor, 130.216.16.12 (talk · contribs), has not changed the article since 27 August. De Freitas is already on the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Since the history contains many edits that mention Wikipedia policies, it must be on the watch lists of several experienced editors. Between June and August, others have taken out what they felt to be inadequately-supported claims (including some colorful controversy). Does anyone see any remaining problems in the article that still need to be addressed? EdJohnston 13:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Death

Resolved. Per discussion below. EdJohnston 02:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Christian Death is a Gothic rock band from the early 80s who have since split into two factions, the original group lead by Rozz Williams (who committed suicide in 1998) and a second group lead by guitarist Valor Kand which came to be due to tour complications in the mid 80s. OfficialChristianDeath is someone who represents the band in a semi-legal way and have been trying to take over the article recently with their own version which heavily guts the current existing article and is written with a promotional bias out of line with Wikipedia's guidelines. The user' noted reason for doing this is because the current article is heavily biased towards the Rozz Williams side of the group name and the article doesn't focus on the most up to date version of the band. Myself, the user and Onorem have been in discussion on the Christian Death talk page where the user has claimed I personally edit the page to be a 'Rozz Williams obituary' which I have defended myself against, and has particually taken note of the Christian Death 1334 section which I contributed to the article that details a collective of founding Christian Death members forming a band together which Valor Kand has publically disagreed with. Although this is enough for a conflict of interest in itself, I have also been contacted by the same user under the guise of the 'Christian Death Society Management' through my MySpace page and have been served a sentence long Cease & Desist requesting I go through them first before adding any more changes to the Wikipedia page. Below I have included the original message, my reply and the second message I've recieved most recently.

(email removed)

This C&D, which I doubt has any standing legal jurisdiction due to it's loosely written form, has prompted me to bring this recent user's actions to this page's attention and I hope it gets sorted in some way soon. Gabber Foxx 06:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't post private correspondence on-wiki. The relevant policy with regards to legal threats is that they are not tolerated at all. Banhammer, please? The best way to deal with the email is to archive it in /dev/null. MER-C 08:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my bad for posting the messages. Gabber Foxx 08:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I posted a {{uw-coi1}} message at User_talk:OfficialChristianDeath, plus a pointer to this discussion and a reminder about WP:NLT. EdJohnston 14:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
This matter has been resolved for the time being, should the user persist after his four day ban I'll deal with an admin direct.Gabber Foxx 19:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Usually we would keep such a report open until we are sure the COI editor has understood the problem and has agreed to stop. Though the block was deserved, I don't see any further edits by OfficialChristianDeath or his possible sock 62.56.92.43 (talk · contribs) since 20 September, i.e. before the NLT warning. So he hasn't violated any policies since the warning. Unless he sent some further email to Gabber Foxx or communicated off-wiki. EdJohnston 20:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
By resolved I mean the user has calmed down in our discussion via MySpace, but like I said, should he try it on again when his ban is lifted I'll bring it up here and with the admin who helped me.Gabber Foxx 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Geraint Davies (Labour politician)

Resolved. COI editor has been indef blocked, article seems OK. EdJohnston 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Concern about COI, which I should possibly have posted here (it also involves some vandalism, which is why I went to ANI --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed the fat from the article. My efforts probably won't last long since new IPs keep popping up to edit the article. Check user might be appropriate. -- Jreferee t/c 16:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done. I and others have done some more trimming, and the article now seems to be fairly clean again, free of purple prose and unreferenced claims. Should the {{COI2}} tag now be removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that User:Geraintrdavies has been indef blocked per BHGirl's ANI posting, I think it's reasonable to remove the {{coi2}}. EdJohnston 18:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. I think this case can be closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Capture-bonding

This article looks like a potential problem of WP:COI, and WP:OR. I don't want to confront this editor myself because I once tried to mediate a dispute between him and another editor and don't feel like it's fair to use what I may have learned through mediation when judging the editor. - Jehochman Talk 03:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

As much as I would like to claim capture-bonding as my original research, I can't do so and gave credit to Dr. John Tooby, for it's origination. As to the reword change:

"If such an extreme selective genetic filter was applied to a significant fraction of each generation, then the psychological traits behind capture bonding should be expected to be nearly universal, like talking and walking."

If you can make a case for this being original research, stick the OR tag on this line I will be _happy_ to claim it as original. However, I think the supporters of Darwin might object since it is just an obvious way to restate Darwinism. BTW, if Thomas Henry Huxley were alive today, would it be OK for him to edit an article on Darwin? Is it more important to judge the article or the editor?
Incidentally, I didn't remove the OR tag from the head of the article--where it has been since April. Keith Henson 19:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

User:SputnikmusicReviews

Resolved. No article, no problem. MER-C 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing Sputnikmusic, claiming to speak for the website. Corvus cornix 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The article now is at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


Fadi Kaouk

Resolved. Both coi articles deleted. Spammer hasn't been seen since. MER-C 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user up through uw-spam4 and given him a COI notice. -- Versageek 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC) A new COI page by this user - KGC International - one of the companies run by Fadi Kaouk --Versageek 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated the articles for speedy because they are pure vanity. This user is spamming lots of articles in rapid fire, and has never made a productive edit. Administrators: can we get an indef block please? - Jehochman Talk 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also reported at WT:WPSPAM here. -- Videmus Omnia Talk 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

BQE Software

Confirmed corporate vanity. It turns out that the first result for a google search on the company's name is http://spam.billquick.com. I'd also watch the spammer's user page, as it is starting to look spammy. May be notable, as a google news search brings up a lot of stuff... MER-C 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged the article for COI, and reported the inappropriate username (promotion). - Jehochman Talk 13:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Phil Konstantin

Philkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) uploads photographs, adds them to articles with a namecheck. We also have a lot of links to Special:Linksearch/americanindian.net/kusi, which is Phil Konstantin's website on KUSI, mostly added by 24.165.8.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which is almost certainly the same individual since the edits are al to add these links or to Konstantin's image captions, see these three sequential diffs: [189], [190], [191]. And Philkon also edits KUSI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) This does not look good. Cruftbane 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I just removed links and name checks from over 60 articles, I hope I did right. Cruftbane 20:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

http://spam.americanindian.net

americanindian.net: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Spamlink template so the bots can pick this up. Cross-posted to WT:WPSPAM#http://spam.americanindian.net. MER-C 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Brand Aid Design

Resolved. Article was deleted at AfD. An administrator blocked User:Brandaid pending creation of a non-promotional user name. EdJohnston 12:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently at AfD after he contested a speedy deletion. A few people are trying to work with him on the article issues, but he seems a bit annoyed by what he views as arbitrary application of notability policies. I've given him a welcome & a COI notice. --Versageek 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I reported the username at WP:UAA since they were obviously here to promote, not to contribute. - Jehochman Talk 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hamilton Pianist & Poker Player

This appears to be an autobiography. The creator's name describes the two careers of the subject of the article. Bearian 02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

James Browning Kepple

Resolved. All 9 coi articles deleted. MER-C 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this user is using wikipedia to promote his poetry collection. He started his own bio article, and all edits by this user have involved inserting mention of himself and/or the collection of poetry. -steventity 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

PROD added to James Browning Kepple, Kim Göransson, and Pretend Genius. For those names listed at Pretend Genius, PROD should be added to J. Tyler Blue, Sean Brijbasi, Josh Davis, Kenneth Dawson, Stephen Moran, Dean Strom, and Blem Vide if they are un-red linked. -- Jreferee T/C 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Josh Davis is now a disambig page. The only prod survivors were James Browning Kepple and Kim Göransson, which are now on afd. MER-C 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Not resolved. You have deleted a publishing house with long standing wiki status. You need third party? Is the Guardian Unlimited a publication? [192]

I do not represent Pretend Genius, I am but a poet that had you delete them. I'm sure they have the connections and people skills needed to have the article restored I just thought it a tad reactionary to a small press offering 5000 quid for a short story. Regardless, Reinstate the pretend Genius article, I apoogize for skipping my death to see a reference. --72.172.7.134 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article you produced doesn't even contain the phrase "pretend genius", so I wouldn't count it as a reference. MER-C 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[193] Once again I do not represent Pretend Genius, I am only looking to correct the error that was made when addressing a two line bio that you decided wasn't notable, we all have our tastes in the arts I suppose. There was no reason to delete a longstanding wiki entry about a publishing house. You can find all the references that you need (whether its the authors of the publishing house hobknobbing it with various literary celebrities) in regards to Pretend Genius. Or, for furthur reference you could pick up a few copies of there publications, hey even enter a short story (no fees or restrictions) to give yourself a chance at the 5000 quid prize and publication in the a pretend genius book. Regardless of all of this, please restor the pretend genius article as it was before any of this. Thank you in advance for your understanding.--72.172.7.134 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Edmund S. Crelin, Jr.

Created own article; no sourcres--BirgitteSB 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Created own article
I hope not: he's been dead since 2004. But it could well be a relative. Gordonofcartoon 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems to be some sources now, including an honorary doctorate. People with COI do not necessarily write good articles showing the notability clearly even when the subjects are important. DGG (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
maybe there's more to the afterlife than we know? --Rocksanddirt 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sam Lit

Reg Smythe

Holmcroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is the cousin of cartoonist Reg Smythe, creator of Andy Capp, and wants to expand the article from unpublished personal knowledge. Consequent WP:COI, WP:V and WP:NOR problems. Gordonofcartoon 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Graham Streeter

I picked this up at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult, and tagged it. The creator has the same name as the article. It may be an autobiography, or agent or fan bio. Bearian 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The content has been userfied already. Bearian 19:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

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

-->

User:Davidross1943, promotional edits for drsusanblock.com

Davidross1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) self-identifies as a "sexuality writer and researcher", but this researcher's only findings are pages on drsusanblock.com, to which this editor links various sexuality-related articles. Has recently taken to adding article text of marginal value using Susan Block's blog as a citation. When such linkage is removed, editor waits a while, then adds again. With the exception of the Susan Block article, these additions are usually inappropriate per WP:EL. If I recall correctly, also created (and certainly edited) at least one deleted article on Susan Block's books. Obviously the article Susan Block is also being edited in COI — her page has had some balancing edits, but still makes a few grandiose claims. That said, I'm actually more concerned about the pattern of spam linkage than the Susan Block article in particular. / edg ☺ ★ 11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article isn't to bad, needs to have the various references done as inline ones. And reduction in the use of blogs (especially dr. blocks) as references. --Rocksanddirt 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
My concern is more about the editor than the article. Davidross1943's history is almost entirely linking drsusanblock.com from various articles. / edg ☺ ★ 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Two articles by User:Ramesh Grover

Ramesh Grover (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Vishal Grover (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Ramesh Grover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Obviously, Ramesh Grover has created articles about himself and about his family member. Deletion may be an option, but I decided not to take it directly to AFD because the articles assert notability (albeit w/o references). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think AfD for both articles would be reasonable, since there is no way of independently checking notability from the references provided (there are none). The submitter should be notified of the AfD so he gets a chance to find more material. EdJohnston 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Google finds a number of articles, some in magazines that should be references. What is the company size cut off for notability of its founder? Keith Henson 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at WP:CORP I didn't see any size cutoff. They give this all-purpose test:
A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
If Ramesh Grover is the head of a 10,000-person company you would expect to find a lot of press coverage. EdJohnston 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The Indian press coverage about the company on Google says 4,000 people. There are about 50 links on Google to his name. It's somebody else's judgment call if the articles are non-trivial. Keith Henson 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Raëlian history and beliefs

Resolved. Not a COI issue
  • Raëlian history and beliefs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - {{COI2}} was added to this page. A few claims about me, the primary editor of this and other Raëlian articles:
    • I am 21 years old (hence '86).
    • I live in Texas.
    • I have only met Raëlians twice, almost a year ago, in Houston.
    • The Raëlian presence here is very low.
    • I am not a member of the movement.
    • My time is extremely flexible.
  • Now a few claims about the article:
  • All the best, Kmarinas86 20:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Sorry, it looked suspicious. I will remove the tag, on behalf of my alter ego. Bearian'sBooties 16:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Raëlism/Raelian scheme

Here is the Wikipedia Raëlism/Raelian scheme:

The above categories and templates lead to a significant number of more articles that are soapboxes for Raëlism/Raelian. It seems likely to be growing due to those with COIs. The trifecta requirements of Wikipedia:Content forking, that a topic is to stay focused without going into unnecessary details, and that only material that is independent of the subject be used in articles is designed to keep Wikipedia from becoming a soapbox for the topic. The Raëlism/Raelian topic has gotten out of hand because the editors to this topic have not complied with these requirements. It would be nice if someone tackled this Raëlism/Raelian soapbox issue. -- Jreferee t/c 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't your concern lead to an AfD or a CfD nomination? I would listen to the arguments presented if so. If we are merely documenting something that exists, in a neutral manner, and not going beyond what the sources say, I don't see the problem. Some people may consider this movement bizarre, but documenting it seems harmless. Please point out if a particular article seems to be a soapbox. The work of Kmarinas86 seems to make an attempt to be neutral, though he is clearly interested in this topic. EdJohnston 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It has become apparent to me that some the Raëlian articles do not fit the notability guideline. I will try to merge these in to other articles - carefully.Kmarinas86 04:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur R. Collins

Artinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has only created and made edits to what might be an article about himself: Arthur R. Collins. -WarthogDemon 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Stirrup

Korean War

Resolved. Issue resolved by Jehochman (see comment below) 12 October 2007
  • Parsecboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) He is from US force in his 20s. He constantly is adding a bloody Chinese image with clear face identity into the article. Please see the talk page, this issue has been brought up so many times, it is really offensive to all the Chinese editors.
  • wbfergus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) He is a South Korean. He also constantly adds a bloody image with clear face identity into the article. Please see the talk page, he always compare Wikipedia to a porn site when he explain the policy of uncensored.

Dongwenliang 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to resolve your problem. This case has nothing to do with conflict of interest, in my humble opinion. - Jehochman Talk 21:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Toto (band)

  • Toto (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - added - Jehochman Talk 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • SteveMcVey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who has admitted on the article Talk page that he runs Toto's web site, has been making wholesale changes to the article that gloss over negative aspects of the band's history and insert promotional type language. He has removed without explanation references to negative incidents with the band. He has refused to respond to communication about discussing changes on the article Talk page, etc. Bloodzombie 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Update - the user is now communicating, but I would love a third party to review the situation and both of our edits. --Bloodzombie 15:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to make sure he has a proper warning. Let's get him to stop edit warring first, then we'll go back and fix up the article. Some of his edits are improvements, so we need to be selective about what we delete or revert. - Jehochman Talk 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The editor disregarded my warning and continues to spin the article. He's deleting negative, sourced material. I don't think this person cares about Wikipedia at all. He's looking at this site as a chance for free advertising. I've left him one final warning. This seems to be a COI-only account, so we can block it if he continues. Once that's resolved we'll have to clean up the article. - Jehochman Talk 23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • We need to block him, I'm writer1400, throughout the day, I've had to keep coming back here and revert his edits, they were bias, promos, and fan writing. He does not care, he just cares about giving Toto a positive image. We have to block him because he's going to keep doing this. We have worked hard on the Toto page for months and he's now coming in and changing everything. Please help. Writer1400 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
He hasn't edited in a couple of days. Follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

First-person shooter

User appears to be the owner of firstpersonshooters.org (abbreviated to FPS.org for this report) based on comments, no reason to doubt it.

On the page First-person shooter there used to be a rather hefty set of external links, including FPS.org. Eventually, this user (going by a handle of "Advocate" but still using an IP, moves the FPS.org link to the top as described on the talk page here and talk page diff here, main page diff [194]), on July 15.

Eventually, these links were removed in a general page cleanup (here), on Sept 9. Starting on Sept 22, this user starts adding them back (first one here), and ended up in a WP:3RR situation over it, though he was approaching uncivil and personal attacks about this. About that time, I started to try to put up a reasoning for all the links in question include FPS.org, and cited that as having three problems: COI, possible copyvio (as the site houses abandonware, which the folks at WP:EL suggest that it shouldn't be linked), and general usefulness. Another anon while this other guy's IP was blocked argued with me about them (I don't believe it was the same person, but likely a friend), but I left it at the point that once .198 was unblocked, he would be able to speak his peace about the links and a rational discussion could continue. No such event occurred.

Now this user is back again adding or reverting the removal of FPS.org from the page. He hasn't offered to talk of the points I listed out, but instead has now put effectively an advertisement up for his site on the talk page of first-person shooter here.

The FPS.org site doesn't appear to be a site driven by ad dollars (but as we know, WP doesn't refer searches and thus can't be used in that way) , but this really feels like a COI violation, if not a violation of some other sort. I doubt the editors will be able to make him understand why FPS.org isn't appropriate to be linked given his past behavior. Any suggestions of what to do? --MASEM 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Two previous blocks failed to remedy the problem and edits from today demonstrate that it's still ongoing. I've implemented a one week block on the account and invited the editor to draw upon the reliable sources he or she used to create that site and make cited additions to Wikipedia's article. I hope that has an impact. If not, follow up at this board and cite this thread. Semiprotection and/or longer blocks would be the next step. Thanks for your patience. DurovaCharge! 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Sid Haig article being protected by his webmaster

This has come up before. [195]

User:75.82.3.135, User:75.82.58.52, and User:Spirot are the same. I believe there are others as well.

The individual is Sid Haig's manager webmaster. At one point, he/she had Haig pose with a photograph with a sign "verifying" the content of the article. [196]

Anyway, what called my attention to this happening again is 75.82.3.135's reversion of this edit [197] by User:Yakofujimato. He or she was unwilling to accept that the word "revival" could appear in the article, in the context of "vaudeville revival." This struck me a very odd thing to be passionate about, considering the cite used that exact terminology.

This user is not WP:CIVIL, telling me to "sod off" [198], called me a liar [199], accused me of some kind of vague sock puppetry [200], and in another case, Wikistalking the entries listed on my user page [201] -- (edits around "illegal prime", where he/she edited, in sequence, articles linked from my user page.)

This person is continuing to protect/guard page with vigor, in clear conflict of interest. Quatloo 09:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I did?!? Man, that must have been cool. Shame I don't remember it... Actually, that was me, not the IP you just cited. Check your facts before slinging accusations, mmkay? Thanks. If that is what your paranoia tells you, I invite you to request a usercheck. "Spirot", who had the page just fine with the help of TWO admins before you came trolling into town, was done with this site a while ago, but there are a lot of us who are sick of seeing you try to destroy a reputable person's page with your constant screeching about the most petty of things. The vaudeville thing was an experiment to see just how far you would take your pettiness. I guess we all have our answer now. In the case of your "stalking" accusations (which you should turn on yourself), I marked some of your pages for sources BECAUSE THEY HAVE NONE. Isn't that what you're ALWAYS tagging other people's articles for? Well, why do you feel you don't have to practice what you preach? Are you immune to the need to cite sources? I have made NO edits to your "drivel" (to use a word you use constantly in your edits - perhaps you should read up on CIVILITY yourself), save for tagging all but the New Zealand one and the Heartagram one because of the lack of sources on them. How exactly is asking you to adhere to the rules you so fervently enforce on the work of others "Wikistalking"? I would like to know. Maybe an admin can spare some of their time to let me in on the secret to being as omnipotent and immune to all rules and discipline like you seem to be. I would also like to know why asking someone to follow their own rules is a "conflict of interest", other than conflicting with your own interests of continuing your destruction of people's pages. In the future, you may wish to think about requesting a usercheck before labelling someone as who you *think* they are. Good luck in your rampages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.52 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
All three of those accounts have the exact same flavor of edit history -- same undue abrasiveness, same use of uppercase, edits essentially only to Sid Haig and Ken Foree, same ISP, same geographic area, and all three maintain protective edits on the Sid Haig article. There is no doubt they are all the same individual. In this edit, [202], Spirot admits to being User:75.82.3.135. In this edit, [203], Spirot claims copyright ownership of the biography. In this edit [204], Spirot admits to being Haig's publicist. Regardless of your actual title -- webmaster, publicist, or manager -- it is inappropriate that you have exerted undue ownership over the article over such a long period of time. You have a clear conflict of interest here, and should not be editing the Sid Haig biography at all. Quatloo 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

MY title? Riiiiight...that's me, all of them! lol! You really are too much. May I ask where your sources are for this "fact" you've been spouting over and over? Are you next going to tell me I'm CyberGhostface, too? They worked a ton on that page, so I guess that's me, too, right? How about F13 and AllHallowsWraith? Are they me, too? DeadCentral? Hell, keep going, you're on a roll! Also, Spirot never hid the fact that she was his Publicist! Read before you type! So the hell what if I edit Devil's Rejects cast people's pages? What of it??? What is your obsession with disrupting that page anyway? Did he turn you down or something? I'll bet that's pretty close.

24 hour block on the IP for WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia isn't Usenet. Looking into the other claims. DurovaCharge! 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Due to the longstanding problems here I've put six months of semiprotection on the article. Three previous protections didn't solve the disruption. Strongly recommend WP:DR such as article content WP:RFC to resolve content issues. If any of the suspected socks edit during the 24 hour window then file a request at WP:RFCU on the whole drawer. Kudos to Quatloo for a patient and diligent approach. To the other party, conduct to date has been in serious violation of multiple site policies and current trajectory heads toward a ban, after which point all future attempts to contribute can be reverted on sight and ignored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please treat it as such. DurovaCharge! 06:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

Recuse due to the 9/11 connection. DurovaCharge! 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to the block suggested by Rklawton given the multiple warnings to this editor, and his apparent lack of response. (His most recent inappropriate edit was on 6 October). Since he has not changed the article since a final warning was posted on his user talk, I think waiting for the next violation is appropriate. EdJohnston 03:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

American Chess Association (again)

American Chess Association is again being radically revised by someone with a COI. The changes have better sources this time, so the I have started with a NPOV warning 2 but I am off to ZzZz now. John Vandenberg 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous semiprotection didn't solve the problem. I'm putting it on six weeks this time. The editor is welcome to register an account and/or add cited suggestions to the talk page. Simply overwriting large segments of well sourced material won't do. They're making somewhat better an effort to source their preferred version so I'm not blocking, and these are throwaway IP addresses anyway so a protection on the article will likely be more effective. DurovaCharge! 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesse James

Editor is the owner of the website http://firstmention.com/ and is adding images and references linking back to his website. The website is not a reliable source per WP:RS and constitutes linkspam. He is doing this to many many articles, not simply the ones listed here. It has become a daily activity eventhough he has been warned against this practice. See his edit history.--Strothra 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor was warned several days ago, so go ahead and revert the spam links and caution that continued activity could land a spot on the spam blacklist. Editor also seeks to upload useful public domain material, so let's hope this is someone who's adjusting to site standards. DurovaCharge! 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello everyone. It's taken me a while to discover this COI discussion page, and my apologies if I've seemed to be ignoring warnings up to now. My bottom-line read of the situation is as follows: Me: I feel I am adding high-quality, very relevant edits to select Wikipedia articles (Durova seems to agree, at least in part). The edits are based on information that I've compiled for my own website, firstmention.com You: Feel my posts violate one or more policies, and have removed many of them. As a case in point, take a look at my page on Hitler at http://firstmention.com/hitler.aspx It includes a fascinating, primary reference to a profile of Hitler as a young man, first emerging on the political scene, and includes the full public domain newspaper article that carries the profile. Why would anyone not want information like included as part of the Wikipedia entry on Hitler? Yet the information was deleted, apparently because the reference linked to firstmention.com. How can I provide such information, without getting dinged? How can I do a better job of "adjusting to site standards"? I'd really like feedback from folks that goes beyond pointing me to policies. I've read them, but I'm still not clear on the best way to proceed with providing what I think is wonderful information. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Dsarokin 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I have repeatedly warned this user to not add inline links and attempts to redirect Wikipedia traffic to his site. Although I had concerns that his site was not a valid reference, and a concern of COI, I did not address this previously, and was mostly happy with his edits as long as they were structured in such a way as to not be designed purely to send traffic back to his site. Really I believe this user can offer useful contributions, and has done in the past, but it is certain he is only interested in reporting things back to Wikipedia that are directly related to the content he places on his site. aliasd·U·T 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A personal website very rarely qualifies as an encyclopedic source. If you were a university history professor who specialized in the Nazi era, that would be different. DurovaCharge! 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Dsarokin, please excuse us but we have heard the "why wouldn't anyone want this really useful stuff" argument many times before. You need to understand that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a publicity tool. If you participate the right way, you will find many rewards, but please don't start out by arguing for inclusion of your own website. - Jehochman Talk 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Probably, this has already been pointed out to this user before, but since I'm only looking at this discussion here (and after looking at the Hitler article), I'll throw in a link to no original research. Into The Fray T/C 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks to everyone who has commented here. I'm not going to respond point by point to what folks had to say (though I'm certainly willing to, if anyone wants to go down that road). Instead, let me say that what I'm hearing is this: a few folks have gotten sort of comfortable with the posts I've made, in terms of adding value to the articles, and having gotten more appropriate in tone and overall usage. Others, probably a majority, aren't very comfortable yet, for a variety of reasons. I've heard your concerns, and will take them to heart. I'm going to repost some of my information to the Hitler page, because it strikes me as valuable information that clearly increases the overall quality of the article. Please have a look at the post, and let me know with your comments, here, if it still causes any concerns. Now that I know a little more how the behind-the-scenes dialogue works, it should make the whole process quite a bit easier in terms of airing any opinions about my posts. Thanks again. Dsarokin 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, the Hitler cite didn't last long. Let's go with a less volatile page. I've added a reference to the etymology section of the article, Athletic Shoe. Let me know what you all think. Dsarokin 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC) PS -- some folks here have a superscript Charge! next to their hyperlinked names. What does that mean?
  • The historic Nadezhda Durova was a cavalry soldier in the Russian army two hundred years ago. She ran away from home on her favorite horse disguised as a boy, and (among other things) charged alone into a group of enemy dragoons to save the life of an officer. She enlisted as a private and retired a decorated captain. DurovaCharge! 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • BTW, it really doesn't matter which article you approach: your personal website doesn't meet this site's standards of a reliable source. What would really help and be welcome is if you cited the sources where you derived that information for your website. DurovaCharge! 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Someone should go through these posts. -- Jreferee T/C 18:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I removed some of the links to firstmention.com, replacing them with a citation of the original publication that was found. The search to be used is the one supplied above by Jreferee; I noticed that Special:Linksearch couldn't find anything even though some links still remain. My concern about User:Dsarokin's response, just above, is that he does not yet get the message that his links are against policy. EdJohnston 12:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that some folks have concerns that the links I've provided are against policy. But I've been through the policies, and I just don't agree. However, I haven't been posting lately, as I think things through. But I will say this: by replacing the firstmention.com links with citations to the original newspapers, you're now denying Wikipedia users easy access to the articles themselves (which are often posted in full at firstmention.com), since they have no straightforward way to access the original newspaper pages. I can't believe that this is in Wikipedia's own best interest, since it makes information access more, not less, difficult Dsarokin 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


  • Hello everyone. These posts probably shouldn't be in a Jesse James thread anymore, but I'm not sure where else to best put them. Anyway, I've updated the article on Tempest in a Teapot. Please let me know your thoughts as to the appropriateness or not of this edit. I'd appreciate it if it could stay intact at least for a few days, so that anyone interested will have a chance to give it a look. Thanks.Dsarokin 13:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Seems the link to the article doesn't work. Can anyone enlighten me as to why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsarokin (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You don't agree with Wikipedia policies, admit it, and say that you're going to go against them to promote your website.. something is wrong here. I'm cleaning up the edits. Hannabee 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It seems he has no intention to comply with policy. I strongly recommend a blacklist at this point. He has been warned many times. His behavior is interrupting Wikipedia and causing other editors to waste time chasing behind him to clean up his mess. --Strothra 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dsarokin's earliest edits spammed http://xooxleanswers.com, which is another site he operates. --Ronz 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I started an ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive307#User:Dsarokin --Ronz 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sybian

The diffs and links that follow are not worksafe. This article has been altered several times[210] [211] recently by an IP address who claims[212] to represent ABCO Research Associates, the marketers of the Sybian and the owners of the trademark (see [213], at the bottom of the page). The IP asserts that offsite links to (admittedtly pornographic) images of the Sybian in use are not to be placed in the article, and has removed them. I reverted and placed a COI notice on the IP's talk page, but they removed the links again. I believe that this IP's involvement is a clear COI situation, and I know that this site is not censored for minors, but I would like to solicit comments. I'm slightly uncomfortable (just... slightly) with reverting back to a version that links to middlecore porn. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

a) Any external links need to move out of the "See also" section.
b) I don't see the value in the first link (the one presently in the "See also" section). I couldn't care less about the explicitness of the content, it's just not anything that isn't obvious from the design of the device as well as the text of the article. As it stands now, it's simply an advertisement for a for-pay porn site. Kill it, COI notwithstanding.
c) The one labeled "specs" (although that's not a very accurate description) is decent and probably can stay. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Skinwalker, I think you should revert to a previous version. The user in question who deleted many of the links I believe acted in an overzealous manner. JMHO --Buttysquirrel 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not know this discussion even existed, otherwise I would have through gone through the proper channels to express my view. As such, I agree with c) above, the link to the specs should remain as it has been there for quite some time and it does not peddle any products whatsoever. Buttysquirrel 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I added some references to the Sybian article. The article still should be trimmed of the advertising fat. -- Jreferee t/c 19:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We've been having quite a bit of follow up in the Sybian discussions, and I agree with bbatsell that the link on the Specs (maybe even rename it to "Sybian Review" or "Other Description") the link in c) above is fine and should be included in the External Links. When asked why the link (which has been there January since 2005) was removed, Ronz's response for the deletion, "The policies and guidelines have changed. What used to be allowed is in many cases not allowed. Advertisements have nothing to do with it.", is weak at best. --Buttysquirrel 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Currently, the WP:COI states, "avoid, or exercise great caution when:...Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)" --Ronz 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
In this case "exercise great caution" applies here. Again, this link is not spam, therefore it should not even be considered under the rules of spam. I do believe there has not ever been a single, clickable link on the page in question. The link Specs on the Sybian just contains information about the Sybian that you cannot find in the main Sybian article. --Buttysquirrel 03:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
"Your edits in article-space to date consist mostly of adding links to the website you run. I realize that you made most of these edits years ago, but today such behavior is considered to be spamming. Please familiarize yourself with the current guidelines, especially Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. --Ronz 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"
I disagree. I have contributed several photos of the Sybian, and other related photos such as the Topco Love Machine, which I had our photographer take. In addition, I have added content to several articles that never link back to our site(s). So I do not believe most of the content I have added have been links that to go back to our site. Besides, your argument reads like I'm banned from making any editions because you deem the link (link removed) spam. --Buttysquirrel 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ronz, why did you just remove the link above? This is a discussion page, and that link was placed there so that others in this discussion could simply click and see what the argument is about. Now everyone has to click the history tab to see what link I we are debating. --Buttysquirrel 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please have all postings and images contributed by me removed. I will move on. --Buttysquirrel 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sean Paul

Resolved. The subject of a biography (or an associate) is allowed to remove unsourced defamatory claims. Does not raise a COI issue for us. EdJohnston 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs here. I was doing RP patrolling and came across this edit summary from Madpuss."(i took out "sean paul recently came out of the closet" as sean paul is not gay. he is a good friend of mine, and his manager just asked me to edit it. thank you)".--Sethacus 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The user reverted unsourced defamatory claims from the biography of a living person. Even though he has an outside-wikipedia reason for doing so, the outside interest he pursues is perfectly in line with Wikipedia's interest. Thus, there is no conflict of interests, and therefore no problem at all. –Henning Makholm 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
(For reference, here is the vandal, and here is the revert by Madpuss.) –Henning Makholm 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I marked this as resolved. Revert if you believe there are issues that still need to be addressed. EdJohnston 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Supercouples

Resolved. Not a COI EdJohnston 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone returned the edit I made to the "Luke and Laura" section referring to them as being from General Hospital on first reference. I restored this honest mistake. The fact is, when I was reading the article, I had no idea who they were and had to google them to find out. That's why I added it.

I have a journalism degree (focusing on editing) from one of the top journalism universities in the nation. I've worked at major metro newspapers, including The Philadelphia Inquirer. I know a little bit about editing. The show they're on is mentioned later, but as the Internet becomes more and more immersed in our society, attention span declines further and further.

Where Luke and Laura come from, especially considering how long ago they were a Supercouple, should be mentioned on first reference.

I understand the motivation of the person who made this change, but please, defer to my training and knowledge on this type of thing. But if I made a formatting mistake, by all means, please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kctwty (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard seems to be the wrong place. Please make your case over at Talk:Supercouple. This does not appear to be a conflict of interest issue. EdJohnston 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Craig Horrocks and Zorbing

Yesterday I noticed the Zorbing article contained NPOV material, marketing-esque material, and this content had been added by User:Craig Horrocks who claims to be the CEO of Zorb Limited, the company behind Zorbing. So I tagged the article with {{COI}} and other relevant tags for review. Then an anonymous editor revised the article significantly. Then User:Craig Horrocks reverted that revision and replaced it with his original version, minus my tags. Help please. --Fjarlq 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hayter family

EHayter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), a descendant of the former, persists in trying to stretch WP:V on the basis of unpublished family records. It is a bit of a problem that two reliable sources - the Times and the ODNB - differ about someone's ancestry. But I assume that they just have to be cited at face value, and that WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR stop us collating these with unpublished material to develop an argument that both of the sources are wrong. Gordonofcartoon 14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Disinformation_(art_and_music_project)

These are article vanity pages. Total written by the subject 'Joe Banks' and edited with his sock puppets (new one each day). They only write on these two articles. Notability is only established though self citations - or citing pages of no relevance. These pages read more like a personal promotional website than a NPOV encyclopedia entry. Redisburys 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja/Jean Godden

[editor 216.162.198.214] seems to be another single purpose account and seems to only edit these two articles in a very partisan manner - and seems very similar in content and tone to Landsfarthereast, an editor outed as the Godden campaign manager. Please look into this. Mikesmash24.16.211.40 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

User:192.103.84.2

This is a single user account whose only edits [214] have been to add links or references to books published by the Univ of Mississippi Press. These may all be publications with good info in them but they should not be added by a IP with a vested interest in making a wider audience aware of them. MarnetteD | Talk 03:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Ferocia

Resolved. Article was deleted at AfD. EdJohnston 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Created by User:AlexanderFerocia; no sources.--BirgitteSB 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Ferocia. MER-C 03:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Wild Wild Westmar Show

Also note this discussion:[215] --A. B. (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
And this admission --A. B. (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Masculine psychology#The Male Fear of the Feminine

In the known (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been adding ISSN numbers and offsite links related to Werner Kierski books. There has also been a bit of activity at Masculine psychology#The Male Fear of the Feminine that seems to be promoting a single book. Based on the images the user uploaded, it is very likely that this editor is W. Kierski. I think it is very important to have experts contributing to wikipedia, however I am a little bit concerned about how much this content focuses on the author's work.-Andrew c [talk] 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this looks rather self-promotional. As further evidence, note that the user signed himself "Werner" in his first two edits. I would be inclined to revert the contributions — even though published in apparently respectable sources, we should not assume that Kierski's work is encyclopedically notable until someone not directly involved considers it worthwhile to write it up. –Henning Makholm 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have invited the user over here to help clear up what's going on. –Henning Makholm 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have just read that postings should have a maximum of 200 words, so here is a shorter version of my first reply: Dear editors, Thanks for your comments, which I shall take on board. On the issue of conflict of interest: I am indeed Werner Kierski. In the initial discussion on the male psychology site I proposed a section about the male fear of the feminine in the following way: "the topic as such has been under discussion since the early 1930. O'Neil, Blazina and Kierski are currently the most important people working on this. . The community received my suggestion positively. This is my first Wikipedia posting, so I hope I get it right. I did not think there is a conflict of interest since I am the only person who has ever empirically researched this topic. I have tried to present the topic as clear as possible, describing the historical development till present time. I have faithfully done the same with every reference and piece of information in the chapter so as to spread out the topic and include works from other authors. Is there anything you can suggest that I can do to rectify this, such as changing, editing, deleting? Bearing in mind that whether or not I am the author of that research the research still stands on its own legs. Best wishes--Werner 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Dear editors, Thanks for your comments, which I shall take on board. I will change the image properties to make them publicly available. These thinks take a bit of time since it is the first time I am doing this so I am still struggling (the tutorials are not always user friendly though).

On the issue of conflict of interest: I am indeed Werner Kierski. In the initial discussion on the male psychology site I proposed a section about the male fear of the feminine in the following way: "the topic as such has been under discussion since the early 1930. O'Neil, Blazina and Kierski are currently the most important people working on this. . My suggestion was received positively by the community. This is my first Wikipedia posting, so I hope I get it right.

I did not think there is a conflict of interest since I am the only person who has ever empirically researched this topic. I have tried to present the topic as clear as possible, describing the historical development till present time. I have struggled with some technical details of my contribution, especially the reference/bibliography section and was only able to add ISSN numbers and other details one-by-one after I figured out where to find them. I have faithfully done the same with every reference and piece of information in the chapter so as to spread out the topic and include works from other authors.

It would however be an ommision of facts if I did only talk about the male fear of the feminine and exclude my own work.

The links I have included to some previous publications of mine are just there for the sake of completion. I have done the same with the publications from other authors. All my previous publications and conference presentations were within respected scholarly communities and independent publishers, thus they are cited. This may look like a conflict of interest but at the same time presents the facts. I have not left out any other contributor and have kept the description of male fear of the feminine short.

Is there anything you can suggest that I can do to rectify this, such as changing, editing, deleting? Bearing in mind that whether or not I am the author of that research the research still stands on its own legs. Look forward to your comments. Best wishes. --Werner 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

National Arbitration Forum

Name of creator is too similar to the article. Bearian 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I repaired this case report. It seems to have gotten mangled. - Jehochman Talk 13:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I have used this forum myself. It's legit, and the article does not seem to contain any advertising. The username appears to be generic, meaning "alternate dispute resolution forum", not any particular brand, so I don't there's a problem here. - Jehochman Talk 13:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User Geoeg

This user's editing came to my attention after a neutrally phrased request about disputes on Talk:Petr Vaníček and Talk:Vaníček analysis was posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

As Bfigura pointed out on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg, this apparently single-purpose account, which registered last week and is more than willing (links and diffs in the WP:WQA section) to violate the civility and no personal attacks policies—e.g. this (which duplicated this) plus this hint of a legal threat—has conflict of interest issues.

Extensive changes have been made also to the Geodesy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) article from the Geoeg account. For example:

  • this edit, among other changes:
linked amazon.com for book (Vaníček), linked Ph.D. dissertation (Omerbashich)
(both listed here at UNB Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering)
removed astro-geodetic zenith cameras and geoid computations descriptor from Hanover Institute
removed Geodesy, Radio astronomy and GPS descriptor from Bonn Institute
removed astro-geological geoid, IGS and VLBI descriptor from Vienna Institute
removed geophysical geodesy, GPS etc. descriptor from ETH Zurich Institute
inexplicably de-wikilinked quite a few institutions, cities and countries.

Note: I have not reviewed all of the edits from the Geoeg account, only those to the two talk pages and three articles mentioned. — Athaenara ✉ 07:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tagged NWQA, but ...

The Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg discussion has been tagged as {{NWQA}} ("Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere") but continuing incivility from Geoeg (who also posted from 77.77.194.14 — posted, deleted, then reposted from registered account) really needs to be addressed effectively.

Followup: Section is now tagged {{WQA in progress}}. — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this should have been posted on ANI from the first, but chasing the issues across several noticeboards may not help. Outside input is needed, please. — Athaenara ✉ 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Geoeg continues to push his COI/POV agenda on the two articles cited at the start. Is there something that should be done to try to block this cycle? Should I just keep reverting, or not? Dicklyon 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that {{COI2}} tags should be on both articles until such time that they've clearly been brought into compliance with NPOV policy, but I don't think you should endanger your own editing record by continuing to revert him yourself. — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I share Athaenara's concern that Dicklyon has been doing too many reverts on Petr Vaníček. An editor like the person we are discussing who constitutes a minority of one and seems not very interested in anyone else's opinion will eventually run out of gas. It is not necessary to fight him every step of the way. It is better to step back a little and try to draw in some other editors who are willing to see if the content seems OK. It is still not ruled out that AfD is justified for this article. EdJohnston 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Oops, he is clearly notable. EdJohnston 23:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has brought up AfD. I'm presuming that evidence of notability will probably be found and added eventually. I haven't found anything independent of his school or his professional societies yet, so I don't think those are great, but I'm certainly not pushing for deletion. I'll ease up on him if you think that will help. Dicklyon 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Crosspost

Geoeg's violations of civility and no personal attacks policies have been larded with untruths as well. For example, in one message which he posted twice at 23:51 and 23:52 UTC on 8 October:

  • False: Lyon "is trying to separate" the two disputes
  • True: Lyon's request for a third opinion listed them together.
  • False: someone "said loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing" on Talk:Vaníček analysis
  • True: Zvika, the only other editor who had posted on either talk page before then, had not said that.

These examples are only two of many such distortions of fact. Might a brief block have some effect on Geoeg's attack posting and disruptive edit warring? — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(Crosspost above from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg.) — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Mrtobacco

Mrtobacco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)Hello, I would like to call to the Wiki community's attention, a user who has been using Wikipedia to stealth market his companies smoking products. The user MrTobacco has a history full of controversial edits and has clashed with several wikipedians who have called him out on his spamming. Each time he is accused, he uses a circular logic, calling his accusers the real stealth marketers. It is my strong belief that he is directly employeed by HBI, or gains some payment for his service here on wikipedia, and other online communities which he advertises. I have found him posting on the cannabisculture forums, with the same rhetoric, promoting HBI brand papers, and telling the users about the evil Bambu Rolling paper company (a competitor of HBI):[216] If you do a search on there for his username, you can see all the HBI related propaganda he has posted there. [217]

I do not work for Bambu or any tobacco company. I work freelance doing graphic design for a scale company which is in competition with HBI, I will admit for full disclosure. But we do not compete with them on tobacco products. I signed up for wikipedia firstly to remove the link on the Weighing Scales entry, which linked to digitalscale.com - a shill marketing site made by MyWeigh Scales (A division of HBI). The site is a fake review site, and used to create a false enthusiasm for their products. I removed it as advertising spam. After I discovered who added the link, I checked their history, which is when I discovered all the edits this HBI shill has been making over the years. My intentions have only been to stop MrTobacco from continuing his unethical marketing practices.

Once I began challenging MrTobacco, he made several sock-puppets such as "stredler" (Steve Redler - owner of digitalscale.com) which he used to harass me with on my talk page. I also believe that the user "joshmann" is another sock-puppet of his. He claims that this one is the real owner of HBI, and engages in fake arguments with him, which he has done to cause confusion, and make it seem like he (mrtobacco) is also against HBI advertising on wiki.

He now makes it an almost daily effort to bully people who remove his advertisements or slander. He constantly reports users for vandalism, even though they are merely removing his slander. He adds warning tags, improperly, to every users page who tried to remove his advertising. He is always trying to lock pages down which contain slander of competitors, or praise of HBI. He has been warned about advertising, but each time he claims that he is a retired ex-tobacco industry person who occasionally contributes to smoking publications. Below are a list of edits, starting with the initial one I came to remove as advertising.

Here he adds links to HBI International's electronic scale websites MyWeigh, JScale, and digitalscale.com (a fake review site). This is the edit that I signed up to remove: [218]

Here he creates a page for his employer HBI International: [219]

He added the Juicy Jay's (another HBI product) image without listing the source, because that would reveal that he obtained it through HBI International, his employer. Another wikipedian called him out on this in the discussion, and he pulled the same argument on them, saying that THEY must be working for some competitors company, and just trying to make HBI look bad. Later he claims that he emailed the webmaster at HBI and asked permission.: [220]

He created the RAW rolling papers page (another HBI product): [221] [222]

Here he writes that RAW Rolling papers are superior, and actually the healthiest papers to use. His reference link leads to a "health consultant's" report on bleached paper, but mentions no research data, nor does it mention anything about RAW rolling papers: [223]

Supposedly, smoking is good for you, according to MrTobacco. I just thought this one was funny: [224]

Slandering Competition-----

Here he begins to add negative information about his competitor Bambu Rolling Papers: [225]

Here he adds more slander against his competitor Bambu Rolling Papers, adding that their rolling papers contain carcinogenic materials. He now makes it a daily effort to make sure this info is kept on the Bambu Page. Anytime someone removes it, he threatens them with Wiki Warnings, saying that they will be banned if they make any edits to Wikipedia.: [226] [227] Onyx86 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please review the edts and contributions of Onyx86. We engaged in an edit war where he admitted he works for a competitor of a company called HBI and he was being paid by them. I imagine they paid him a bonus that huge bogus post above. He admitted he was trying to remove any positive statements about HBI and even apologized to me for removing text I had posted that was not negative enough towards his enemy. This is a case of someone with a clear conflict of interest trying to slander me, and hurt his admitted competitor HBI. I don't work for HBI and I don't appreciate this person trying to use Wiki in this manner. He hasn't complained about any of my edits or posts except for the small percentage that go against his vendetta. Please review his 'contributions' and then check mine. Perhaps you will consider blocking him for this inappropriate behavior. --Mrtobacco 21:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think if anyone reviews both mine and your edits, they will see I have done nothing but try to prevent you from advertising. At no point have I endorsed or even mentioned products from any company I work for. You have not been civil in your replies either. It is clear that you are trying push an agenda. You first created the HBI International page (which you denied but its in your history) as well as add links to their companies MyWeigh and JScale on the weighing scales entry. Kinda suspiscious that you would add all these HBI products to Wiki, and make such a devoted effort to keeping them from being deleted as advertising. Please someone look into this. Onyx86 18:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
PLEASE CHECK THE HISTORY OF POSTS AND CONTRIBS BY ONYX86 - his only "contributions" are to blank his competitors pages and remove text or add disparaging remarks about his competitors. He has admitted several times that he works for American Weigh Scales & Classic Wholesales. That company is a direct competitor to the brands he is so 'concerned' about. That is why he is upset that I actually said something positive about those brands. PLEASE check my posting history. I have said both positive and negative things about dozens of brands. I have actually said some truly negative things about some "HBI" products. However he doesn't mention that - he is only upset that I won't let him blank the pages of the HBI products he wants to blank. Guys, be reasonable. Onyx86 has admitted here on Wiki that he works for a competitor of Raw/Juicy Jays / HBI. Then he tries to post that I have a conflict? Please remind him of the Wiki rules and ask him to stay away from pages he has a clear conflict of interest on. This entire report above by him is a shill. He is trying desperately to hurt his competitors and wants me to stop blocking his blanks and false posts. Take the time to do the research and then make your decision quickly please :) --Mrtobacco 21:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked; you make a pretty good case that Onyx86 has a COI. And he makes an even better case that you have serious COI, since you seem to be a single-purpose product promoter. Why don't you guys just go away and leave wikipedia alone? Dicklyon 21:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)



Sydney Explorer

Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (formerly Mindys12345) indicates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Explorer that he works for Sydney Explorer and that his "reason for writing the article was to help promote the service and ticket sales and to impress his boss." The article was PROD deleted and then restored after JRG's request. After some efforts by Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. to removed references from the recently restored Sydney Explorer article and some odd talk page assertions, Sydney Explorer was listed at AfD. Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. made additional odd statements at that AfD. In April 2007, Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. was blocked for 48 Hours. A month later, he was spamming an article with Fatso the Fat-Arsed Wombat. In July 2007, his third request for a name change was granted. In addition to Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C., he has used other signatures different than his user name, such as جميع أفراد المجتمع المؤهلين مدعوون للتصويت في انتخابات مجلس أمناء مؤسسة ويكيميديا.. Given the clear, admitted COI, summarizing the matter at COIN may be sufficient to address the issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAs and socks pushing POV, PR, and advertising on the Chapman_University_School_of_Law Page

For several months, a few anon IPS have been removing sourced info from U.S. News and World Report, indicating that Chapman ranks in the lowest tier of American law schools [228][229] [230]. The result has been a rather tiresome edit war. Most likely, these reversions are coming from Chapman U. itself. (See the next paragraph for the reason why.)

A few days ago, one barely used account, Hyperion357 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) and one brand-new account, Usajax (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), began to escalate the edit war by filling the page with advertising from Chapman's website. [231] [232]. One of the vandals, "Hyperion357," claims on the Talk Page that he has "received permission" from the university to use its ad campaign on the article page. It's pretty clear what's going on here: Somebody from Chapman is attempting to scrub sourced info from the page, and paper it over with PR. I'd appreciate any help you could provide. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 03:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've left the users stern warnings. I doubt they will bother this article again. If they do, they should be blocked indefinitely. Let's assume they don't understand and hold off on blocking until they show signs of being malicious. Could you please leave each user a message saying that you opened a case here so they can comment. If you experience any more IP vandalism, I can semi-protect the page, but hopefully the warnings will suffice. Thanks. - Jehochman Talk 13:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I received you message: apparently, Eleemosynary is claiming I have a COI?

Significantly, though, s/he failed to provide any support for that allegation.

However, even if that was the case, I notice that the COI article you linked to says: "Conflict of interest is *not* a reason to delete an article" (emphasis mine).

The current form of the article for Chapman University Law School lacks the degree of coverage which other local law schools, like Southwestern, Loyola, University of San Diego, Pepperdine, or even some law schools that are currently on *probation* with the accrediting agency, such as Whittier and Western State. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_Law_School , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyola_Law_School , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_San_Diego_School_of_Law , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepperdine_University_School_of_Law , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittier_Law_School http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_State_University_College_of_Law )

I was just trying to bring it more on line with its peers.

In spite of which, my article has been *repeatedly* deleted!

Not having time to do original research, I asked permission to use text from their website, which I received. I don't know if I used the correct format (*still* trying to figure out you're markup language!) but I have put in links to the specific pages I drew from. The definition of Plagiarism is: "stealing someone else's ideas and presenting them as your own" If there is direct permission, and direct reference to sources, how can that be plagiarism?

As for the charge of POV (which, I assume is computer-speak for "bias"?) on more than one occasion, in the discussion area, I've stated that:"If there is any language that is subjective or shows a specific bias, point it out (as I've said before!), and I'll edit it to read more objectively."

However, what POV is evidenced by a list of their faculty members -- a description of their clinics and advanced degree programs? They actually do have those faculty members, clinics and programs -- what is unobjective or biased about that?

Long and short, I'm trying to comply with your rules, and provide more substantive information about this institution, on a par with comparable law schools in the area. However, instead of being "accepted by the community", *one* person seems to object.

Instead of just *deleting* substantive information, wouldn't it be better for that one person to give constructive advice as to *which* passages they think betray some specific bias? Undoing my edit denies readers information about this law school on a comparable level with the information provided about its peers.

As I observed in the discussion area: "Undoing an article that has a lot of useful information for one that has very little -- *that* seems more like vandalism to me!" Hyperion357 18:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is your purpose here to improve the encyclopedia, or to promote the law school? If you want to learn how to edit Wikipedia successfully, I can point you to resources such as Wikipedia:Introduction or our editor training program. If you want to promote, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Business' FAQ, and User:Durova/The dark side before making your next edit. - Jehochman Talk 18:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Bella (film)

Check the talk page. This is largely written like a publicity blurb and has mostly been written by someone involved with the film. Utterly coincidentally, there seem to have been a pile of posts to a lot of LiveJournal communities of late heavily pushing it. Could some disinterested editors please give it a thorough editorial review? - David Gerard 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave it nice editing. It should be watched to make sure the hype doesn't return. - Jehochman Talk 04:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
It returned with multiple edits from 76.18.54.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) which I reverted. --Blowdart | talk 19:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Just as an FYI, the same person/people also seem to add publicity-like info about the movie to the Sean Wolfington and Eduardo Verástegui articles. -Ebyabe 19:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yea I've added a separate COI as that IP has already admitted to being Sean Wolfington. Joy! --Blowdart | talk 19:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bella (film) / Sean Wolfington / Alejandro Gomez Monteverde / Eduardo Verástegui‎] / 76.18.54.173

INVOLVEMENT NEEDED: Content war in the Alexander Lukashenko article

Resolved.

In the Alexander Lukashenko article there's a criticism section which included only negative critisism on hom. For the sake of NPOV, i added a paragraph, with references, what his supporters think of him. Nevertheless, there's a user named User:Bakersville who keeps on removing what i added and adding information against the man. If the information is sourced, i dont mind it to stay, but i dont like him deleting my information. I started a discussion on the talk page (where, as you could see, i offered a compromise, but it was ignored), yet the user was supported by the user User:Barend who gave against me two lame claims: 1. Thereferences being in Russian (1. Whats the problem to ask a Russian administrator to check it?? 2. One of the references was in English. 3. If the references give the material thy fit. I wxplaimed it in the discussion). 2. Me supporting Lukashenko and calling him the only real democrat on the talk page (And? But i havent wrote that in the article. All i gave in the article was referenced, nutral and objective). Please, stop this political idiotism. Wikipedia haven't sworn loyalty to any political ideology, so the article has to be NPOV and show both sides on the coin. M.V.E.i. 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

And he just cant stop! Not talking about the fact he already broke the 3RR. M.V.E.i. 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I semi-protected the article for one week to help cool things down. Biography articles are best written chronologically. The sourced sentences of the criticism section should be inserted into the remainder of the article where they would fit chronologically. You may want to post your request at WP:BLPN since this does not seem to be a conflict of interest issue. The 3RR issue should be reported at WP:AN3RR. -- Jreferee t/c 19:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • M.V.E.i. was blocked by another admin for 3RR. -- Jreferee t/c 19:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
For a period of one year. I think we can let this slide until October 13, 2008. MER-C 05:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Flybd5

Highly defensive about keeping his website link in these two articles. --Ronz 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Link meets guidelines in WP:EL and WP:SPAM for inclusion in Wikipedia articles about the BD-5 or its creator, Jim Bede. The link is not commercial, promotes no products, doesn't sell anything to benefit me. Site is the official site for the free BD-5 Network, the international group of pilots, builders and parties interested in the BD-5, of which I am the Director/Cheerleader. The site is a completely free and comprehensive repository of BD-5 information, and its Internet mailing list, created almost a decade ago, is mentioned in the Smithsonian's plaque for the BD-5B on display at the Udvar-Hazy facility near Dulles Airport. Note that there are references on both articles which use my site as an official, recognized information resource on the subject. Also, note that User:Ronz started this in ITIL v3 and is actively stalking me to other articles where I have participated or where I am mentioned. At any rate, the correct policy for these issues is to discuss first, then seek consensus, then edit, not shoot first and then ask questions later. Flybd5 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the accusation of stalking: I came across ITIL v3 as part of another spam investigation/cleanup, and removed improper links I found there. When Flybd5 reverted them, I naturally checked to see if he had been involved in making similar edits elsewhere, which it turns out he had and is now defending. --Ronz 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
You removed valid links without asking for sourcing, clarification, discussion, etc. Your conclusion that valid links are advertising is unsupported by any facts, and I demonstrated that by adding additional refs to prove it. Then you came after other edits of mine, again without discussion. That's harassment AND stalking. Flybd5 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • comment - Link in question fails WP:EL#AVOID point #12. It is a personal website. It may be accurate, but it is still a personal website. Author is not a known authority on the subject. Flybd5 is engaging in editwarring to retain link, claiming removal is vandalism (inter alia) and threatening to report it is such. Flybd5 has some real ownership issues with the various articles (above) which he claims Ronz is wikistalking him over. Flydb5 also may have outed another editor, User:Malleus Fatuarum‎. . Shot info 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Author is not an known authority on subject. The Smithsonian museum disagrees with you. Call the curator of the BD-5B at the Udvar-Hazy facility and ask him if he considers me to be an authority on the subject. His name is Russ Lee. The web site is not a personal site. A part of it contains information about me and my project, but the great majority of the content (easily 98%) has nothing to do with me or my project. The actions of Ronz clearly meet the standard for Wikistalking: The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. By not following policy and repeating the same pattern of deleting things without discussion across pages where I have participated, the intention is clearly to create disruption. Were that not the intention, User:Ronz would have followed appropriate, non-disruptive procedure of querying me on my talk page about this so we could discuss it, rather than throw his weight around and hide behind the disguise of the "spam-cop." Rules must be applied equitably and with the same weight on everyone. Privileges on Wikipedia does not exempt an editor from following the guidelines and policies. Flybd5 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Flybd5 has also added autobiographical information about himself to one of these articles: [234] --Ronz 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Continued evidence of harassment and stalking. Is this what you are whining about now? Take it up with the issuer of the document. Flybd5 12:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Flybd5 has added the same information to another one of these articles: [235] --Ronz 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I am amazed at the allegations by Flybd5 about harrassment and stalking. Regarding the value of the link to www.bd5.com, it does seem to me that it is reasonable to include in at least some of the BD-5 related articles. (I spent some time trying to add references to Scott Manning, and I found www.bd5.com at least somewhat helpful on the issue).

There is an overall problem that the BD-5 related articles seem to be written from personal knowledge in many cases, and are not well referenced. I don't think we should let this case go from the noticeboard until there is a plan agreed to for fixing up theses articles. If necessary there should be an agreed-upon deadline for removing unreferenced information. I hope that the BD-5 flyers will work with us on this issue. EdJohnston 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I admire Ronz's efforts in trying to bring Flybd5 to account for his many COI and POV contributions to wikipedia. And as to the allegations of stalking and harrassment made by Flybd5 against Ronz, I'd say that is a repetition of the behaviour that Flybd5 has demonstrated when challenged over those same issues by others in the past. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Wesley Purdy is back

Resolved. Per A. B.'s belief that he has removed all these mentions. The use of dynamic IPs seems to rule out blocking. EdJohnston 19:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Wesley Purdy has spammed Wikipedia as well as attack off-line editors removing his links. Here's some history:


His domains (that we know of) have been blacklisted but now I see that someone's been writing Mr. Purdy into our articles:

I wish we could program a bot to look for edits adding the phrase "Gilbert Wesley Purdy".
--A. B. (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


P.S. A bonus for you: WP:COIN's song of the day: (Real Audio file)

I think I have this cleaned up. --A. B. (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible political editing

Not being sure if this really rises to the level of CoI, I posted over at the Village Pump first, but here it is just in case. Someone may be interested in the recent editing patterns of 198.135.224.110 (talk · contribs). The address is registered to the California State Senate, and is editing on political issues. Some quick checking showed that there has also been editing from 198.135.224.111 (talk · contribs) in the past. --StuffOfInterest 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's significant. And this is intolerable. I've left a strong warning regarding a more recent edit at the IP talk page. Suggest contacting the California State Senate IT department if problems continue. It's possible this is some low level office worker who's never heard of the WikiScanner. DurovaCharge! 06:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This one didn't take WikiScanner. Just a quick "whois" showed the owner, which is why I stuck the shared IP notice on the addresses. --StuffOfInterest 20:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Resolved. Per comments below. Article is reasonable though references could be properly formatted and some lists could be shortened. EdJohnston 04:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

CSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Timjohnscsgv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) are both associated with this organisation, please review the edits and check for neutrality if you have expertise in the matter. MER-C 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Their edits to their own org's site consist mainly of adding references and one initial edit that actually made the article more neutral. They seem to be respecting NPOV and COI very nicely. Arakunem 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with Arakunem, there appears to be no problems here. Tiggerjay 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Comets and the swastika motif

Resolved. After discussions, the submitter Dbachmann has renamed this article to Swastika origin theories and made extensive edits there. I assume no issue remains for us to address. EdJohnston 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

self-quotation to the point of OR. This is basically an article covering another article by the same author written in 1992. dab (𒁳) 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that the main theme of this article seems to come from work by Bob Kobres, which is actually not published in any refereed journals that I could see. (The 1992 SIS Workshop is unlikely to be seen as refereed, for our purposes). The main reference is to his personal web site, which does not qualify as a reliable source. If everything cited to Kobres were removed, I guess there wouldn't be much remaining material. Have you considered proposing this for AfD? If you are uncertain, you could also ask at WT:ASTRO. EdJohnston 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not intend to put this on Afd myself: this is why I posted it here for review. I do suppose a case for deletion could be made, though. Failing that, the article needs to be reviewed by neutral editors to rid it of the worst instances of self-citation by Bkobres. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
On his Talk page, Bob Kobres added this comment:
...I have no problem with moving the discussion to the discussion page of the article in question. What I was trying to convey is that the article, which was originally added to the swastika article in December of 2004, is not only about the relation of the swastika to the foot of a bird and should not be deleted due to the quality of the SIS publication. I've also negated the OR aspect of the piece by providing earlier contentions that the swastika was associated with the foot of a bird as well as the Astika parva in Mahabharata. Bkobres 16:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Update. Dab has renamed the article Swastika origin theories, per Talk. Further reform of this article is being discussed at Talk:Swastika origin theories. EdJohnston 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)