Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
/* Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) {{coi-links|Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)}}, Crisscross {{coi-links|Crisscross}} and Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (1) {{coi-links|Nic
Line 154: Line 154:
::::Also, I'm not sure if it's just me but I'm uncertain exactly what you meant with this sentence, "I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way", are you telling Sparkzilla to not make any edits whatsoever related to any of these articles, or are you telling him he can make edits to the Metropolis and Crisscross articles, as long as he doesn't make references to CC/Metro/Devlin in other articles? [[User:Heatedissuepuppet|Heatedissuepuppet]] 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Also, I'm not sure if it's just me but I'm uncertain exactly what you meant with this sentence, "I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way", are you telling Sparkzilla to not make any edits whatsoever related to any of these articles, or are you telling him he can make edits to the Metropolis and Crisscross articles, as long as he doesn't make references to CC/Metro/Devlin in other articles? [[User:Heatedissuepuppet|Heatedissuepuppet]] 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Clarifying the last bit: editing on the central articles is okay if done carefully. Editing on other articles in edits that have ''no connection'' to CC/Metropolis/Devlin is also okay. It's the edits in other articles I have a bigger problem with. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
:::::Clarifying the last bit: editing on the central articles is okay if done carefully. Editing on other articles in edits that have ''no connection'' to CC/Metropolis/Devlin is also okay. It's the edits in other articles I have a bigger problem with. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
::::::Mangojuice, I disagree with your conclusions and '''I hope that another editor will give their view of this problem as well'''. I do not think Sparkzilla's edits to Metropolis/Crisscross etc have been ok. [[User:Heatedissuepuppet|Heatedissuepuppet]] 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say, whatever the issue, the above comes into the territory of loser-length posts. Summarise the problem in a couple of lines. If that's not possible, chances are it doesn't exist. [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say, whatever the issue, the above comes into the territory of loser-length posts. Summarise the problem in a couple of lines. If that's not possible, chances are it doesn't exist. [[User:Tearlach|Tearlach]] 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
:Guy, it's called "evidence", and your last sentence doesn't even make sense.
:Guy, it's called "evidence", and your last sentence doesn't even make sense.

Revision as of 09:40, 26 May 2007

    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:Ada Aharoni
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Thandeka (minister)
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn


    Possible autobiographies found by bot

    • User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

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

    → See also: Linksearch for *.tiraspoltimes.com

    → See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria, an Arbcom case that does not involve User:MarkStreet but mentions the Tiraspol Times

    Sockpuppeteer User:MarkStreet who is editor of Tiraspol Times, confirmation of identity to Jayig (at that time, the link http://tiraspoltimes.com/aboutus.html mentioned MarkStreet's name with a link back at his Wikipedia userpage), known also with the name Mark us street, with known sockpuppets Henco, Esgert, Truli, Buffadren is edit-warring for long time in Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, one of main activities being to include refference at his webpage "Tiraspol Times" in Wikipedia [1], defending the credibility of "Tiraspol Times" [2], voting for the inclusion of a link to "Tiraspol Times" [3] and in general promoting in Wikipedia the POV of necesity of international recognition of Transnistria's independence like "Tiraspol Times" is doing (note: Tiraspol is the capital of Transnistria). I consider that a conflict of interest exist and MarkStreet/Buffadren and all his sockpuppets should be banned to edit Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia.--MariusM 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put the link on COIBot's monitor list and blacklisted MarkStreet against the link. I guess blacklisting all the sockpuppets against the link is going to be useless. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Block as many sockpuppets as you can. Bearian 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    MarkStreet is not anymore an active account, his style is to drop old accounts when he accumulate blocks on them and start new sockpuppets.--MariusM 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of them are banned now: Buffadren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Britlawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To be seen by the future clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.8.146 (talk • contribs) 19:25, May 16, 2007 (UTC)

    The new Signpost says that User:MarkStreet is one of the editors who is proposed to be banned in the pending Arbcom action, though they must have inside information, because this fact is not yet visible in the Arbcom case status. Since Arbcom seems to have the situation well in hand, this might be an argument that the COI Noticeboard ought to close this case. MarkStreet claims to be the editor of Tiraspol Times, though he has not edited since October, 2006. A ban of MarkStreet would imply that all his sockpuppets would also be blocked by any administrator, and any actions by the puppets could be reverted with impunity by ordinary editors. Your comments are invited as to whether we should keep this open at COI/N. EdJohnston 20:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA)

    The three articles describe recently published psychology tests that all have as an author Ronnie L. McGhee. This person's initials coincide with those of RLM2007. Both RLM2007 and 168.10.112.2 have added multiple links to these tests to psychology, counselling and speech-language articles, for example including the tests as "prominent examples" (a phrase that was there already).[4]. RML2007's edits appear to have a single purpose at present.

    I wrote a note on RLM2007's talkpage inquiring if they were McGhee and pointing to the conflict of interest and spam guidelines. There has been no response and indeed another article was created and the link adding has continued unabated. I note that RLM2007 signed as Carol Phillips School Psychologist, at one point, however.[5] I would be glad of some advice and help at this point. Slp1 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged all three articles with {{COI}} and {{advert}}. They all deserve {{db-spam}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. Now that I have some confirmation that I am not being overly negative about these additions, I will go through some of the articles they have changed and revert some of the more gratuitous spam links and references. And change some the extensive page redirects to more appropriate destinations? Once again, any comments or advice welcomed --Slp1 14:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the COI SPAs also redirected existing articles to their corporate vanity pages; you did well to revert them. I listed the associated images and a redirect to the deleted article, and placed a link to the AfD at the top of this section. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gerry Cohen (director) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    This appears to be an autobiography of Theguvnorgc, and I have notified the User of my suspicions. The user's name seems to be a contraction of The-governor-Gerry-Cohen. This may also be the use of a sockpuppet. Bearian 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This article appears to have been created and/or edited by its subject, Sting International (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shaun is also known as Sting International, according to the article. Bearian 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've prod'ed the article and left a uw-coi warning for the editor. That's what to do in simple cases like this. If prod fails, then AfD. If the editor persists, an administrator may issue a block. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article created by chiefmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Started adding links to own magazine after finishing article.

    Links have been fed to the bots, link-additions have been reverted. The article has a {{coi2}} and a {{notability}}, though I do expect that it is notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added some rules to COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nearly all of the content of the Lerach article had been copied wholesale from the subject's law firm website. I removed that. What's left is a {{lawyer-stub}}. — Athaenara ✉ 18:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?], Crisscross (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (1) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    1) created two articles directly related to the company in which (s)he linked to the company/magazine [6][7]. (S)he inserted links and references to Metropolis/Japan Today/Mark Devlin in several other articles as well:[8][9][10]Puts Crisscross news above Kyodo(!!)[11][12][13]
    2) Has been removing "negative" material from these and other articles related to either Metropolis, Crisscross or Mark Devlin. Removal of poorly sourced/unsourced "negative" claims: [14][15][16][17][18][19]. Removal of unsourced "negative" material, which probably should have been fact-tagged: [20][21]. Removal of "negative" well-sourced material: [22][23][24].
    3) Repeatedly drew attention to how allegedly large/important said companies/products are, in listed articles: [25][26][27][28][29] (see also point 1)
    4) Removed "notability", "advertisement", "primary sources", "importance", "unreferenced", "fact" and "merger" (prior to any discussion) tags from said articles: [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42]. In no more than 2-3 of these reverts did (s)he actually post on the talk page. Also closed a merger proposition after only 4 days of silence [43], instead of 10, as WP:MERGE specifies.
    5) Voraciously defended the Metropolis article from deletion: VfD/Metropolis
    6) Has written extensively on the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article, despite that Mark Devlin is seriously involved in the whole situation, and referred to Mark Devlin several times. (reverted somebody with the rationale "Unlike you, Devlin is a leading, published critic of the case")[[44]] [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]: [56][57][58]
    7) Edit warred extensively on listed articles(see most of above links), but especially on Nick Baker (too much to list every single instance, see [59], it stretches back to December 2005). Showed, and continues to show serious WP:OWN issues.
    (links in bold shows where (s)he reverted my own edits (bolded text is for emphasis only). The above link diff's are only a sample (!) of all the editing/rv-ing/edit warring Sparkzilla has done on listed articles)
    • Evidence that Sparkzilla is Mark Devlin (or closely associated to him):
    1) Nature of edits are very similar to 219.123.156.18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - an IPwhois traces this IP to "Crisscross KK", which at the very least shows there IS somebody at Crisscross who is prepared to ignore his/her own bias and position when it comes to these articles. Sparkzilla might be using a proxy now, but a checkuser might show that he too comes from "Crisscross KK"
    2) Mark Devlin's e-mail is "sparky@crisscross.com" [60]
    3) Mark Devlin refers to the Wikipedia Nick Baker article on his personal blog [61], and in another post, openly stated "We are happy to make corrections to our Wikipedia page" [62]
    4) ((very circumstantial but worth mentioning)) Forum postings on Fuckedgaijin (discussion board for expatriates in Japan). [63][64][65] (site is currently down but google cache exists (NOTE: might take a few minutes to load): [66][67][68]). By a poster called "Sparkzilla", relating to the whole Nick Baker situation, suggests he has been very much involved in the case (dates back to 2005). Also, Tribe profile "Sparkzilla". "Name: Mark. Country: Japan. Age:40". Dates back to 2004 [69] (changed since this CoI was posted, but see google cache [70]).

    Sincere apologies for the length of this report, but I really didn't want to leave out too much of the evidence..! Heatedissuepuppet 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phew! did you get all that? It is clear from the obsessive report above and from the user's history that Heatedissuepuppet (an SPA sockpuppet that was recently blocked for disruption [71] is not interested in improving Wikipedia articles, but is simply interested in attacking and exposing a particular user to influence content disputes. Heatedissuepuppet has made no constructive edits to any of the articles mentioned and is upset that poorly sourced defamatory information has been removed [72] Let my history of constructive edits, the notability of the articles, and the quality of the sources speak for themselves...
    • Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) survived AFD by 8-1[73]. Even so, Heatedissuepuppet insisted on adding notability tags multiple times to all Metropolis related pages, and continuied to do so after being told to discuss the issue on the article talk page. [74] The article has six external sources.
    Note also that Metropolis is a leading source of information about Japanese culture, arts and living. It has an archive of hundreds of features and commentaries about Japan going back 13 years. It is not unreasonable that relevant links to Metropolis articles should be included in some WP articles. If the magazine wanted to spam WP they could spam hundreds of articles rather than adding links to the handful of articles noted here. The intent here is obvious -- this editor dislikes Metropolis and wants no mention of it in Wikipedia.
    • Crisscross survived a merge discussion with Metropolis by 3-1. Editwarring over the closing of this discussion casued Heatedissuepuppet to be blocked. The editor nmisrepresents the time the discussion was open. It was closed after 5 days as policy dictates. Check here Talk:Crisscross. The article has six external sources [75]. Feel free to nominate it for deletion on notability.
    • The disputed section of Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) was the subject of a recent RFD (which I initiated) [76]. I have done many, many constructive edits to this page, including two major rewrites and finding/confirming almost all the sources for the page. I created an RFC for disputed text about the case [77] that only appears in a round-up article in Metropolis. The disputed text is curently not in the article. The current criticism of Baker's campaign by Devlin and Baker's MP [78] has two sources for each claim, and has been rewritten to take undue weight concerns into account. Mr Devlin, as the publisher of Metropolis [79], the No 1 English magazine in Japan, and Japan Today [80], the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world, has clear notability when making claims about a support group's attempt to mislead Japan's foreign community, and the media, about a Japan-related issue.
    The poorly sourced negative material that I removed is as follows:
    • Japantodaysucks.com. [81]. Obvious attempt to include defamatory domain. This site does not exist, it is not in Google, or on the Internet archive.
    • Japan Traveler: [82] Article does not exist on japantraveler.com website, Google, or Internet archive.
    • Tokyo Weekender [83]. Article that Heatedissuepuppet claimed backs up Japan Traveler claims actually proves Japan Traveler's unreliability. Comprehensive rebuttal with some 20 points why this source is not acceptable at the bottom of this page: Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)
    • Bogus claims and vandalism [84] [85][86] No editor would let any of these stand.
    I will accept, and have accepted, properly sourced information on any of these pages, but even if I was intimately involved with Metropolis, I would still be allowed to remove poorly sourced, libelous, defamatory claims. This is what the policy says:
    An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved.
    I do not think I should be penalised for upholding Wikipedia content policies.
    I am happy to give further details to interested editors on request, but please note that I will not respond to Heatedissuepuppet or David Lyons (a non-constructive Nick Baker supporter's SPA) here. I will not feed these trolls further. Thank you for your consideration. Sparkzilla 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outside observer, here's my take on the points raised by Heatedissuepuppet. First, I do think the evidence that Sparkzilla is either Mark Devlin or closely associated with him is very convincing. That said, point by point from Heatedissuepuppet's complaint:
    1. I don't think it's that bad a thing to have created the articles on Crisscross or Metropolis, and whatever happened earlier aside, they are relatively neutral and fair now. However, Metropolis' take on all sorts of other issues is promotion and inappropriate. I especially disapprove of edits like the creation of Omotesando Hills with Devlin's commentary included (which is still there). I don't know very much about the topic but I find it suspicious that this particular commentary is worthy of mention to the degree at which it is included. WP:COI discourages edits like this: see "Citing yourself." Similarly, the edit to japan is not appropriate.
    2. I don't blame Sparkzilla for any of these removals, I find those passages suspicious as well. Even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important. But this is part of the evidence that convinces me there's a connection between Sparkzilla and Devlin/Crisscross.
    3. I definitely have a problem with this. It is not on point to be promoting Metropolis in other articles by boosting its apparent importance, and given the conflict of interest, it is not appropriate. Again, see "Citing yourself" at WP:COI.
    4. I encourage Sparkzilla to try to address the complaints behind dispute tags like these via communication. However, several of these were justified removals. For instance, he removed the "Unreferenced" tag while adding 5 sources. He removed the "Advertising" tag when the article was definitely neutral in tone. Still, it's good to remind that these dispute tags are sometimes put up as a middle-ground compromise between editors who disagree, and for that reason it's important to be more responsive. As for the notability tag, I really don't think that's in the same category: that's sort of like a pre-deletion tag and doesn't truly call for any kind of change to the article... and when an AfD has already been run and has not resulted in deletion, it is no longer needed. As for the Merge request, I can't help but feel that the whole 4 days vs. 10 days point is pretty irrelevant, and a call for process for process' sake, but it shouldn't be edit warred over.. but then, I think this is a problem for both editors involved here.
    5. This happens all the time. I consider this good evidence that Sparkzilla is connected to the topic, but not problematic behavior in itself, I don't see any of the behavior there as disruptive.
    6. Apparently it is not part of the dispute whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant. So, I don't fault Sparkzilla for contributing on that topic, but...
    7. However, this is problematic. Sparkzilla, as a connected party, should appreciate that his perspective is too close to the events to make good editorial judgements, and back off, and remember that he doesn't WP:OWN the article on Nick Baker. Sparkzilla has eventually, seemingly, submitted to some outside input, but had been pressing an extensive amount of material from Metropolis / Devlin into the article. Sparkzilla should back off.
    Overall, I feel that it's clear there's a strong connection between Sparkzilla and Mark Devlin, Crisscross, and Metropolis, just from the edits, with additional points reinforced by Heatedissuepuppet's further evidence. Sparkzilla, you need to come clean about it: you do not need to acknowledge that you are any specific individual, but acknowledge that you are connected with these topics in real life. If you don't, you should just stop editing that relates to Metropolis or Devlin in any way. Second, Sparkzilla, you also must stop inappropriately promoting Devlin and Metropolis. It's one thing to edit the articles on Metropolis and Crisscross in line with policy (and I do think you've done okay in these areas, but should be communicative), but it's quite another to add external links or favorable wording to unconnected articles, and it's inappropriate to cite yourself in situations where the Metropolis coverage is not clearly noteworthy. It's an issue of WP:UNDUE weight on the coverage in your own publication. I am particularly concerned about this because Metropolis, despite being prominent in its small niche, is obviously a pretty low-level publication as things go in Japan, AND it's hard for most editors here on the English Wikipedia to understand the Japanese coverage (or even search in it!) which means that many mentions of Metropolis are probably inappropriate, and even more so when they're included by someone with a conflict of interest. If the Metropolis coverage is worth mentioning, let someone else be the one to include it: even then, I would imagine it's likely they're making a mistake by not being able to read the Japanese sources, but at least it won't look like a malicious choice. I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way. Consider this a wake-up call: you have made some valuable contributions but you have also been editing inappropriately and it needs to stop. Mangojuicetalk 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    MangoJuice, I do respect your assesment and your constant level-headedness, but I can't help but think you are far too lenient on Sparkzilla. If you go one page up (WP:COI), some of the very first sentences which greet you are: "... if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)". Can you see any evidence of "great caution" being exercised on Sparkzilla's behalf? I think a more approriate description of his behaviour would be "bulldozer-ish", if you excuse the colourful language.
    I do however largely agree with your comments, with the following reservations:
    1) See above quote, no evidence of any "great caution" being exercised.
    2) I agree that many of those reverts were completely legitimate, and I would have done them myself had I spotted them. But some of them were not... You say "even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important", that might be true too (for the whole Japan Traveller thing), but do you really think Sparkzilla, who has an apparent COI, should call the shots whether it should be included or not? If another editor had removed them, I wouldn't have had a problem with it (Note, I was not the first person to include them).
    4) I agree to what you say to some extent, but is removing a Merger-tag an hour after it was initially put there OK? The whole merger-closure thing (which got me blocked indef for "abusing multiple accounts"), personally I'm really tired of talking about it because I think it's far from the worst thing Sparkzilla has done, but the point in question is that there was no way of telling in which way the discussion would have went when only 4 people (one with a CoI, another one saying "perhaps not necessary") had expressed their opinions. I was also waiting for responses from other editors, and I did/do think there was a clear case for merger. Should Sparkzilla, with his apparent COI, be the one who closes it prematurely? Again, if somebody else had done it, my reaction would have been different.
    5) See the above quote. Do you think Sparkzilla exercised any caution whatsoever?
    6) It was a part of the dispute "whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant", but my mistake, I didn't include these link diff's [87][88][89][90].
    Also, I'm not sure if it's just me but I'm uncertain exactly what you meant with this sentence, "I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way", are you telling Sparkzilla to not make any edits whatsoever related to any of these articles, or are you telling him he can make edits to the Metropolis and Crisscross articles, as long as he doesn't make references to CC/Metro/Devlin in other articles? Heatedissuepuppet 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying the last bit: editing on the central articles is okay if done carefully. Editing on other articles in edits that have no connection to CC/Metropolis/Devlin is also okay. It's the edits in other articles I have a bigger problem with. Mangojuicetalk 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangojuice, I disagree with your conclusions and I hope that another editor will give their view of this problem as well. I do not think Sparkzilla's edits to Metropolis/Crisscross etc have been ok. Heatedissuepuppet 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry to say, whatever the issue, the above comes into the territory of loser-length posts. Summarise the problem in a couple of lines. If that's not possible, chances are it doesn't exist. Tearlach 01:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy, it's called "evidence", and your last sentence doesn't even make sense.
    And yeah, the evidence is extensive and pretty clear. Devlin's inserting of himself and his company into Omotesando Hills is particularly shameless. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, but ignoring "Please limit all statements to 200 words or less. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long, drawn-out speeches" reduces the chances of anyone bothering with the issue. Tearlach 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Tearlach, thanks for your concern, but it it will be apparent to anybody reading this report that it indeed is "violating" that statement, even without reading your comments. The apology I made in the first post should also have made it clear that even I was aware of it.Heatedissuepuppet 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, interesting edit made to the Tribe profile I posted above: There is no longer any mention of the name "Mark" in the profile, [91] which I can swear on my grandmother's grave there was before I posted this CoI report. Interesting to note that it was "last updated 05/18/07", and that the name "Mark" is still there in the Google cached version of the page. [92]. Not that I think any amount of covering-up is going to change the outcome of this report, it just strikes me as interesting. Heatedissuepuppet 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking through the articles and issues in question, would consider pretty well conclusive the evidence that Wiki's Sparkzilla is Crisscross' Sparky (Devlin), and that there has been COI editing happening since 2005. IMO the Wiki assumption of good faith has been repeatedly abused, suggest administrators would be acting in the best interests of the project to take action. RomaC 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (2) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    What is the policy when two of the major editors of an article have an undisclosed COI?

    David Lyons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - It is clear from his long history of edits on the article that David Lyons is an WP:SPA created by a member of the Justice for Nick Baker support group. His edits either remove negative information about Baker and/or push POV that Baker is innocent and that his cause is well-supported. His only other edits attack articles that reference Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), which was highly critical of Baker's campaign. Frankly, no-one other than a strong supporter or possible family member could be bothered supporting Baker/attacking Metropolis to the extent shown by David Lyons in this article.

    As an example, please note that the recently edited section "Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events. I have pointed out these out on the article talk page, [93]. Given his undisclosed COI I do not think it is fair for David Lyons to be able to edit the article directly while I can only respond on the talk page.

    I would like to propose that either...

    1. Even though we both have undeclared COIs, that we are both allowed to participate in this article directly OR
    2. David Lyons is also prevented from directly editing the article and that his edits are confined to the article talk page as mine currently are. Changes that are then agreed upon on the talk page can then be added to the article.

    Either of these options would restore balance of power to the editing process of the article, and stop the page from once again becoming a promotional tool for Baker's campaign. Thank you for your time. Sparkzilla 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal take: this isn't a conflict of interest. What you are concerned with here is POV-pushing which is different. Put simply, David Lyons may have a certain viewpoint and is editing with that viewpoint, but you haven't mentioned why it should be profiting him to do so or anything like that. That said, POV pushing is bad. Are there any neutral editors at the article? Mangojuicetalk 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no neutral editors. The history shows a balance of power between myself and David Lyons: he generally adds POV material and I correct it. Through this conflict a relatively neutral article has been created -- until now. As a member of Justice for Nick Baker it profits David Lyons by "getting the word out" and presenting Baker's case more sympathetically than it actually is. Baker's story was always suspect at best, and new evidence uncovered by Metropolis shows that the support group had actively misled the public about the facts of the case. COI policy notes this conflict of interest category:
    Campaigning
    Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.
    and
    Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.
    When David Lyons first brought up the idea of reporting me for COI, I told him that he also had a COI and that he should note this part of the policy...
    Conflict of interest in point of view disputes
    Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
    Rather than be accused of COI himself, he let User:heatedissuepuppet, a meatpuppet account, bring a COI against me. See the last paragraph here: [94].
    It is clear now that David Lyons is using the COI against me to get the upper hand to push the support group's POV. He should edit with respect to his COI. I look forward to a solution to this situation. Sparkzilla 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite his obvious COI, I have been trying to incorporate Sparkzilla's input into the article, and would direct interested editors here. Why Sparkzilla wants to confront the article combatively, talking about "getting the upperhand" is beyond me. For the record I have no connection with Heatedissuepuppet's account and at no point was (S)he ever shown to be a meatpuppet. Thanks David Lyons 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Clifford Williams (academic) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    I have tagged Clifford Williams (academic) and User_Talk:Clifford Williams, welcoming him along the way. He seems notable, but the article is a mess. I tried to be kind to an obvious newbie. Bearian 18:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    EServer.org (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Special:Linksearch/*.eserver.org

    Similar SPAs:

    See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#eserver.org and Wikipedia talk:External links#Links to online libraries. --Ronz 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The individual links appear to be customized to the specific article. However the fact there are already 322 links is alarming. I think we should insist that User:Geoffsauer stop adding the links until he gets a consensus that they are appropriate. EdJohnston 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a campaign. This is a high quality web resource that naturally attracts a lot of links. It would be classified as link bait. I don't think this is spamming. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, this is a classic COI spam campaign. User:Geoffsauer, some SPA's, and some IP's from Iowa create both the EServer.org and Geoffrey Sauer articles, edit them heavily, and add a bunch of eserver.org external links. It doesn't get much more straightforward than this. (Requestion 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Let's put away the torches and pitchforks. This appears to be an electronic library that makes literature available for free to the public. It's sort of like Project Gutenberg. I checked a few of the articles that contain these links, and I did not see an intentional linking campaign. Is see a large number of independent users citing this database from various articles and discussions. Example: [95] An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: [96] Enforcing COI is very important, but I think we need to be more careful to investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions.

    → (Interjected.)   The links which Ronz supplied in his initial report here, to specific WT:WPSPAM and WT:EL discussion sections, were intended to support that "investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions" process. — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Geoffsauer needs a friendly warning. I predict he will behave impeccably once he is informed. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 [97], and hasn't made a single COI edit since. He did do a few little fixes to clear up image licensing problems, but I don't see any problems with those edits. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That conclusion might be just a bit premature considering all the SPA's and IP's from Iowa. (Requestion 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    You could be right. Do you think you have enough of a case to ask for a checkuser? I don't see how to pursue this other than to look at each edit on the merits. (adding) I just checked all the edits after the December 13, 2006 warning for the reported SPA accounts: 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006 , 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There were no link drops that I could see. The users did correct a few links, possibly to fix broken links. There were some other gnomish edits. I still don't see anything sinister here. Can anyone provide a diff after Dec 13 to show there's a continuing problem? Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that a checkuser request will be denied because spam and COI violations are not severe enough reasons to bypass the privacy policy. I'll know more in a couple days after all 322 external link additions are tracked down. (Requestion 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I've tracked down some more socks and the current count is 249 external eserver.org link spams. The complete list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    I have found a couple more socks. The current count is 278 external eserver.org link spams. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
    Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 [98]. I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here [99] on Jan 18 2007. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    I started going down the list of 322 links found by this linksearch. As User:Jehochman has correctly observed, some of these links are to individual digitized books in the style of Project Gutenberg. I have no objection to these so long as they are appropriate to the article and are added with local consensus. Other links, such as the one that User:Geoffsauer added to our Technical communication article on in this edit on 28 March 2005, present a directory of links in a style reminiscent of DMOZ. I personally think that Sauer's Eserver link to http://tc.eserver.org should be removed from the Technical communication article, since Wikipedia is not a directory. In fairness, that article probably has more external links than it needs. If anyone has time, I suggest they randomly look at some other items found by the same linksearch and see what they think.

    This editor doesn't seem to be a bad guy, but the profusion of DMOZ-style directories raises a warning flag. EdJohnston 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Links to directories are not prohibited. Links to DMOZ are not prohibited. Links to categories in online libraries are not prohibited. Please see: Wikipedia talk:External links. Too many external links on a wikipedia page is what is discouraged. --Timeshifter 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some rules to COIBot (blacklisted/monitor). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits by this IP are troublesome: 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007 Shall we send Geoffrey Sauer a friendly email and ask him to look at this thread and explain? If he is using anonymous IP's in a sneaky way to add links, that's a real problem. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's fair. Also you might find out why he doesn't use his logged-in account when he adds links to Eserver or edits his own article. If he must do this, at least do it openly. EdJohnston 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately he hasn't enabled email. We seem to have a complex situation. Possible linkspamming and sock puppets, but the resource is somewhat worthy and has attracted some valid links. We probably shouldn't delete them all. We probably need to give fresh warnings before blocking because the old one is almost six months old. We also can't be sure that the sockpuppets are abusive. Maybe it's another person at the organization who's on dial up and doesn't have a Wikipedia account. How about we place {{uw-coi}} on all the fresh socks, and ask them to come here to comment? Maybe the user will help us solve this mystery. If not, we can start blocking. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The web page 'eserver.org' lists an email address for Geoff Sauer. EdJohnston 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Message sent. I've asked him to comment here. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I shrunk down the original set of 322 links to a more modest 14 links to be studied:

    1. http://antislavery.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.antislavery.eserver.org
    2. http://bad.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.bad.eserver.org
    3. http://clogic.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.clogic.eserver.org
    4. http://drama.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.drama.eserver.org
    5. http://elab.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.elab.eserver.org
    6. http://emc.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.emc.eserver.org
    7. http://feminism.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.feminism.eserver.org
    8. http://govt.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.govt.eserver.org
    9. http://history.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.history.eserver.org
    10. http://lectures.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.lectures.eserver.org
    11. http://mamet.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.mamet.eserver.org
    12. http://orange.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.orange.eserver.org
    13. http://poetry.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.poetry.eserver.org
    14. http://reconstruction.eserver.org - Special:Linksearch/*.reconstruction.eserver.org

    These 14 links provide 'web directories with commentary'. So they may run into the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Directory unless they are really notable enough to deserve articles in their own right. Having articles would require reliable third-parties to have commented on their value. (A couple of the above links are not directories, but actual web periodicals, like http://bad.eserver.org, which is an online journal called 'Bad Subjects'.)

    I am not sure we should be accepting the above 14 as external links, unless they are notable enough to have their own articles created. Especially we shouldn't keep them if Geoff Sauer is not willing to discuss the situation, because we'd like the Eserver people to acknowledge our policies and agree to cooperate with them. Your comments are welcome. EdJohnston 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The first resource on your list has Google PageRank of 6, and has attracted links from more than 1,000 different web pages, including many official university pages. This isn't run of the mill linkspam. See [100] for a list of who's linking to item #1. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it takes extraordinary effort to get a PR6. It's interesting that you mentioned the antislavery.eserver.org link. Today, I just found User:Jlockard, a university literature professor, who spent the majority of his edits adding or fixing 63 antislavery.eserver.org links. At first I wasn't sure if this was a spamming but the more I looked at the diffs the more I was convinced. Very little value was added to Wikipedia, mainly just a bunch of eserver.org external links. There was even a run-in with a spam fighter back in May 2006 but the spamming continued. This is a tricky situation. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    I read this discussion with interest, though I'm not a skilled Wikipedia user and don't feel qualified to contribute to the policy debate here about external linking. I'll respect your collective judgment about when external links are appropriate, and won't add any more without a clear policy decision that would encourage me to continue. In my judgment I have never added off-topic or poor-quality links to a Wikipedia entry, and would not do so. But I won't post here again, now that I see how my past contributions might be seen as self-serving. To clarify my past intent adding links to entries, as a professor of English with a speciality in technical communication I have edited entries and added links to online resources which I considered appropriate, as I understood it from my research, my reading of Wikipedia guidelines and existing entries. I don't know about an Iowa bias in posts about the EServer, though I do teach as many as 150 students per semester, all of whom use the site, and it may be that my students have posted some EServer-related entries. But I have never meant to injure Wikipedia's neutrality or credibility, and am concerned that anyone might consider my edits to have done so. I'll do my best, however, to answer any questions I can to clarify the reasoning behind any particular edits I have made.Geoffsauer 06:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for that explanation. It is very helpful. For the future, I suggest you refrain from linking to your resources from articles. Instead, if you want to suggest a link, place a comment on the article talk page and let somebody else make the decision whether to add it to the article. I am not sure what you can do to restrain eager young students from adding these links. Maybe others can advise. Also, we have a project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination that might be very useful to you. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article on controversial therapy being edited by Gerson's grandson, biographer and promoter. Tearlach 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Panel Foundation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    --maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    IP lookup results:
    • 64.204.217.21 -  Possible - same geographical area (New York), but too populated.
    • 89.56.164.199 and 89.56.133.222 - wrong side of the country.  Unlikely.
    • 203.234.169.3 - Red X Unrelated - South Korea.
    Be careful of 3RR. MER-C 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan Hoffman

    COIBot saw this link addition today. The overlap in names makes me think that Jhoffman6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Jhoffman6) is Jordan Hoffman (as his site describes: "He is a filmmaker and a licensed New York City tour guide, and blogs about various mundane aspects of his life (oftentimes working in Mr. Spock.)"). He apparently once created a page Jordan Hoffman, which has been deleted(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Jordan_Hoffman).

    Link additions reverted, monitored by COIBot and user notified. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Has now added Robert Roskamp. Philip Trueman 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Lesliejohn

    I've been trying to work with editor Lesliejohn, to let him know about our coi and spam policies. I'd like some help at this point since I don't think he understands, given his latest series of edits [101]. I'm guessing there's a language issue here, but not sure. --Ronz 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He doesn't seem to understand our copyright issues and the idea of a license. He's copyrighted his user page! Bearian 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Context for others: M. T. Yohannan was his Dad. Worthy chap - government worker and army chaplain - but the online bio doesn't suggest notability. Looks like an AFD candidate, WP:MEMORIAL for starters. The personal testimonial letters and pics he offers don't sound sufficient as sources. Tearlach 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I left him a friendly message and offered to help userify the material he's created, in case he wants to look for a neutral editor to review it. I also suggested that if he proceeds by himself, the article may be nominated for deletion. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Law Practice Today (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law Practice Today

    Borderline speedy. Some kind of deletion seems appropriate for this article. MER-C 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Original editor deleted speedy tag, as well as notability and advertisement tags, wikilawyered an excuse for csd-deletion on talk page instead of using hangon tag. Continues to attempt to bootstrap notability. THF 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. I have no idea what is the problem with the notability of this article. Its a trade magazine. I have edited it to make it as encyclopedic as possible. Category:Trade magazines There are plenty of other magazines like it for other professions. Eg - Legal Week, Conformity (magazine), Pulp and Paper, The Grocer, Golf Course News International, Editor & Publisher, MediaWeek. Are you saying that a trade magazine is not notable? Sure not? It is widely used and quoted in the legal community. I have documented it. Just ask a few lawyers if they have heard of it. I hardly see why this is bootstrapping anything. As to the advertising critique - well to begin with it was criticized for not being notable. Then I provided sources who quoted it as well as respected it. As soon as I do that, it's called advertising. Well how do I prove it notability without advertising it? Just so there is no confusion, I have no commercial or otherwise connection with this publication. Heliumballoon 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a lawyer and I haven't heard of it, though that's not the criteria for notability, nor is this the page to discuss notability. (Editor and Publisher and MediaWeek are plainly notable; but that doesn't make every other trade magazine notable.) But you're making outsized claims for notability: the Oklahoma Bar did not "recommend" Law Practice Today, their website listed it in an indiscriminate list of forty links that related to a particular subject without commentary. "Law.com" did not identify LPT as notable, an author's self-written and unedited bio in a different publication reprinted by Law.com did. And the fact that just about the only thing your account has done is implausibly push "Law Practice Today" (see WP:SPA) in multiple articles and remove legitimate tags in violation of Wikipedia policies is what is making people suspicious. THF 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A different editor needs to get involved in this, since the user has accused me of a conflict of interest, has personalized this, and is not going to be responsive to my attempts to correct the problem. THF 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point about the Oklahoma and Michigan bar associations merely listing and not recommending it and I have fixed that in the article. IMHO there is some ambiguity because at the top of the Oklahoma Bar Assoc page it says 'Prepared by the Oklahoma Bar Association Management Assistance Program', which implies at least somewhat that this isnt some random list, but a list that sets out to help fellow lawyers and as such implies some level of approval of what follows. I did not realize that the author's bio was self-written and unedited. I have changed that too. However the magazine is quoted a lot online and it isn't just a flim flam blog. I understood that the magazine was sufficiently notable. I think you need to define in some precise manor how notable a subject needs to be for wikipedia inclusion. Heliumballoon 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not trying to give a 'Single-purpose account'. I just have not got around to looking at other legal articles. I created this article because Law Practice Today was a source for an issue (the eeconomic position of attorneys) that I talked about in another article. Attorneys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliumballoon (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Point of information: The Single-purpose account page is about user accounts, not "accounts" as in narratives or descriptions. — Athaenara ✉ 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that by removing tags User:Heliumballoon risks being considered naive or self-promoting, since he may be avoiding discussion of a conflict of interest. I have no problems with his joining the discussion here, and explaining his position. He should we willing to meet the Wikipedia standards though. We don't consider our standards eccentric, and we try to apply them uniformly across all articles. We are particularly interested in the opinions of independent third parties who may have written about Law Practice Today. Blogs are often not considered to be reliable sources, since they are viewed as self-published. A paper publication about legal issues would be taken quite seriously, though.
    Let me correct the record. Blogs can be perfectly good sources, if they have independent editorial supervision and fact checking (e.g. A List Apart) and even if they are self-published by an expert writing in their own field of expertise (e.g. Matt Cutts blog). This myth that paper is somehow more reliable than electrons needs to have a wooden stake driven through it's heart, and be submerged under running water, preferably holy water. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this editor writes at such great length (check his contribution history), and isn't easily dissuaded by simple explanations of policies, we may need a rather verbose WP:AFD before he feels his position has been adequately considered. It would be simpler for him just to look around the encyclopedia and try to improve his article. I think most of us would appreciate a neutrally-written and well-balanced article that didn't sound like an advertisement. How about a criticism section, for example? Or an admission of the limitations of what you can do? Or a comparison with what other similar publications have been able to do, or not do?
    To give you some ideas, here is a sentence that sounds like pure marketing, one that should not appear in our encyclopedia:
    The magazine offers advice and information as to how to market a law practice and how to integrate new technology - items that are often neglected in law school and quite foreign to some in the legal community. EdJohnston 23:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think AfD is a fine idea. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 23:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to further refine the article so that it sounds less like an advertisement. Check the last few changes. I am always open to suggestions to reword the article. My main point was the concerning notability. Indeed it was hard to establish notability without it sounding like an advertisement. As far as the above sentence (mentioned by EdJohnston) is concerned what do you and others want? Would you like a source for what is and isn't included in law school or is that not the issue. The statement may be factual, however it sounds like an advertisement and needs to be reworded. Heliumballoon 04:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The article fails to mention that Law Practice Today is just a monthly webzine supplement to the Law Practice print magazine. I've corrected the topic para to make this clear. If Law Practice mag had an article here, Law Practice Today would merit about a line in it. I've AFD'd for NN and OR. Tearlach 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have continued to adjust the style and content to address various criticisms. Of course this is still a work in progress.Heliumballoon 02:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the problem. The issue is about getting into how sourcing here works: what's acceptable citation for a statement, and what's unacceptable as original research. See my Katzenmeister General example. Tearlach 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Across Five Aprils (band) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Would appreciate input from other editors on how to proceed - currently the article isn't sourced. Addhoc 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added some rules to COIBot. IP 70.90.144.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (70.90.144.0/22; Comcast Business Communications, Inc) also removed the reference. Added a {{unreferenced}} and {{coi2}} on the page, and a {{uw-coi1}} on the userpage. I think the subject of the article is fine, but it needs some independent references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, on my talk page (see history) the IP signed his name as Themoonisdown09, so I presume they are the same editor. Addhoc 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The page was also edited by Across Five Aprils (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This account also created/edited some pages about albums by the band.
    --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It was requested I file a COI/N report in the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#biomedcode.com_et_al. --Ronz 00:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Wikipedia administrators. I would like to provide more information regarding MUGEN NoE and BSRC Alexander Fleming.

    (copyvio from [102] redacted)

    Please study the description carefully and ask for evaluation from a wikipedia user with strong academic background especially in biology. Thank you in advance. Afantitis 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald E. Pearson (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    There are many uncited assertions and I think there is the possibility that the editor is too closely linked to the subject to be neutral. --Rifleman 82 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a warning and did a bit of cleanup. The article doesn't seem terribly fawning, and the subject is deceased. This could be a distant relative, in which case COI is a possibility, but not an automatic problem, depending on the writer's ability to remain neutral. The assertion of notability is thin. This needs more editors to review, and could be a candidate for AfD. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some cleanup, but a lot more is needed. He seems notable, if the facts can be verified and sources checked. Those are common problems with COI articles. Bearian 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    → See also: Sid Haig section in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive11

    It has come to my attention that the Sid Haig article was written entirely by Sid Haig's publicist [103]. The entire article is unsourced, and likely, much of it cannot be sourced, since it all is pasted in from the biography written by Haig's publicist. Two individuals are actively subverting attempts to prune the article down such that it can be restarted using independent sources. Quatloo 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see the possibility that a single purpose account that is violating WP:COI and WP:OWN. It seems that all of User:Spirot mainspace edits are to this article, and all the rest of the edits are related to defending Spirot's version of the article. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What Quatloo doesn't mention is that A.) the article has been released under GFDL and B.) that Spirot worked with admins to get the article to NPOV and has been rated as B-Class. I've seen articles by celebrities trying to pimp out their work; just look at the history for Nick Palumbo. With the possible exception of one or two sentences the article is mostly NPOV. And I don't see why his official site can't be used a source. Wouldn't an official source be more notable than an unofficial one?--CyberGhostface 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to know if Spirot is Sid Haig's publicist. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, she is.--CyberGhostface 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The GFDL issue is not relevant here, CyberGhostface raises that as a red herring. I am not questioning the right to use the text in the article. I just question whether we should be using as a Wikipedia article a biography written by Haig's publicist, which has no independent verification. Quatloo 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an interview with Sid Haig that confirms some facts from the article. I'll go look for some others. And as I said before, I don't see why an official source isn't relevant for the article. Is there something about Sid Haig's site that makes the information possibly false in your eyes?--CyberGhostface 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's another link that verifies information from the article.--CyberGhostface 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And another.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an independent source, and as a primary source should in general not be cited by Wikipedia article. I want to prune the article down, then you can add facts from independent sources. Since you seem to have produced independent sources, this should be possible. Quatloo 22:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the same information presented on the biography is verifiable from external sources, whats the purpose in dismantling and starting from scratch? The article should only be started over if the sources are contradictory with the article or if the article is a copyvio, which it isn't. What I will agree to do is perhaps have someone look over the article and give it a workover to make it more encyclopediac. But there's no reason to remove all the information because any new article would probably be very close to the old one.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it comes with a strong bias by virtue of having been written by Sid Haig's publicist. The article is unencyclopedic, and covers things that should not be in an encyclopedia. It's written from a very rosy point of view and borders on hagiography. Furthermore the people who edited it likely have a business relationship or other confict-of-interest connection to Sid Haig. When I originally came across it I was somewhat disgusted that an article like that had made its way into Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't think it should be salvaged. If there are sources abundant, it should be easy for good editors to create something better rather quickly. Quatloo 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The only lines that sound POV are "After forty years of playing gun-toting tough guys, his hopes of being recognized as a more than competent actor were fading" and "As of the end of 2006, Haig has several projects in various stages of production, and continues to enjoy his renewed success as an actor". None of those are stating an opinion, though, but they do seem a bit unencyclopediac. The rest of the article just basically reads like an biography. Its not like there is any whitewashing or coverups. Saying that "the article is unencyclopedic, and covers things that should not be in an encyclopedia" is bias on your part, and there's nothing that "borders on hagiography". I've just read it five times over and nothing comes off like that. Which points strike you as biased, if I might ask?--CyberGhostface 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    arbitrary break

    CyberGhostface, the article has no independent references. Of course we are concerned about it for that reason. Instead of arguing, why don't you start looking for references, and please, don't remove the maintenance tags until the problems with the article are fixed. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you, or did you not, see the links to the interviews that I added? --CyberGhostface 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    How about everyone just calms down? I already told the Admin who protected the page that I would gladly edit it to be more NPOV. I have now posted not only web sources for the information contained therein, but PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF. If this photographic evidence is not enough for the witch hunt, then I give up. If this continues, any and all licensing will be removed from our site, and a press release sent out assuring the media that the information on this article is not to be trusted, as certain editors have made a target out of this article for some reason. I have absolutely had it with this foolishness, over and over and over again!
    Don't you people look at anything but Sid's page when you're here??? Spirot 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest a 24 or 48 hour block on Special:Contributions/Spirot to give NPOV editors a bit of a breather from dealing with his/her disruptive editing. — Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Athaenara, these people are NOT making edits, they are DELETING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. When I tried that once, I got pounced on by Admins. Why is it now ok? Has policy changed? How exactly is wiping out an entire article "NPOV editing". I would very much like to know, please. Maybe you can also explain to me how exactly posting source links to an article is disruptive? Thank you.

    Spirot 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Tar pit Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All of you seriously need to calm it down. So I made two edits and forgot to sign in before I did. So what? I am working on making the article NPOV, so I really do NOT see the reason for this continuing harassment and witch-hunting. KINDLY STOP. I don't even want to know what this "tar pit" thing is... *edit - Ah, ok. I see we're pretty much saying the same thing. Calm down, folks. Simple copyediting was all that was ever necessary here. It has been done, and sources galore have been cited, including a photo of the subject himself stating the accuracy of the article's content. I suggest we ALL leave the article alone until an Admin has had a chance to look at all of this. Spirot 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Spirot 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestion of a one or two day block on the subject's publicist is serious. Spirot wasn't able even to leave a {{primarysources}} article maintenance tag unmolested. — Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't recall molesting anything, and I removed it with a reason, which was posted in the edit summary. Why put it there if you clearly have not one, not two, not even three, but TEN sources, including a photograph of the article's subject stating the accuracy of the article? Said photo is also documented on the article's talk page, as you say in your summary I did not do.
    Once again, I suggest we ALL leave it alone until an Admin has a chance to see what has been going on here. I will not be removing your tag again, because frankly, right now I feel like every effort I make to have a decent, accurate article is going to be undone by one of you. So if you feel the need to keep this harassment up, have your fun alone. I'm done for the night. Spirot 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Civility is policy here. Uncivil edit summaries such as
    " HAD ENOUGH! "
    " WHAT?!?!?!? "
    " shall i get the hammer and nails and you get the cross? "
    " …after all this nonsense… "
    " Enjoy your war, people. I'll be relaxing in Switzerland. "
    by the subject's publicist don't aid the encyclopedic process. — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Secondary sources are needed. This means sources that are not connected to Sid Haig. Most importantly, this means sources other than Sid himself or his official website. The fact that you have gotten Sid Haig to pose behind a prop is irrelevant tomfoolery. Quatloo 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I fully support Quatloo. One's own site should not be considered a credible source per seand should NOT be used as the primary source. The latest addition of a mugshot of the article's subject "confirming" the content is so original but ridiculous and pathetic that a) it should go on the jokes board (I'll look into it), b) it proves Spirot is still clueless about WP's policy, and stubborn in that she doesn't want to follow it, and c) on a more personal opinion, she is being harmful to her client's reputation. --maf (talk-cont) 11:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subject's publicist had removed a {{primarysources}} tag justifying her action by posting "not one, not two, not even three, but TEN sources" regarding her subject [104], attached to a inappropriate pejorative message directed at myself. An anti-spam-bot considered them spammy enough to remove them automatically [105], so I have addressed the sources individually [106]. Bottom line, these ten sources reduce to one single independent primary source (the PhillyBurbs interview) and one brief tertiary source (the AllMovie Guide entry on Sid Haig). It is not certain that an article of the length desired by the publicist can be sustained by one single primary source. Quatloo 11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the right thing to do is to prune the article down to a stub (as User:Burntsauce did a couple of weeks ago), and let it grow organically. This is an rather minor actor, he probably does not require more than a couple of paragraphs. Most of the information in it presently can never be properly sourced, and is generally unimportant minutiae. Quatloo 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. Massive tantrum deletions by the subject's publicist aren't the way to go, though. — Athaenara ✉ 04:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • 217.33.92.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I reported this IP to the noticeboard before about edits made to Lincs FM Group articles (the owner of Trax FM) who is deleting verifiable information from the article. The same anon editor has also now deleted information about a rival station from the Worksop article as well. The anon user's IP address is registered to the Lincs FM Group (source). Because of the editors deletion of verifiable information with no explaination or attempt at conflict resolution, and due to what I believed is a continuing conflict of interest, I am resubmitting this to the noticeboard. --tgheretford (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bookuser

    See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mitpress.mit.edu - Bookuser.

    I first thought this was a SPA spamming mitpress.mit.edu links. Bookuser has recently taken action to clean up some of these links [107], so I thought the problem was resolved. However, I just found that Bookuser used to be MITPress. [108], so I think it's important that other editors look at the situation from a COI angle. --Ronz 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clarify, I'm concerned that spam links are being addeded to mitpress.mit.edu, that Bookuser has a relationship with MIT Press, and that Bookuser is adding MIT Press books to articles to promote these books. Adding books to References sections without any indication that they've actually been used as references [109] [110] [111] is especially troubling. --Ronz 22:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Bennett Reeves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and Gabrielle Reeves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Both of these articles were created by LostSentiment who also uploaded Image:Chrisreeves.jpg claiming to have created it himself. The image page contains a non-working link to an image hosting site. Neither bio looks anywhere near notable to me. Inexplicably, an administrator has removed the speedy delete tag from the "Gabrielle" article saying that it satisfies notability. Please note that both Christopher Reeves and Christopher reeves now redirect to Christopher Bennett Reeves and should redirect to Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman, as a misspelling if these bios are deleted.

    I've moved redirects back to the original, although a DAB page may make more sense. I suggest you AfD the pages if you have any concern. However, if the claim that CBR has Emmy's is correct then he is by any reasonable defintion notable. JoshuaZ 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Aside from the obvious COI concerns, I think there are some notability questions about all 3 articles as well. I'd really like some advice on how best to handle this situation. Thanks, Doc Tropics 03:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    AFD would be the best way to go. MER-C 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have placed boilerplate warnings on the talk pages of all four articles (I have added his publisher's article to the list), as well as the author's talk page ... given the suggestion to go the WP:AfD route, I have refrained from adding the WP:CSD#A7 tags on them, which is the 3rd step of my draft protocols for speedy deletion ... OTOH, if there is no activity within the next 24 hours, I will proceed with the speedy delete tags ... Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 07:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=133609744"