Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8

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

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

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

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

Now the user has also removed the subsequently added "citation needed" templates from the article without an edit summary (diff). I have reverted his edit and posted a {{uw-maintenance1}} on his talk page; the user has not yet responded. -- intgr 11:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The user is now accusing me of harassment and asking for time for citing his sources. (diff of my talk, diff of Talk:Optical Carrier). He has also removed previous comments from the aforementioned talk page (diff).

I have once again removed his text from Optical Carrier (diff) and demanded reliable sources (diff, diff).

I also warned him for re-introducing unsourced information and deleting others' comments. (diff). -- intgr 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether to laugh or cry, so I am crying while laughing over this incident.

It appears that this company is some investor scam, and they wanted to use Wikipedia for promotion; however, the vigorous intervention of users intgr and NigelJ have brought this innovative R&D company to their knee-equivalents! Quoting their web site [1]:

"[...] WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ARRANGE AND ADD OUR RESEARCH TO WIKIPEDIA [...]"

"[...] THESE EFFORTS HAVE BECOME DIFFICULT AND IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO ACTIONS OF BY AND BETWEEN INDEPENDNANT EXTERNAL CONTENT EDITORS FOR WIKIPEDIA. IE USER:intgr IE User:NijelJ "

Looking at their "products" page, they have also developed a fiber optic backbone that has integrated storage in it! "124.6 Gbps ® via a patent pending electronic device with 80.29PiB storage and 676 processors."

It would help if they actually had a clue about technology. :)

High five, NigelJ! -- intgr 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The cabal strikes again. MER-C 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I also got the horrible talk page message... diff Intgr: thanks for the high five ;) btw, he also has removed my warnings from his talk page (Including the one when I notified of this section), maybe blocks should be considered for abusive behaviour? (shrug) --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 07:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Good point. We can just leave it open and reassess next week. — Æ. ✉ 14:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It would appear Cyberdyneinc's edits have stopped, please feel free to close and archive whenever you wish. --NigelJ ^{talk SIMPLE} 07:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I believe the editor you are reporting has violated WP:NPA several times after being warned, and even called a respected member of the community a liar. I've asked an administrator [2] to consider banning the disruptive editor. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 06:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

72 hour block as of 07:02, April 11 2007 (UTC). — Æ. ✉ 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Update: This article seems to be calm. I don't see any major problems with it. I suggest closing this one. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Cause (1) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Resolved.

• Common Cause (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 208.201.146.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

Yes, the reported IP does appear to belong to the subject. Yes, the subject is repeatedly removing maintenance tags placed by User:Xinoph. [3], [4], [5]

Search results: for 208.201.146.137

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

208.192.0.0 - 208.255.255.255

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

208.201.146.128 - 208.201.146.255

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

I've made some edits. Bearian 17:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Cause (2) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

→ See also: 3rd section in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8

• Common Cause (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 208.201.146.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Anonymous IP address 208.201.146.137, owned by the organization Common Cause, has continued to edit the article Common Cause despite a previous warning. They have also removed the maintenance tag unilaterally again, violating separate rules. XINOPH | TALK 20:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I put up a kindly warning notice on the user's talkpage (link above), assuming good faith. Bearian 18:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

No edits by user NHSmail since the single April 11 edit, one day before this report. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Rolled back, NPOVed, and full protected for 1 week. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No edits by user Coryseborg since the day before this report. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

I've changed the templates and semiproted the article for 1 week. Durova^Charge! 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

No edits by user Lee haber8 since the day before this report. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Stoner

• Tim Stoner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

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

No edits by user Stonertim since April 15. I don't know if anyone ever responded to his question in his last edit summary here. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

No edits by user Rwexler since three (and only) edits, one day before this report. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Agent 51 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

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

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

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

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

No edits by user Khoury since two days before this report. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Erika Manoni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Erikamanoni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - she's the only relevant contributor to the article, and it's her only contribution. --Εξαίρετος (msg) 17:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The {{db-bio}} tag was removed the next day. User Erikamanoni has not edited since January 2007. — Athænara ✉ 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Beki Bondage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Stargtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User claims to represent members of the band Vice Squad [6] and has been making NPOV edits. Nardman1 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • User has also violated the MOS and 3RR after warnings. Nardman1 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Things are much worse than that. Stargtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has said:

• Please stop reverting this - I represent Beki and you are not authorised to do this ! Beki wants this page left alone THANKS [7]
• please PLEASE contact me - you are messing up my life - how can I contact you ? This is unfair - would you like your partners details put all over the web ? How you sow , so shall you reap ! CONTACT [8]

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

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

• As of today, user is still violating WP:COI and WP:OR and is engaging in edit warring by removing properly sourced material "because it's wrong" and because he doesn't want his girlfriend's birthday in Wikipedia [9]. Nardman1 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• User claims the Foundation told him he can remove the material from the article [10]. Given discussion at ANI that says Beki Bondage is no longer quite the public figure she was in the 70's and inclusion of the birthday isn't warranted, I won't fight this editor on that point anymore. It should still be noted this is a single-purpose account with a COI though. Nardman1 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• I've left a message on Stargtr's User_talk inviting him to join the discussion here vis a vis EdJohnston's suggestion. It seems to me deleting the article might be the best way to prevent (temporarily, at least, someone's bound to recreate it if it is deleted) the unwanted content from being added back in. Since StarGtr indicated he was communicating with MUZE (the source), I assume he's attempting to get the info unpublished. A deletion might buy him the time he needs? Assuming it can be done. All theoretical. Wysdom 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I would love Beki's article to be deleted...period.

But reading this - everyone seems to be saying it will just be re done by someone else at some point... Put these words in-order ( losing , fighting, battle , a ).

Why am I so passionate about this ??

It would be an understatement to say I was pissed off and feel violated and helpless ! Basically I don't want my partners DOB made public thats really the crux of the matter. I don't want to easily arm the press and the music industry (who are often judgemental bastards and love being 'ageist') with her personal details.

We want her year of birth removing and not re publishing. Is that too much to ask in this day and age ? Some of you guys ( and partners ) must understand that ? I was brought up well..and revealing a womans age is downright rude in my opinion.

To me Ageism is similar to Racism and Sexism - a persons rights AND personal privacy should be respected I think.

My reasons for wanting deletion..?

First - we have had crackpots threatening to publish personal details,where we live etc and defraud using DOB / POB thru various means ( in the UK this can be done ).

Second ( do I need one ? ) - The Wiki article comes up near-top ranking when her name is Googled and most magazines and show promoters go straight to Wiki and copy the first thing they see which is downright upsetting to see in print / online. SO, ideally I'd love to have her Wiki article wiped forever or at least have the year of birth removed and made so it cannot be re published. I know that I could'nt remove all online articles ( I am in process of talking to Muze and many others ) and anyone digging deeper would find her personal details but as i say Wiki is first port-of-call for most writers.

In the meantime if one of you kind people would remove the year of birth link on her page I'd be so grateful.

Thanks for listening and showing sympathy / support.

That means alot CHEERS. Stargtr 16:49, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth has been gone for a week. — Athænara ✉ 03:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Robert Garfias (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Rgarfias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  

Extensive autobiographical editing by article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No edits by user Rgarfias since April 11, five days before this report. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No edits by user Screwfix since April 12, four days before this report. — Æ. ✉ 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Cannabis

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

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

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

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

[edit] Robin the Raver (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Robin the Raver (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

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

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

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Treacy

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

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

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

[edit] Catanich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user recently placed a large number of advertisement-type articles on Wikipedia. In this diff it acknowledged being a public relations firm and indicates that it intends to create articles about its clients. As a new admin I want to report this first and discuss course of action. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just block on sight. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Century1901 (talk • contribs). MER-C 03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the account. The account contested speedy deletes of ads - er, uh, articles - created. I assume this contesting can be overridden under these circumstances. Talk pages generally contain discussion involving a user claiming the article is spam and explaining the speedy delete plus a contesting of the speedy delete. Should the Talk pages of the articles be kept as a "record of a deletion discussion not logged elsewhere", or should they be deleted as well? Thanks. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: Right now all articles created by this user have contested speedy delete tags and all edits to existing articles have been reverted. Awaiting guidance on how to handle talk pages (above) before proceeding with deletes. --Shirahadasha 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

They're all copyvios. We can't have them. Delete away. By the way, the block should have been indefinite. We don't want paid PR firms creating vanispamcruftisement around here. MER-C 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of overreaction of the editors. This was a person that did his imput for the first time. Instead of offering him advise on where he could go to get instructions, the wiki editors violated the very foundation of wiki.

I thought there was a policy against jumping on beginners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.185.90 (talk • contribs) 18:56, May 22, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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

It could go back. Having improved the article is a legitimate reason, but that editor simply removed the tag and word "auspicious" from the intro [11]. Tearlach 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. — Æ. ✉ 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's been somewhat improved, so I removed the prod, but it's still marginal and I'm thoroughly sick of it—a performance artist notable only in the most fringe of fringe art circles in a few non-English-speaking countries. I've taken it off my watchlist, leaving it to other NPOV editors who are willing to look after it. — Athænara ✉ 11:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think he passes WP:N, but I am concerned with internal spamming [12], such as this one I deleted.[13] Tyrenius 07:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

→ See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive228#Superdeterminism and Archimedes Plutonium

• Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Wikipedia article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder ^talk 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Wikipedia gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/- Warren 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewonder ^talk 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will take a look and give a warning if warranted. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Both Afds (one, two) resulted in keep. — Athænara ✉ 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine ... but User:Superdeterminism participated in a highly COI way during the second AFD. I see that Jehochman put a warning on SD's talk page. Keesiewonder ^talk 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood (I wasn't disputing anything, merely added a factoid.) Is this section active or should it be archived? — Athænara ✉ 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Keesiewonder ^talk 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think we would get any sympathy at WP:AN/I if we asked for a block of User:Superdeterminism? The grounds would be making legal threats, and COI editing of his own article, in which the following edit seems to be pure vandalism (refusing to accept the verdict of the AfD that the article should be kept). The legal threats seem to be a little vague, however. On his Talk page he has been warned once for vandalism, once for COI, and once for a potential 3RR. EdJohnston 16:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

A thread has been opened at WP:AN/I about Archimedes Plutonium. Uncle G mentioned two specific legal threats in his ANI posting. Until now, people have not seemed to take this editor seriously as a disrupter, but if we continue that tolerance we'll have to put up with his antics indefinitely. You can of course add your own opinion to the thread at WP:AN/I. EdJohnston 15:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

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

RJASE1 ^Talk 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• 86.139.57.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 86.140.192.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

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

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

He hasn't edited for months. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

See also:

• Linksearch - janzuidhoek.net
  
• Linksearch - millenniummistake.net
  
• Linksearch - home.wanadoo.nl/janzuidhoek

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

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

Consensus there is against the link. All things considered, may this section be closed? — Athænara ✉ 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've also edited for better grammar and a NPOV. Don't take this personally, but ... the "edit war" resulted in incomprehensible text. Bearian 17:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Jeffrey Babcock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

Single purpose account for self-promotion. Violates WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:SPAM. Removed linkspam, issued block warning on user talk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durova (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

This user is back at it today - exact same behavior. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

And now he has a sockpuppet - PGG6327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). RJASE1 ^Talk 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanked his userpage and talkpage on primary account. RJASE1 ^Talk 05:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And also blanked the talk page on sockpuppet PGG6327 (talk · contribs). RJASE1 ^Talk 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Subsequent edits by above to McClafferty and Climb articles. — Æ. ✉ 06:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Speedy tag removed same day, Sinclair QL Software moved to List of Sinclair QL Software three days later. — Æ. ✉ 07:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Waterwise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• waterwise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

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

Concerned user has not edited in 11 days. Will archive at the end of the month. MER-C 11:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Pillania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) created
• Institute for Emerging Markets (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

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

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

[edit] Unicist Ontology of Evolution (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

→ See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicist ontology.

• Nbrown@unicistinstitute.org (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This user is creating articles that have to do with his own organization. They are promotional and filled with links to his website. See Unicist ontology of globalization and Unicist Ontology of Evolution IrishGuy ^talk 19:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Unicist ontology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Off to AFD they go. MER-C 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: all three articles have been nominated in a single AfD, to help save you keystrokes. EdJohnston 00:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:UBX/Vojvodina (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Template is trying to be deleted by a politically motivated user, User:PANONIAN, who has a long list of such "provocative" templates on his userpage, supporting the agressors of all the recent bloody wars, like Palestine or Tamil Eelam. Not more provocative template, than those on his userpage. Should be watched for a while. --91.120.64.192 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not have provocative templates on my user page - the only thing that I wrotte on my page is that I support "aims of the people" and I do not see what could be provocative in that - I did not wrote that I support independence, wars or anything similar. On the contrary, "support independence of Vojvodina" is indeed an example of provocative template. PANONIAN (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You do have. "Supporting the aims of the people" is the same as "supporting the independence of", since the aims of those people is the independence, and those people are making a war to reach their goals. UBX/Vojvodina is the absolute same. --91.120.64.192 21:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The aims of the people could be also peace and prosperity (or do yo want to say that people do not want to live in peace?). The fact is: I did not wrotte word "independence" and you did wrotte this word and the worst thing is that you support independence of territory in which majority of its citizens do not support it. PANONIAN (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You know what are their aims. Don't play the fool. --91.120.64.192 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal insults. PANONIAN (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PANONIAN, if you don't agree you don't blank it. You put {{tfd}} at the top and then follow the rest of the process. 91.x, removing proper tfd tags is vandalism. You can make your argument on the tfd page once it's properly listed. Either way, I don't see how there is a conflict of interest here, unless PANONIAN is an agent of the government that Vojvodina is trying to gain independence from... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 21:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to continue the userbox wars. No evidence of COI. MER-C 04:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Robles (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Article created by User:Steverobles, only main cotributor to this article, plus this is the only article this user has created. Tagged with coi, notability questionable. Wizardman 04:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like an ideal case for one of my vanispamcruftisement prods. MER-C 05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User Ray4VP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Resolved.

• Linksearch for ray4vp website
• Raymond Louis McKinney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article is the result of a single edit by Ray4VP (talk · contribs), who claims to be Raymond McKinney and to be campaigning for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination. Jpers36 13:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Article was deleted, but this user seems to also be adding his website links to various election articles. But those pages are watched by a lot of people and I am sure they will keep on top of them. Russeasby 15:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Little Green Footballs (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Resolved.

• Dragula (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This appears to be a single purpose COI account. I am especially concerned about this edit [14] pointed out by User:Callmebc here[15]. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 17:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That edit was nearly eight months ago, but user Dragula is still a very active COI SPA. — Athænara ✉ 04:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Even though I did point this out, I don't think the concern should be so much for Dragula as to the "Team" he makes reference to. Note very well who was the first person to respond to LGF's complaint about the LGF wiki entry. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 12:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I should point out another connection between LGF and Alabamaboy. Many of my prior complaints about Alabamaboy were about him not responding to any of my questions about how he got involved in the Killian documents dispute. With that in mind, go check the time and date of this complaint by LGF owner Charles Johnson in regards to me personally [16] (with some exaggeration, as in claiming I had "written at least ten thousand words") and then go check when Alabamaboy first joined in on the Killian dispute [17] (and note well how the same exaggeration of "10,000 plus words" is repeated.) Ipso facto. -BC aka Callmebc 16:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly, I monitor blog mentions of Wikipedia and read a number of blogs. I read that post on the Footballs site and then checked out article's talk page, where I found that you were violating a number of WP policies and guidelines. I've stated this publically, so please don't act like this is some secret evidence of a COI.--Alabamaboy 23:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please -- I've found two instances where an LGF posted complaint about Wikipedia was immediately followed by you doing something about it. And let's not forget that for all the times you claimed that I was "violating a number of WP policies and guidelines," you never did quite manage to point out how and why despite my many, MANY requests for you do so, even here [18]. If someone waddles like a right winger with an agenda, quacks like a right winger with an agenda, disingenuously lies like a right winger with an agenda, then.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

BC, I appreciate your skills and participation. However, do consider that this isn't a your're-either-for-me-or-against-me situation. Wikipedia is a multi-polar world where each editor has their own point of view. I don't think Alabamaboy isn't part of an LGF team.

Sorry, his behavior combined with the links says otherwise. Even before I found the links, his attitude and behavior betrayed him. At this point, I'm pretty fed up with all this nonsense. If it wasn't for my sometimes misbegotten sense of responsibility, I would have washed and scrubbed my hands of all this a while back. As far as "Dragula" goes -- it's laughably improbable that he isn't an LGFer given his edit history, especially with his comment, That's one edit every 40 minutes since the LGF webmaster posted his linked article about "Wikipedia's Fatal Flaw" to on Wednesday afternoon - WAY TO GO TEAM!!!! If it was truly a "mea culpa" as he contends now, he had plenty of opportunity to have edited it out way back when, but was there right up until "CWC" (him again) archived everything on October 16, well over a month since he made the comment.[19]

I have little interest in what goes on at the LGF wiki aside from the Killian references, but it's kind of obvious that it's been "massaged" to present the best possible image of LGF -- there isn't even a mention or reference to "LGF Watch" [20] in either the main page or the discussion. Whatever.... -BC aka Callmebc 05:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Callmebc, If you go a little further back in the discussion page for this entry you will see that it at one time included quite a lengthy list of sites connected to and/or created in reaction to LGF, both favorable and critical. For example, LGF Watch, the LGF Quiz, etc. The problem was that the presence of critical external links seemed to provoke so many hit and run vandalisms to the entire entry that it started to seem not worth it to keep restoring then.

I discussed this with various other editors. One whose name I can't recall finally removed the entire list of "related sites" both pro and con, arguing that it was getting too long, that links to blogs were not encyclopedic anyway, and that the presence of so many citations of and references to establishment media news sources (e.g., the WaPo, the NYT, etc) had largely rendered these superfluous.

That argument struck me as sound. Hard quotes from reliable (non-blog) sources seemed like the best standard to adhere to moving forward especially since the entry has been object of such sustained attention from LGF members themselves.

Perhaps you think (as I do) that links to LGF Watch and the LGF Quiz would be appropriate - also links to the LGF Dictionary and a few others as well. The problem here is that the first two will be have to be restored on a near-daily basis - thats just been the history of this entry.

If anyone has a solution to this I would sure like to hear it!

best

Dragula 08:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Our first step is to draw attention to what looks like a COI single purpose account (SPA), namely the one reported here. This is like untying a knot. We have to pull loose one thread, then we see what to do with the rest of them. What should we do about this particular user? There is potential for a lot of POV pushing here. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 02:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It is troubling that User:Dragula seems to edit only this one article. A sampling of a few of his edits does show that he has some understanding of WP policies, and a few times he has replaced partisan wording with more neutral wording. If you go to Talk:Little Green Footballs and do a search on his name, you'll get the flavor of his participation, which is not at all bad. Here's one comment I liked:

Following the general Wiki guideline/admonition to "be bold" i have removed most unsourced claims from the page; LGF has generated enough media attention over the years that there are plenty of legit news refs we can use instead. Please review and let me know what you think. (16 March, 2007)

Here and here I noticed some evidence that he tries to work diplomatically with other participants on the Talk page. Does anyone have time to study the Little Green Footballs page for overall neutrality? I see the article includes a number of critical comments about the LGF site. The reference list looks like it could be expanded to bring in more reliable sources, though there are some already. EdJohnston 03:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello folks, in recent years there have been numerous posts to LGF directing members of that site to massage the POV of the LGF wiki article to remove critical information and insert promotional copy. Every time that happens, there is a huge incursion of unregistered editors who sprinkle questionable adjectives throughout the article (e.g., "Washington Post" becomes "radical far-left Washington Post") etc and then disappear, never to be heard from again.

I actually am fine with Johnson directing his users to do this - its a free country - the problem is that few of them seem to grasp issues like "original research" "incorrect synthesis" "NPOV" etc so the material they insert is almost always unencyclopedic.

That said, I may have been a little annoyed on the day that I made the "Way to go team" remark. I alluded to a recent wave of coordinated vandalism to this entry in a sarcastic manner when it was probably inappropriate to acknowledge it at all. So, mea culpa on that score.

RE: COI. I'm not a member of LGF . I enjoy maintaining this entry because of the challenges it presents (see above). For example, I recently clipped almost 8 paragraphs of original research and incorrect syntheses from this entry (please see history and discussion), including an entire paragraph of unsourced assertions RE: the Killian docs. My example in this instance was the another editor who goes by CWC, who first explained OR to me. It was a difficult concept for me to grasp at first but now that I understand it I do find it to be an interesting task to maintain this entry precisely because it is so controversial and does provoke a great deal of hit and run vandalism.

That said, if the participants in this discussion feel that my edits are not consonant with Wikipedia's policies - if they feel that the OR and Syn material I am clipping are in fact worthy of inclusion, or that the references I am citing are not, or whatever, I will certainly stop maintaining this page in deference to the wisdom of the group.

Dragula 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good answer to me, especially about the 'Way to go team' remark. Anyone else care to comment? EdJohnston 04:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with that answer. Dragula, you seem to be a valuable member of the project. You now understand that sarcasm isn't a good idea in Wikipedia because we have lots of people from different cultures who may not understand when a remark isn't earnest. If you notice any problems with conflict of interest editors abusing this article, please report them here, WP:COIN.

Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Alumniatlas (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Resolved.

• Linksearch for alumniatlas.com
• 12.158.250.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Alumniatlas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - this user has been adding links to Alumniatlas.com to many articles of athletes --AW 21:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • The links appear to have been reverted. The user has stopped adding them. Adding spam links is blockable if he returns. Sam Blacketer 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

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

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Rangers A.F.C.

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

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

User Countyrangersfc redirected the article to County Rangers A.F.C. Note link above to AfD. — Athænara ✉ 06:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DeVry University DeVry University (history|watch this WP:BLP article|unwatch) [watch?]

See also:

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Soapboxing, possible disruption, possible deletion required
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive?

• DeVry University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• DiogenesRex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Codeplowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

DeVry Inc. Vandals and Spammers

I do not like to use the word vandals or Spammers but this is a clear case of conflict of interest, Users Vagary,Parzival418, Otterzero, just created user Jenneblair, X42bn6 and some other IPs are vandalizing and Trolling against Codeplowed and The Talk:Devry University i.e. the Talk page of Devry University entry. As I don't see any problem in that a member(s) or employee(s) or an institution representatives edit pages, I see a conflict of interest when they accused, threat with legal action, vandalize a page and /or a user, simply because they do not agree with her/him. It is uncivil when they see that verifiable information has been presented and then need to be cover-up the dirt from our eyeballs. For example, Parzival418 has archived many times, for not apparent reason, even he ever has contributed as an editor on the page, but then he decides to archive the discussion and in the process has deleted GFDL material that otherwise that it has been in good faith posted under this License. User X42bn6 has attacked, treated and accused Codeplowed instead of following the discussion and has deleted this GFDL material many times from the discussion page, again adding banners and harassing Codeplowed with warnings and threats to be banned forever of Wikipedia and writing about him all over the place it seem, only because, Codeplowed as User X42bn6 stated called him Digimon and does not write what he think he is right.. Vagary is a user that seems to be socket-puppettering with or under the name of jenneblair or perhaps also with Otterzero who in turn has deleted many times contributions entirely and has launched a personal vendetta and personal attacks towards any of the editors that do not agree with what he has to write about DeVry Inc, just because he is currently working in there as he mentioned it in the Talk page, but probably, this is also lost because the new trolling tactic of archiving the discussions frequently and then state that the entry reflects a partial backup and so it could be incomplete. DeVry Inc.'s marketers only one links from Google and they of course want them free especially from Wikipedia and this does not has nothing to do with love for the way we create content and ultimately means not respect for Wikimedia and its noble goals, even for Google whose slogan appears to be "don't do evil." I think. -vivere est cogitare 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC) -vivere est cogitare 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DiogenesRex (talk • contribs).

Disagree. I do not have an affiliation to this University and I am based in the United Kingdom. Let me respond to these allegations:

• None of us have threatened legal action against anyone regarding this issue. No legal threats should always be followed.
• Stuff on Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, true, but there is nothing wrong with deleting information. We do it all the time via articles for deletion.
• Verifiable information is always good but User:Codeplowed never produced sources for the soapboxing rant on the talk page, and when I told him I was switching the source because 10-K was a chunk of text that was impossible to find information regarding the citation on it.
• That rant did not need to be discussed. I thought of it as uncivil and a personal attack - which was why I removed it. Several times.
• Under the warning policy, users are entitled to give warnings to other users as long as they are truthful - User:Codeplowed did it to me as well, even though I feel they are in bad faith and unsubstantiated.
• User:Codeplowed did refer to me as a Digimon and that is name-calling. I have thick skin so I am not too bothered about it.
• You are assuming bad faith and harassing User:Vagary by accusing him of sockpuppetry. Editing the same article does not constitute sockpuppetry.
• User:OtterZero may be related or affiliated with DeVry University but under WP:COI it does not stop him from editing the article (although it is discouraged). Users with conflict of interest are allowed and certainly encouraged to discuss on the talk page.
• Links from Wikipedia have nofollow enabled so the Pagerank can't be inflated. However, all articles should have external links to them especially to their official websites. DeVry University is notable and a webpage is useful for readers.
• What Google thinks is none of Wikipedia's business unless the Foundation warrants it.

I also suspect that this is a sockpuppet of User:Codeplowed. x42bn6 Talk 21:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

x42bn6 has it about right. What we have here is a group (assuming good faith) of users who have a distinct point of view regarding DeVry who are reacting poorly to the results of an RFC in which several new users have joined the discussion and moved the article towards NPOV. There has been productive discussion on the talk page with regards to moving the article in that direction, punctuated by accusations of vandalism, COI and various other issues. I strongly suggest that editors such as User:Codeplowed and User:DiogenesRex join the discussion in a productive and positive manner to move the article forward, rather than continue to declare the actions of their fellow editors as vandalism. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AN/I#Disruptive? and WP:WQA#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University for related talk. x42bn6 Talk 21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad Faith COIN report, per WP:POINT, plus other problems. Administrator help needed. I concur with User:x42bn6 and User:Tony Fox that there is no significant issue of Conflict of Interest here. I am uninvolved with the article and only came into this when I responded to help out after reading the report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University. Another report had also been placed at WP:RFC/ECON and is still listed there today. When a couple editors showed up from that, within a day the situation improved. But then, User:Codeplowed became aggressive, changed editors' comments on the talk page, deleted talk page headers, disrupted archives and placed multiple warnings and unintelligible comments on user pages. The full story is at the above linked Wikiquette report.

This COIN report was placed by User:DiogenesRex who has very few edits and may be a sockpuppet of User:Codeplowed. This is not the forum for sock-puppet issues, so I won't list that evidence here. The point is there have been four reports already and the disruptions are continuing.

The COIN report is not needed and should be immediately closed . We need an administrator to take a look at the actions of User:Codeplowed / User:DiogenesRex . I'm not even sure that user is acting in bad faith, all I know for sure is he seems very upset and his actions have been widely disuptive for several editors. There has been minimal response to the postings at WP:ANI, probably due to the backlog there. (I did not post those reports, though I did add my comments). I'm not sure where to take this next, perhaps to the main board at WP:AN. If an administrator is reading this, please take a look at the linked reports and the behavior of this user, or if you prefer, you are welcome to contact me for more information. --Parzival418 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There is no properly documented conflict of interest here, and I do see a balanced article at DeVry University. The article has recently got better, and I see many good contributions at Talk:DeVry_University#Request_for_Comments. There is a 'Controversy' section in the article with some well-cited critical information. So in general, this article is not being run over by promoters or advertisers, and I suggest that this COI item be closed.

I notice the possibility of some disruptive editing, but that editor is not currently stopping the improvement of the article. I sympathize with the AN/I postings at (#) as well as (#). and if an administrator wants to take action on those, I wouldn't object. An administrator might consider warning the submitter of this COI on his Talk page about his activities on the article and the article Talk. The only problem with the two AN/I postings is that they're not quite specific enough in terms of blockable offences. EdJohnston 02:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this and posting your comment. I agree with you this COI should be closed, that the RfC helped the article, and that the reports are not at this time specific enough for blocking. I'm not even sure a block is needed, a warning from an admin would be a good start. But not just for User:DiogenesRex who posted this report, because most of the trouble came from User:Codeplowed and they may be the same person. Mostly I think he does not even realize his edits to other's comments are disruptive. He doesn't seem to quite understand what's going on, or maybe English is not his first language. Both of those user-ids have the same confusing writing style, disruptive edit patterns, both sign with Latin names and sent consecutive related messages to me on my talkpage. The one thing I know for sure is I don't have the ability to solve those problems at the article talk page. The current version seems OK, because the disruptive editor has repeatedly edited away comments he didn't like, so it's in temporary stasis. But the history shows lots of edit-warring and editing of others' talk page comments, plus vandalism on multiple editor's user pages.

Well, as I said, I have no agenda for that page. I came there to help and found myself harrased. I don't have the time or desire to search through the diffs and create a detailed complaint, so I'm backing off. I hope things work out for the article in question. --Parzival418 03:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: The article's NPOV is apparently in good shape, but continuing disruption by COI SPAs DiogenesRex and Codeplowed may need to be addressed elsewhere. — Æ. ✉ 07:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI SPAs DiogenesRex and Codeplowed

→ See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive235#Codeplowed sockpuppets

• DiogenesRex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - filed false/bad faith COI/N report:

→ Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8#DeVry University

• Codeplowed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - requested DeVry be protected:

→ Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#DeVry University

• See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Request for editors for the DeVry article

Continuing disruption by DiogenesRex and Codeplowed, two single purpose accounts driven by conflict of interest, may need to be addressed elsewhere. I am adding this report here to fix noticeboard attention on that real issue: not the alleged lack of neutrality of the DeVry article as previously alleged by one of them but the COI of these two aggressive SPAs. — Athænara ✉ 08:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A Request for Checkuser has been filed for this editor. If you open up that report, you'll see an extensive summary, with diffs, concerning this editor's problematic activities. EdJohnston 16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And Confirmed. Sockpuppets blocked indefinitely, main account for 1 month. MER-C 09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sterling Johnson Jr. (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Sterling Johnson Jr. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I tagged this article before I logged myself in. I said the article read like a résumé, but it doesn't just read like one, it IS one. Only one user has edited it (probably the person who it was about) and that user seems to have only edited that one article. Atruea 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Atruea 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also a copyright violation. I've tagged it with the appropriate CSD notice. JavaTenor 23:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

'Tis a federal court website, so the content is public domain. MER-C 08:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The article's been rewritten now, so it's a moot point, but there's a copyright notice at the bottom of the page in question, which I assumed was applicable. I agree that it seems odd for a court's website to be copyrighting its content, though. JavaTenor 18:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The copyright notice there is indeed weird, but content created by the U.S. federal government is public domain as a matter of law. In any event, there is no longer a COI issue here (if there ever was), so I suggest closing this thread. Newyorkbrad 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)