Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Rich Barton Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Bound (2023 film) Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Linda Rabbitt Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zillow Talk:Zions Bancorporation

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.

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (2)

→ See also: Metropolis, Crisscross, Nick Baker (1) section in COI/N Archive 12

• Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• David Lyons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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, [1]. 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)

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? Mangojuice^talk 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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: [2].

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)

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)

Would it be posssble for some more editors used to dealing with COI issues to add their comments here? Thank you for your assistance. Sparkzilla 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have declared my COI as a published critic on the Nick Baker case. However User:DavidLyons, who is clearly an undeclared member of Baker's support group, is trying to use my postion as an expert on this case as a way to stop me correcting POV edits he has made that insinuate Baker' claims are facts. He is using COI as an excuse to get the upper hand in a content dispute - an abuse of COI policy. It would be very helpful if I could have some assistance to stop this POV pushing and restore balance to the article. Sparkzilla 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I'm a neutral editor involved with the Nick Baker article. I have no connection to Metropolis (other than the fact that I read it sometimes) or to Nick Baker's cause. My comments on the matter are included in the RfC on the article's talk page. I believe as of right now the article is more or less balanced, giving both (Baker's and Metropolis) sides of the issue. I don't have any comment on the question as to whether there is a COI problem with either Sparkzilla or Lyons. Cla68 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved in editing the Baker article but jump in here to say it is a good thing that Sparkzilla has admitted his COI, unfortunately he continues to edit the article in the same way as before. An individual's original research and personal opinion do not automatically constitute "the other side" of an article. Sometimes editors simply have an axe to grind and that's what I fear is happening here. RomaC 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

EServer.org

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

• EServer.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about an electronic publishing cooperative
• Geoffrey Sauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - director of EServer.org
• Geoffsauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be Geoffrey Sauer - SPA adding eserver.org links and editing the above articles - active December 2004 - January 2007

Similar SPAs:

• 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006
• 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) - active June 2006 - May 2007
• 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org and Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive_17#Links to online libraries. --Ronz 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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))

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: [3] An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: [4] 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)

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

What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 [5], 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)

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))

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)

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))

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/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

I have found a couple more socks. The current count is 278 external eserver.org link spams. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 [6]. I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here [7] on Jan 18 2007. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

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)

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)

I added some rules to COIBot (blacklisted/monitor). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The web page 'eserver.org' lists an email address for Geoff Sauer. EdJohnston 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Message sent. I've asked him to comment here. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 [8] for a list of who's linking to item #1. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

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))

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)

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)

Still working my way down the numbered list of 14 links, from above, benefitting from the Special:linksearch URLs that were added to each one. So far, looking at items 1-4, I see nothing inappropriate. On the whole this is good information. I fixed the citation format a couple of times, and I noticed at least one fluffy and over-linked article, (Praxis intervention), but that's not a problem related to Eserver. EdJohnston 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that many of the edits of the eserver.org external links are good and valuable. Many though were spammed. Many were also to low quality linkfarms. If you want to see the COI aspects it might be easier to go the the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun#eserver.org page and manually go through all the contribution diffs for all of the socks listed there. The COI picture should become clearer when you focus on the contribution diffs. (Requestion 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Wikipedia's best purpose really is not as a convenient transfer point to draw readers to external sites, whether eserver.org or any other. Can this be dealt with properly? — Athaenara ✉ 10:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Gerson therapy

• Gerson therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Howard Straus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.149.253.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 1 edit
• 69.225.131.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - removed "criticism" three times

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

I hvae tagged this again, after an edit war has started. Bearian 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Global Panel Foundation

• Global Panel Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
• Prague Society for International Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
• Marc S. Ellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the latter is a résumé for an individual who presides to the other two institutions; long but slow warn-and-revert war between inside editors and COI patrollers. Lately an inside editor has resorted to verbal aggressiveness, hence this report. --maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Praguesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - started all three articles; a week later promoted all of them to FA status (example)!
• The following users are all insiders of the organizations and have tried to restore cleaned-up or unsourced deleted content on all three articles - interestingly, as one user leaves, a new one takes his place:
  • Nbenker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (seems like his secretary: "moved Prof. Dr. Marc S. Ellenbogen to Marc S. Ellenbogen: Mr. Ellenbogen does't want to use his title in Wiki.")
  • Badenbaden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • Profellenbogen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • BanikPico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (his idea of verifiability: "verified and accurate"); seemed in good faith at first (see) but right after tried to cram all content back in (see)
  • Verticaldemocracy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - latest active user, verbally aggressive in his defense of the articles
  • Zrahl7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [added by Athaenara ✉ 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)]
  • 64.204.217.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 89.56.164.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 89.56.133.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 203.234.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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 -  Unrelated - South Korea.

Be careful of 3RR. MER-C 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on the Ellenbogen-related articles with evident conflict of interest varying from apparent to obvious. It doesn't matter where they are on the planet: look at the contribs. — Athaenara ✉ 10:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Across Five Aprils (band)

• Across Five Aprils (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Themoonisdown09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - band member (+single purpose account) who doesn't want references included.

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

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)

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)

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.

• Collapse (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tragedy In Progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Trax FM

→ See also: Trax FM (section 18) in COI/N Archive 9

• Trax FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lincs FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 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)

• 86.6.161.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) +
• 86.29.236.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) +
• 86.151.176.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed some of the same information. The article has semi-protection until 11 June. — Athaenara ✉ 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Which has expired.) — A. ✉ 11:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Common Cause

→ See also: Two Common Cause sections in COI/N Archive 8 & one on COI/N talk page.

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

Anonymous IP address 208.201.146.137, which is assigned to Common Cause, has continued to edit the article Common Cause, despite being warned to stop previously. Are the administrators ever going to take action to stop this, or are they all on vacation? XINOPH | TALK 11:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

XINOPH, how about sending an email to Common Cause and inviting them to look at this page, as well as the talk page for that IP showing all the warnings. It's possible that there are multiple clueless users involved. Maybe we can get the attention of their IT department and convince them to circulate a memo.

In addition to that, I support a short block for this edit.[9] IANAA. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What is IANAA? — Athaenara ✉ 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

IANAL is netspeak for "I am not a lawyer." So, IANAA is "I am not an administrator." XINOPH left a message on my talk page requesting a block of Common Cause. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool beans. I added it to the Glossary. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And back again. I cleaned up after it. — Athaenara ✉ 17:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User Catanich (2)

→ See also: User Catanich (section #20) in COI/N Archive 8

• Catanich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was previously indef-blocked for writing promotional articles as a business, with an indef-block notice on the user page. Received the following comment:

This foolish user has wrecked his reputation. If you Google for "Catanich Internet Marketing," the name of his business, a very ugly result shows up from his Wikipedia user page. It would be a good deed to delete or rename his user page (with permission, of course). Your block will prevent the user from damaging Wikipedia further, but we should not vindictively destroy his business. Do you understand the problem here? For the record, I've never communicated with this person. I don't know him at all. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Did a quick Google search on "Catanich Internet Marketing" and notice that there are various other references to our action. I am amenable to restoring the status quo ante on this one if possible/appropriate (so long as the outfit doesn't provide paid services involving Wikipedia) but would appreciate input on how to proceed here. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Catanich has complained that Wikipedia is wrecking his business. We should listen to this complaint because it is seriously affecting him in real life. I suggest:

1. Get a statement from Catanich that there will be no more abuse of Wikipedia. He now knows the consequences.
2. Unblock Catanich so he can change his user name to something else. This will most likely prevent his user page from showing up in Google searches for his name.
3. I volunteer to monitor this user to make sure there is no more trouble. As a professional SEO, one of the main contributors to the COI guideline, and a frequent contributor to this board, I don't think he will get away with anything while I am watching.

Thank you for considering this. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wrecking his business"? All that's happened is that the search results in Google accurately reflect the fact that he has been using Wikipedia for promotional services. The user was warned repeatedly, and WP:COI mentions the possibility of unintended consequences. Right to vanish doesn't apply to users not in good standing. nadav (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The warnings Catanich actually saw were for copyvio. Catanich didn't make any edits between this COI warning,[10] and his block.[11], so he makes a fair point when he says "Your 'articles on behalf of clients' policy was unknown to me and I will abide to this in the future".[12] If Catanich demonstrates that he understands our content policies, and unequivocally agrees to follow them, he should be unblocked so he can exercise the right to vanish. This would be a great kindness by us. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. nadav (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: references to the company (full name) in talk pages discussing the incident would also come up in various internet searches, although only until the various talk pages are archived. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The User and User talk pages are his main problem. The keyword, his name, appears in the title of those page, which is the main factor that will drive them to the top of the search rankings. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Woah woah woah! I have no objection to letting the guy cover his tracks, but you should all be aware that he received a warning for using WP for promotional and advertising purposes a mere 14 minutes after creating his account! It was over a month later that he set about posting / editing about a dozen articles to add references to his paying clients, which elicited to my copyvio tags, which led to his assertion / admission that he had permission to use the copied text because the subjects were clients of his firm. This was not a good faith / novice error, as contended by the editor. Be that as it may, I don't think he'll try it again, and hopefully this will deter others similarly situated from doing the same, so there's no reason to make the guy suffer further. Let's allow him to vanish, not because he's innocent, but because we're reasonable and forgiving people. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note offering this option in User talk:Catanich#Your request to unblock --Shirahadasha 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As things currently stand the user has left a message on User Talk:Catanich requesting to vanish, but has not agreed to the statement I've asked him to agree to as a condition for unblocking, so I haven't unblocked. User:Jehochman has left a note reminding the user that agreeing to the condition is needed to proceed further. It might be worth having an outside admin review the statement I've requested this user to make in order to unblock to ensure that this whole approach, and the particular wording, is appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How/where was this resolved? — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to appoligize to Wiki for continuing to edit, but since the Wiki Editors continue to use my name in their article, comments and aggressive statements, I feel you should know what effects it has had on me. May I please state that you have now cost me my job from the company I was working for as their employee (Not the one they continue to reference).

Both User:Butseriouslyfolks and User:Shirahadasha never took the time to verify their facts as being accurate or truthful. Senior editors should review this incident because these editors have used the Wiki as a weapon against some one and has harmed him greatly. Wiki, how can you be so unhuman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.164.87 (talk • contribs)

This is block evasion by User:71.252.164.87. For the record, User:Catanich was offered the right to vanish if he would simply confirm acceptance of Wikipedia's policies. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert Museum (2)

→ See also: The European Library section in COI/N Archive 11

• Victoria and Albert Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• vam.ac.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

… Another one with similarity to the library links, this time a museum … --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert Museum (2) discussion tangent

→ See COI/N Archive 12 for the resolved "Victoria and Albert Museum (1)" portion of this discussion.

GOSH! I hadn't realised putting what I thought would be helpful links would cause such a fantastic debate. When I embarked on looking at Wikipedia pages my intention was to add links to established articles to point visitors to other helpful information. I didn't feel it was right to rewrite articles people had carefully set up, even adding a little further information I felt could upset the balance of the article. The V&A's pages I linked to held pages of information and images that might overload a page in wikipedia if reproduced there but might enhance a reader's knowledge or interest if they visited them. I put the links in 'External links' as I thought it would misleading to put them in as a 'Reference' as I had not written any of the content on the wikipedia page and just thought an 'External link' could be added if a visitor to wikipedia thought it might be useful.

The content on the V&A's site is written by specialist curators who write with an unbiased point of view so I thought it was safe to link to it. Also, the V&A is not a commercial organisation so again thought it was ok to link to it. When I looked through many of the related topics on wikipedia users had already linked to the V&A, eg. Art Deco but I see this link has been removed. I'm wondering if something in the workings of wikipedia has been a little overzealous in removing everything to do with the V&A now we have been highlighted!!

Obviously it looks like I need a bit of hand holding to get used to contributing to wikipedia and would like to take up offers of help. Already, the information provided on this page and mytalk page have been very useful. So, just to clarify... - if I go to a talk page of a related article and ask to add a link it's ok? - if I add content and then put a related link, books in as a reference that's ok? - if I add images and say where I got them from that's ok? I'm not fluent in wikispeak so am deciphering slowly... Hopefully this has not prevented me from contributing to wikipedia as it would be a shame not be able to share the V&A's information and images. Thank you for all your help and interest. VAwebteam 09:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think what you describe is indeed the way forward. Hope that you can help us enhance the wikipedia (I am sure you can), and if you have questions, remarks etc. don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

VAwebteam ... I think that a better approach than leaving messages on each individual talk page is to collect a list of articles and proposed links on your own sandbox page (I'll show you how to make one) and review them with Some Other Editor ... I'm in a rush at the moment, but now that you've resumed contact, let's close this COI/N discussion, and move further dialog to the VAwebteam talk page ... look for my message there, and we'll star your lessons ... everyone kewl with that? —68.239.79.82 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be ok by me. Johnbod 12:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a few of us have been discussing an idea to create another noticeboard where responsible COI editors could propose content for review. Those who leave cases would be encouraged to help resolve another case where they have no COI. For example VAM could evaluate material proposed by MoMA staff. Would anyone else be interested in this? Talk pages sometimes don't get much traffic, and the user page route doesn't provide a ready source of neutral 3rd parties. A noticeboard would consolidate a lot of activity in one place so it could be monitored. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not this noticeboard? If invitation postings get to be a problem, the problem will be dealt with at that time. (SEWilco 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

The noticeboard is typically over 100 kilobytes long. Assigning it this task as well could very easily double, triple, or quadruple it or worse. That's why not. — Athaenara ✉ 09:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly acceptable for COI-affected editors to post their proposed articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. They should mention their COI in the posting, and then perform the steps that unregistered users would normally follow. EdJohnston 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My plan to help them gain wisdom/experience re: POV/COI issues is to use the 40 or so reverted additions as "proposed content for review" … that way we don't have to rely on the dubious and untimely response of Some Other Editor to a proposal on a talk page … I'm collecting them at User:VAwebteam/To do list for anyone who wishes to contribute their tuppence … and I've encapsulated this thread in a collapsible Navbox to help reduce the clutter on the Noticeboard. —72.75.100.232 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(Removed navbox markup: the length of the noticeboard page remains the same, and page loading time remains the same, while the markup impedes active discussion.) — Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnx for archiving the first part of this thread, Athaenara … my sincere apologies for the Navbox snafu … like a kid with a new toy (knowledge acquired just last week), I played with it until I abused it … Lesson Learned; they may be OK to use for archiving dead threads on Talk pages, but never on Noticeboards or other active threads, because they're counterproductive to one of the very goals I sought to achieve. :-) —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was easy to fix. — Athaenara ✉ 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Carswell

• Douglas Carswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Douglas Carswell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible autobiographical editing by a British MP. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, this is as clear a case of WP:VSCA as I've ever seen ... his only contributions to Wikipedia have been the edits to the article about himself ... but, he's not the original author of the article (it was created over six months before he first touched it), which certainly takes at least half the weight off of the COI issue ... and, since he's a MP of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, then his WP:Notability is pretty much established de facto, regardless of the lack of WP:Attribution.

I say, "Either revert his edits and tell him not to do it again, or else take it to AfD" ... but be prepared for arguments that his WP:N sufficiently trumps any failure of WP:BIO or WP:A as a reason for deletion, because we're not talking about a "first year, assistant basketball coach at some NN junior college" who has made beau coup edits to an article about himself that was created by one of his students ... that one would probably be closed as Delete within 48 hours. —68.239.79.82 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

What is there for this noticeboard to do? As a member of a national legislature, he is automatically notable. The only way to make further progress on this article would be with the aid of detailed research. I'd be in favor of closing this issue, unless someone can go through the history and find that the subject actually removed critical material. It would be good to see the Publications section expanded so that the individual references are more complete. EdJohnston 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I took it to WP:RFCN, I don't know what other forum would be appropriate. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Username has been blocked pending verification of identity to the Foundation. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tania Chen

• Tania Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tania Chen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - author
• Bge20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - removed maintenance tags

Apparent autobiographical editing. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this as autobiographical, someone removed it, and the same person(s) keep removing tags. Bad! Bearian 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Raritan Computer

• Raritan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - November 2006 to present
• 72.236.162.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June/October 2006, January 2007
• 72.236.162.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June/September 2006
• 72.236.162.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - December 2006
• Vsevolod4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Wrote first version June 2006

• Raritan Computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I recently gave a 3O on this article related to 'advertising'. It was written by the company VP and is being edited by a company employee and at least one outside (neutral) editor. The article is almost 1 year old and there are no external/verifiable sources provided in the article. It was suggested that I post this here to obtain additional eyes-on. Lsi john 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

various BBC-owned IP addresses

The BBC-owned IP addresses:

• 132.185.144.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 132.185.144.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 132.185.144.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[added by Andy Mabbett 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)]
• 132.185.240.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 132.185.240.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 132.185.240.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 132.185.240.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bbcsomerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [added by Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)]

all have a history of editing BBC-related articles. Some of these edits were flagged as CoI, others not, but appear to be so on reflection (e.g the removal of deletion nomination from an article about BBC radio presenter). I wonder whether someone shouldn't contact the BBC, and ask them to run an article on Wikipeida's CoI policy, in their staff magazine, or on their intranet? Andy Mabbett 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the edits from these addresses are also fairly juvenile vandalism that doesn't reflect well on the BBC ([13][14][15]). If these came from BBC employees, I'm sure their employment contracts say something about actions disreputable to their employer. 86.140.181.239 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

And again: [16]. Andy Mabbett 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And again [17]. Andy Mabbett 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wendy Higgins

• Dr Hadwen Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wendyhiggins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - media director of Dr Hadwen Trust

User:Wendyhiggins has created a self-promotional userpage and has edited several articles related to her animal rights activism. Among these is the Dr Hadwen Trust. Since the edits may be legitimate, I have decided not to revert them, and instead to seek a second opinion here. YechielMan 13:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I've reverted some of the edits, warned the user and tagged Dr Hadwen Trust. This needs attention from a careful editor to restore or confirm neutral point of view. Once that's done, remove the {{COI}} tag. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Leanne Pooley (New Zealand Filmmaker)

• Leanne Pooley (New Zealand Filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article created by SpacificFilms (talk · contribs), which is the above person's production company. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Hilbe

• Joseph Hilbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jhilbe (talk · contribs) and Joehilbe (talk · contribs) (probably the same person) creator and primary article editor. The only contributions of these users is to this article. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The article looks muuch improved; subject is notable if facts can be verified. Bearian 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

William Lerach and related articles

• William Lerach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PRFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Every edit by this suspiciously-named user has been to add a press release to William-Lerach-related articles. THF 10:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

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

• Nrobbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created initial Lerach stub (note: Robbins is the name of one of the law firm partners)
• 216.140.110.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first to add massive content directly from law firm website
• 216.140.110.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another COI SPA

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)

Returning this section to the noticeboard from COI/N Archive 11 because PRFellow and 216.140.110.148, who don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is not, have again added non-NPOV promotional content from the subject's law firm website.

This stub needs expansion may be expanded with content supported by reliable sources, not the replacement of the only (so far) news media citation with padding by law firm employees. — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

PRFellow is now simply edit-warring. Plenty of recent media coverage about Lerach's resignation from his firm (on the eve of a multi-billion dollar Supreme Court case) and speculating that Lerach is about to be indicted.[18] [19] [20] (Disclosure: I just had a WSJ op-ed criticizing Lerach.[21]) THF 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Michael khoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - user making identical sanitizing edits to Lerach article as "PRFellow." NB this link that identifies Michael Khoo as working for Fenton Communications, with Lerach as a client. THF 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(Khoo's specialties include online marketing.) — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• An anonymous Fenton Communications account, 216.140.110.148, mentioned above, is continuing to attempt to sanitize the page. THF 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Dylan Verrechia

• Dylan Verrechia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tijuana Makes Me Happy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tijuana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dylanverrechia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jameslefkowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The majority of edits of this article are done by an editor with the name User:Dylanverrechia. Most of the editors edits in Dylan Verrechia, Tijuana, and Tijuana Makes Me Happy seem more like advertising for his movie than anything else. XinJeisan 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure if the Dylan Verrechia is notable or not, so I put on the notability tag, however the editor User:Dylanverrechia removed the tag. I don't have anything against this person, and his movie seems to be quite good and important, but he shouldn't be using Wikipedia for advertising for himself. XinJeisan 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made some edits for style, adding tags and stub-sorting as well. He appears to be notable, but the article may need a re-write. Bearian 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jameslefkowitz, who has a user name which is the same as the one listed as a producer for Mr. Verrechia, has deleted the COI and notability templates on Dylan Verrechia without comment.XinJeisan 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Nehr

• Peter Nehr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anitanehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Anitanehr, the article's main author, is the subject's wife. She says that she was "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for my husband" (see User talk:Anitanehr). This raises an obvious WP:COI issue, as well as issues under WP:BLP. No WP:RS is cited, which implicates WP:NOR. Further, there is no indication that this first-term Florida legislator is WP:NOTE, although the fact that he is an elected state legislator may be sufficient to justify a WP article about him (it would not get him into Encyclopedias Britannica or Americana). Finell (Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

FBB recordings

I noticed this one because of the many COIBot alerts this account apparently already collected (. The producer goes by the name Dean Woodward AKA 'Big Dean', 'Grizzly B', or 'Care Bear'

• FFB Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FFB Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not sure if they are related, but the accounts Deanwoodward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Carebear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bigdean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) do exist, though they do not have any (visible) edits in their contribution lists (suggesting the articles they created/edited have already been removed). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/FFB_Recordings
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/carebear
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/deanwoodward
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/bigdean

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Avatar Records

• Avatar Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Avatar2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user is the author and primary editor. Something strange going on also with insertion and removal of criticism, and legal issues. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

76.80.217.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted on Avatar2k's talk page (they may be the same person) admitting to a conflict of interest. However, he says that he is battling 164.47.92.126 (talk · contribs)'s posting of "untrue, unverified, slanderous, libelous material" in the article. nadav (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see also my talk page for more information on this. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it needs to be wikified, so I put a tag on it for that. Bearian 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

William J. Murray

• William J. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wjmurray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Autobiographical editing and self-promotion. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Orient Thai Airlines

• Orient Thai Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• One-Two-GO Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a subsidiary)
• Orient-thai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blocked.
• Fly12go (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blocked.

Apparent PR editing by company rep. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All spam reverted. MER-C 03:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, indefinitely, along with Fly12go (talk · contribs). May return, so leaving this open for a while. MER-C 12:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don Fernando

• Don Fernando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Donfernando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Autobiographical editing by article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Richard Parnell Habersham

• Richard Parnell Habersham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rhabersham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article created, edited by article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cogswell College

• Cogswell College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A few anonymous editors (and even an editor who don't sign in) seem to be making the article into a PR page. I have added a POV-check stamp on the page.

I'm assuming they are not signing in, so they won't be identified, if they are part of the college.--Joel Lindley 03:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Which IPs? It's better if they're anonymous, because we can whois and RDNS them. MER-C 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the IP appears to be from a law firm in Chicago while the college is in California. Second of all, it is you Joel Lindley that has the conflict of interest in this it appears. From this link that you keep adding to the article, you'll find this opinion authored by "joel1975" who identifies himself as Joel Kirk. Eerily similar to your user page, Joel Lindley, where you identify yourself as Joel Kirk and that your birth date is in 1975. Further, in that opinion you write that you filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau which you also kept linking to in the article. So, it appears that you're the one with the conflict here. Metros 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a couple of tags to this one, too. Bearian 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ragging

Noraggingfoundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Noraggingfoundation and Noragging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Noragging are performing POV edits on Ragging. Amongst the edits are adding links to their own organisation, deleting information (with references; diff). Some of the edits are really strange, adding facts with fact-tags (diff), or several {{db-spam}} tags diff and undirected attack remarks: diff.

• Ragging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• No Ragging Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• no2ragging.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Two IPs who may be involved:

• 122.167.105.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (122.167.0.0/17; Broadband service in India)
• 59.93.245.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (59.88.0.0-59.99.255.255, National Internet Backbone of India)

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The links deleted were generated not for reference ( each one takes to a single site www.noragging.com/... )but for increasing their traffic.

Ragging in India is a serious problem that has taken at least 22 lives since 2000. It has also left hundreds injured and many more have been brutally tortured.

Even before the recent order of the Honbl. Supreme Court of India, several organizations were formed by volunteers to stand against ragging. CURE, Stopragging and No Ragging Foundation are those organizations.

Some organizations like CURE, that runs only online works, has earned much site traffic to their site from wikipedia...

whereas No Ragging Foundation has kept itself busy with activities like helping victims or like organizing awareness drives.

Now some volunteers want to let people know that organizations like the No Ragging Foundation is providing Real support to victims, as far as possible... this would help many victims and/or families.

But repeated, intentional and jealous attacks on the information and links provided by the No Ragging Foundation is really unfortunate.

If Wikipedia considers it to be spam, so is Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education (CURE)... but when it is found that No Ragging Foundation links are replaced by CURE links... it is really unfortunate acts of jealousy.

Warm regards,

Noragging 19:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)NoRagging

I blocked Noraggingfoundation for its username suggesting a role account before seeing this report. woops -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Danngala

• Gustave Baumann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Danngala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have fired a warning shot over COI & SPAM, plus copyvio of images and text might well be an issue. See bottom here re name, and here re text of Gustave Baumann. contributions here. The gallery also covers Hayter. Incidentally I don't have an issue with the notability of GB. Johnbod 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability looks fine. I've expanded and wikified the Gustave Baumann article, using more sources so that it no longer relies solely on the Annex Galleries. Gordonofcartoon 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Charles Bennison

→ See also: Charles Bennison section in BLP/N Archive 18

• Barbaraalton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Charles Bennison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Barbaraalton is apparently* under the employ of the church and been tasked to eliminate negative information in this biography[22] - an activity she has undertaken repeatedly.[23]. She's received several talk page warnings.

• This assumes that this account isn't just a Joe job. Rklawton 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I archived the Charles Bennison BLP/N section because the last post in it (twelve days ago) said BLP issues had been resolved. This report suggests that they were not. Should I return it from the archive to the active BLP noticeboard? — Athaenara ✉ 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the post-rewrite edit history and talk page discussion, I don't see an active dispute about the content of this article -- a least not any that would require relisting at WP:BLP/N. It appears User:Barbaraalton is the only editor actively opposing the inclusion of this material, but she (presuming she's who she appears to be): a) has an apparent WP:COI, and b) doesn't participate in the talk page discussion or respond to messages on her user talk page, and so would be unlikely to participate in the BLP noticeboard discussion either (I notified her of it when I initiated that discussion and tagged the article BLPC).

As Rklawton points out, the account could be a joe job. I tend to think not, primarily because her first edit[24] doesn't look like something someone trying to discredit the spoofee would undertake. But if it is a joe job, the editor is a vandal; if it isn't, then User:Barbaraalton oughtn't to be editing Charles Bennison because of the WP:COI. Either way, this unresponsive WP:SPA probably has no business editing Charles Bennison. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I posted comments/notes on the talk page of Charles Bennison and on User:Barbaraalton's talkpage, regarding edits. I made some wiki edits, and may edit further. I am a member of ECUSA, and happen to agree with him on stances, but I don't know the Bishop personally. Bearian 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sunpendulum

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunpendulum

• Sunpendulum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sunpendulum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.112.14.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 213.47.89.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Art project article apparently written by the project managers. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reactivate Afd?

The Afd defaulted to keep. I was among those in favour, largely because it seemed like a neat idea which surely could be referenced. Big uh-oh. In the process of trying to improve the article I found ZERO press coverage of Sunpendulum or the artist. Web coverage is almost entirely on the project's own sites and perhaps a few passing mentions in blogs.

What's the right way to reactivate an Afd discussion? — Athaenara ✉ 11:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are links to a variety of press reports to be found at http://www.sunpendulum.at/-media-reports.html

Or here is a list of everything I could find: BERMUDA - Great Britain: http://www.buei.org/ (click on 'education button' and then 'research button' ) --- press articles: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/bermuda/the-royal-gazette-19-08-1999.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/bermuda/bermuda-sun-13-08-1999.jpg

AZORES - Portugal: --- press articles: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/azores/diario-insular-13-07-2001.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/azores/a-uniao-13-07-2001.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/azores/jas-24-07-2001.jpg

GRANADA - Spain: --- press articles: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/granada/ideal-18-09-1999.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/granada/boletin-14-10-1999.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/granada/campus-23-09-1999.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/madrid/editur-15-10-1999.jpg

CAIRO - Egypt: --- press articles: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/cairo/al-ahram-16-4-2000.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/cairo/CAIRO-02.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/cairo/medina-magazine1.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/cairo/al-ahram-25-6-2000.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/cairo/medina-magazine2.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/london/middle-east.jpg

DUBAI - United Arab Emirates: http://www.khaleejtimes.co.ae/ktarchive/130202/uae.htm --- press articles: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/gulf-news-13-02-2002.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/khaleej-times-13-02-2002.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/sonnensymbol-a-13-02-2002.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/al-khaleej-13-02-2002.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/the-gulf-today-13-02-2002.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/1422-13-02-2002.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/dubai/7910-13-02-2002.jpg

HONG KONG - China: http://www.ust.hk/en/pa/e_pa030314-722.html --- press articles: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/south-china-morning-post-06-04-2003.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/sing-tao-daily-20-03-2003.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/hkust-newsletter.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/ming-pao1-20-03-2003.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/south-china-morning-post-20-03-2003.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/ming-pao2-20-03-2003.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/wen-wei-po-20-03-2003.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/hongkong/orisun-20-03-2003.jpg

TOKYO - Japan: http://www.mofa.jp/region/europe/eu/report/calendar/japan/01.html --- press articles: http://www.kitnet.jp/news/2005/17-2-2.html http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/tokyo/asahi-shimbun.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/tokyo/tangetsukai.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/tokyo/tokyo-01.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/tokyo/tokyo-02.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/tokyo/tokyo-03.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/tokyo/tokyo-04.jpg

ENSENADA / Baja California - Mexico - Niederkalifornien: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niederkalifornien --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/ensenada/el-mexicano.jpg

KOLKATA - India: http://www.jugraduates.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=IEMR6pOdZB4%3D&tabid=63&mid=429 --- press articles: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/delhi/triennale-01.jpg

NEW ORLEANS - USA: http://www.victorymedianetwork.com/artist.php?id=65

MAUI / Hawaii - USA: --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/maui/hightechmaui.jpg

MARSHALL ISLANDS - RMI: http://www.yokwe.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1522 --- press article: http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/marshall/RMI-Journal-Sunpendulum-22Sept06.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/marshall/marshall-islands-journal-01.jpg

VIENNA: http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/ --- press articles: http://derstandard.at/?id=991157&_index=13 http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/star-05-2004.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/kurier-praschl-2001.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/kurier-freizeit-beilage-19-06-1999.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/kultur-am-puls-03-04-2002.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/falter-beilage-05-2005.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/bulletin-08-09-2000.jpg http://www.sunpendulum.at/press/articles/vienna/bulletin-04-2002.jpg Sunpendulum 18:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The list posted above (much of which was also posted on the Afd), duplicates the sunpendulum.at media reports page. A few examples of what that page provides:

• A JPEG on sunpendulum.at - photograph of what appears to be a newspaper clipping. Large photograph of "Hofstetter Kurt" (Kurt Hofstetter?) above small article. Cathy Stovell byline. No visible dateline or masthead. Not found elsewhere. Alleged to have been in The Royal Gazette.
• A JPEG on sunpendulum.at - another apparent clipping. Column or article. Alex Barclay byline. No visible dateline or masthead. Not found elsewhere. Alleged to have been in the Bermuda Sun.
• If one goes to buei.org and follows instructions to "click on education button and then research button" as suggested, one is delivered to (as you may by now have guessed) sunpendulum.at.

Need I quote {{Primarysources}}? I did find four among them which could be used.

As far as I have been able to determine, none of the vaunted "pavilions" have yet been built. — Athaenara ✉ 15:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Wood

• Douglas Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Douglaswood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Attempted hijack of the Douglas Wood article with apparent autobiographical material about a different Douglas Wood (an entertainment executive). Reverted and warned. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• He also wrote an article about his business associate, Ayelet weinerman. It has been put up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayelet weinerman. Both people are associated with Animation Lab. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• User blocked for 24 hours for repeated article hijack attempts despite warnings. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Overton Loyd

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overton Loyd

• Overton Loyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Overvision (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Extensive autobiographical editing by article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• While I don't justify today's COI editing, please don't judge him by the number of his edits because most them have been minor. For example, his 7 edits on June 5 were an effort to create a single external link. In a similar vein, with his first 6 edits today he created 3 references to some of his published work. Since being informed of WP's COI policy, he has reverted all of his edits except 2 external links that I don't think are COI. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

John Trivers

• John Trivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Liz Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jptrivers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparent autobiographical editing, also editing his wife's article. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the pic on Liz Myers have the correct (c)? Bearian 00:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is OK now. Bearian 16:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Arthur W. (Nick) Arundel

• Arthur W. (Nick) Arundel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Times Community Newspapers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tarundel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suspect this article is being written/edited by a relative. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. Both articles should probably face the wrath of AFD. I'm not sure I'm in the mood to send them there now. The editor has a long history of COI editing in various articles (not just those two) and needs to be cautioned again. YechielMan 02:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The Spastic Centre

• The Spastic Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TheSpasticCentre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

COI editing by a charitable organization despite being previously warned. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Article is not neutral and gives too much emphasis to the charity's activities as opposed to encyclopedic significance. However, based on a web search, it's a notable organization and not a deletion candidate. I'm not sure how to proceed. YechielMan 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Shane Osborn

• Shane Osborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 164.119.66.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pearbo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Shane Osborn is the Nebraska State Treasurer - article is being edited by the above IP, which whois shows as belonging the Office of the Chief Information Officer for Nebraska. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Pearbo (talk · contribs) is, I'm fairly certain, the same user as the above IP, and apparently logged in as User:Pearbo in order to create a now-deleted autobiographical article on Perry Pirsch, who is, according to this, Mr. Osborn's deputy and general counsel. (The text of the Pirsch article can be seen here.) The same user is adding peacock language to the Osborn article. Some elementary digging makes it pretty clear that User:Pearbo is Perry Pirsch. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged this article and made recommendations on the talk page of the article. Bearian 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:LeanInsider

Lean manufacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) LeanInsider added a book and general link. I reverted the edits and gave a spam and coi warning.
LeanInsider (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) works for Productivity Press. Has asked for help on if and how s/he can add links to Productivity Press books Book listings, after recieving a warning about the edits to Lean manufacturing
Kanban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Added a book link after asking for discussion on the talk page.
Organizational culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Asked for discussion about adding a book link.

I think LeanInsider has done a commendable job of trying to work within WP:COI guidelines, but I'm a bit concerned about the "Book listings" feedback s/he recieved. This may be more a spam issue than coi, but I wanted to check here. Anyone want to take a look? -- Ronz  19:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the contribs and the article talk page discussions. COI eagerness to add links must be tempered by NPOV policies and guidelines. — Athaenara ✉ 03:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

ResMed deletion of negative information

• ResMed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Resmed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user removed negative content from the article with the statement "deletion of incorrect and non-encyclopedic content". However, the company's own website seems to verify the information that was deleted, along with several other sources that Google turns up. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jamieparanal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Speaktruthtoprosper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Two additional single-purpose accounts involved. — Athaenara ✉ 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged the article as COI and noted my action on the talk page. Bearian 00:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

MobyGames/ Flipkin

• Special:Linksearch/*.mobygames.com
• Flipkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Flipkin has established himself [25] as David Berk, a co-founder of the MobyGames website and has added some 900 links to the website, all still there, right up to his most recent edit [26]. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#mobygames.com [27]. There seem to be an associated farm of socks which have got the site up to over 6000 links. Some legit editors defend some of the links and any clean up would be messy. --BozMo talk 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the general problem when 'good' links are spammed. I would strongly advocate a clean up off all links added by this and sock-accounts (per WP:SPAM; "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."; ). Established editors can then revert the edits where they can justify the links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For something of that magnitude, I would hope the linked websites would be blacklisted. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's two templates which transclude most of the spam. I've nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9. MER-C 06:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clever. If only he had used his power for good instead of evil . . . Nice catch. Should we disable the links in the template in the meantime or leave them for reviewers at the TfD? --Butseriouslyfolks 06:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider this decision. Having glanced over the COI page, th only material that seems like it might apply to the links that have been made thus far would be under the following:

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

From this I would say that 1. doesn't apply because the links are not obscure, are relevant to many of the game pages being linked and are not commercial except in the sense that the site in question contains ads within the pages and even merchanting links generated to amazon.com and ebay. I would say that 2. doesn't apply because mobygames is a public project and not a "personal page" in any sense. In fact, all edits by flipkin can be viewed from his own page on the site, and certainly don't cover every aspect or even the majority of content. 3. may or may not apply in some cases, but since the "biographies" of various individuals (game develeopers) is dynamically updated on the Mobygames infrastructure, that means that information is constantly updating and becoming more complete. Like wikipedia, actual biographies, photos and other information must be contributed by users and in many cases, pages linked to will not be "complete" in any sense, similar to many wikipedia pages on various individuals.

Full disclosure: I am also associated with the Mobygames game project and am considered "staff" for the website. (Apologies for if I haven't used the wikipedia formatting codes properly in this comment, I don't use them often enough.) --WildKard 08:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the bit you overlooked is: "How to avoid COI edits... avoid... 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);"--BozMo talk 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:External links as well. They clearly state that massive linking of this sort is not allowed on Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I did that, and right on #3 of what to link to is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Are you saying MobyGames doesn't qualify under the 'amount of detail' section, especially credits? --Trixter 06:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a COI notice board. You founded a website and you added hundreds of links to it in Wikipedia. That's a conflict of interest violation. --BozMo talk 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Trixter and Bhirt have also declared themselves as MobyGames founders in the TfD discussion. --BozMo talk 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed the part in WP:SPAM that says: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. nadav (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Looking at the various discussions around on this one there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that we delete the 3500 or so links added by the hard-core COI spammers, put those gentlemen all on a final warning and leave the broader community to sort out any worth adding back over time. Anyone agree/disagree? Anyone got an obvious bot to hand capable of doing this (given the links are all templated and the list of spammed articles we could put together)? --BozMo talk 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the number of links spammed is closer to 5500. Other than User:Frecklefoot and User:Krótki, no established editors have added a large number of mobygames.com links. On my survey I found an incredible number of SPA's adding moby links in a very systematic fashion; for example alphabetically, or for exactly one calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31). The SPA's get warned, some get blocked, but they always return under a new name. Another problem I see repeating is when User:Mathsgeek deleted a bunch of moby spam, the WP:VG community blindly reverted all of it. I like BozMo's proposal but I don't think it is going to work. (Requestion 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I think if we do it with an edit summary linked to an explanation page then we would have a good case for warning and sanctioning mindless reverts of links to empty pages. --BozMo talk 11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a nuclear option where persistent spammers have their links automatically banned by a bot? Sounds like a job for AN/I. -- THF 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with BozMo. We can then leave it to regular page editors whether to add the links back. Alternatively, if new SPA's continue to spam then the site will have to be added to the blacklist. Has WikiProject Spam been consulted? nadav (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Yep! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#mobygames.com) JoeSmack ^Talk 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spamming shouldn't be tolerated for even a second. DurinsBane87 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Total support for implementation of BozMo's proposal. — Athaenara ✉ 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And nadav's. — Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The last three comments sum up my opinion entirely. Do not tolerate Spam. Nuke Spammed links and let CVG community re-add the useful ones. If they spam again blacklist the whole site. - X201 12:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with X201. After much discussion here, the Mobygames site appears to have some value as an ext link, analogous to IMDB for films. However, if we were aware that the owner of IMDB was adding links to its site by the thousand, we would never tolerate it. The links added in spam fashion have to go. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuke 'em, but keep the templates. MobyGames has some great content (which means the template is still useful), but note I say some; a large number of entries are even stubbier than Wikipedia's, and yet these users have been adding links to them regardless of quality or relevance. Garrett^Talk 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The template is the reason for the massive spamming. It offers an umbrella to work under. Likewise, many inexperienced editors think they should add the template to any plausible article simply because it exists. Nuking the links without nuking the template would make little sense. The template is the problem. The spammign would never have occured without it. And there is no downside as valid links can be added where appropriate like every other site. Special treatment led to abuse. The real issue needs to be addressed. 2005 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable for me. I guess if the template is the problem because other websites/communities are not using a template for their own linking to relevant articles, then we should not have it either. --WildKard 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

3 comments

I'm going to copy and paste 3 comments from the TfD, because I believe they're important for you to read:

One problem for me is the complete lack of attempt to mention the issue at either of the templates' talkpages, or to change its instructions to regulate usage to only useful Moby entries. The instructions for TfD state: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." --Quiddity 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So why not be bold and do it? As for changing instructions, a much wider community worked on WP:EL so perhaps you could just link to that. But we aren't talking about odd innocent editors. We are talking about the systematic addition of mainly shallow links to thousands of pages by a group of people who aggressively reply to queries with "its all agreed". I don't think there is any chance at all that this gang would be influence by comments on a template, even if you just posted "see WP:EL" probably it would just get deleted. Most communities on WP are a bit better at self regulation on these kind of things. That's how it should be --BozMo talk 06:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The wp:point is, why didn't you?

I only noticed this TfD by accident, and am dismayed and disappointed at the zealous/crusading/confrontational attitudes towards other editors (e.g. this comment by BozMo, this initial comment by Hahnchen, ignoring things like the 2 warnings Flipkin gave User talk:69.139.77.86, etc) and towards a free, community-driven reference-project (sound familiar?). More so than that, I'm frankly disturbed at your current discussion of a law-in-your-own-hands solution at WP:COIN#Proposal.

As Lendorien stated: "Hate to say it, but someone has been going around deleting all the mobygames links from every game article, regardless of whether mobygames link has more or useful information about the game. In some cases, the mobygames link has been the ONLY SOURCE for the article.--Lendorien 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)" Is that going to happen again?

And now you are seriously, nay, eagerly, contemplating razing Wikipedia of links to an incredibly useful resource. Slash and burn should only be a last resort solution, where the vast good will outweigh any harm, and that is not even close to the case here (see the thread about featured articles, above. and that's just the featured articles...).

It reminds me of the theory about how police officers should be required to regularly spend a little time working with innocent children or animals, instead of just criminals all the time. You're all displaying a bad attitude, that is not helpful to anyone concerned in the end, and that needs to be made abundantly clear. --Quiddity 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

End of copy. Uses of "You" intended in the selective/encompassing sense, not singular.

If you do anything like "nuking" the links to a useful reference, purely to chastise a handful of editors who almost certainly thought they were helping both sites (worldwideweb), you're going to be doing a lot more harm than good, and end up pissing off a lot of bystanders. Please please, take a calm and measured approach, and do not take unilateral action based on the single-minded consensus displayed above. Thank you for reading. --Quiddity 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read these comments and appreciate your good faith opinion on the matter which is at one end of the spectrum of good faith opinions I have seen expressed. I am even happy to believe that the TfD which appeared on every one of 6500 links on CVG pages you were lucky to notice by accident. As for the personal overtones you use in terms of "zealous/crusading/confrontational" I am happy to leave anyone to judge my comments and style in raising the issue with a few COI editors versus the way in which you have approached people who in good faith removed some of these links. What I am missing in the above though is your suggestion on what we should do next (apart from your parody of what you think we are proposing). --BozMo talk 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, I think your position is persuasive in the TfD discussion but not here. The question there is whether the template should be deleted because it has been used excessively to spam WP. Your position indicates that there are appropriate uses for the template, as the linked site often has value, so it should be retained.

Here, however, the question is how should we respond to a large-scale linkspamming operation conducted by an editor with a COI. These links were added indiscriminately without regard to whether the content at the linked site warranted the links. Nevertheless, even if most of them were warranted, they are still spam posted by a user with a COI problem. Useful spam links are still spam links. "Live with the COI spam because it might be useful" is not a workable position here, as it invites spammers to linkspam WP in the hopes that some users will find their links useful.

In a perfect world, we could assign several paid employees the editorial task of reviewing each of these links for propriety and deleting only the inappropriate links. However, we don't have those kinds of resources. The proper course here is to delete the links added en masse in the same manner as they were added -- indiscriminately. Warn the user but don't blacklist the site yet. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To all: I've replied to BozMo at User talk:Quiddity#Hi with some of the background thoughts and impetus I'm bringing to this issue. Just pointing there to assuage any curiosity, and to further clarify who/what I'm frustrated with.

Here, I'm really trying to make it clear that something is amiss, when the possibility of blacklisting such a site is mentioned, after so little has been done to assist the users at fault from making further mistakes.

• Examine User talk:Flipkin: He was welcomed and then encouraged/assisted with the usage of the template back in September 2005, then out of the blue he was warned 5 days ago.
• User talk:TnS, was warned by Chicken Wing in January 2007, and then when TnS offered a measured and intelligent response Chicken Wing replied "Sounds fine. ...".
• User talk:Krótki was warned for the first time 5 days ago. Welcomed in Jan 2006
• User talk:Corn Popper was warned for the first time 5 days ago. Welcomed in Jan 2005
• User talk:Ravimakkar was stomped on in January 2006, but was then told "You don't have to be sorry. ...".
• User talk:69.139.77.86 was warned twice by Flipkin not to add links unless they were definitely useful.

And that's it from the list of offenders (those who added 50+ links, excluding frecklefoot. and I'm simplifying, but you get the point). Possibly I'm missing some pertinent facts (?), but after many hours of reading and discussing, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling that there is a lot more Bite than Good going on, and I'm trying to (emphatically) point that out in the only way I can.

Thanks again for reading. I really do appreciate the work that Coin and wpspam does, I'm just trying to supply an outside perspective on this particular issue, which seems to be getting potentially way-overblown. --Quiddity 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Quiddity. I'd like to remove User:Krótki from your list above and add User:Corn Popper, User:59.182.37.97, and User:63.212.164.226. The accounts in the above list are not real editors, they are WP:SPA and I suspect several of them to be the same person. They mass spam, get warned, blocked, create a new account, and repeat. They are what we call serial spammers. Have you looked at the contribution logs for those accounts? The only thing we could do to assist is to help them add mobygames.com links since that's all that they care about. (Requestion 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

(Corn Popper added, but) Those IPs haven't even gotten a welcome/warning template yet... This is exactly the kind of bad faith/bite attitude I'm trying to point out above.

To try and explain it another way: Some people contribute without reading any more than the warnings and suggestions from just below the edit window (if that). Someone might see that a link to imdb is missing from a movie article, adds it, then goes through all their favourite movies to check that each one has it. I did that in the distant past. Others work alphabetically, because it's straightforward, and that's what they think will help. Look at List of health topics (S); someone started there, and hopes to return to finish it later or hopes someone else will. That's how this place works (One of many). wp:iar is policy to prevent exactly this kind of overenthusiastic wikilawyering. I'm probably shooting myself in the foot by repetitively trying to help you understand, but I know of no other way to expand your world view to encompass what it currently does not.

[Perhaps I should've posted these comments at WPSPAM... Sigh. It's tough giving unsolicited "Working with others" feedback to multiple people. Sorry to those uninvolved, I usually try not to be this verbose. Feedback would be appreciated though...] --Quiddity 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Requestion: You just now added 3 templates at once to User talk:63.212.164.226, a user that hasn't edited since January 2007, and to User talk:69.139.77.86 whom hasn't edited since August 2006, and to User talk:59.182.37.97 whom has only made 12 edits. This is very bad faith. You are gaming the warning templates.

And before you accuse me of stalking, bear in mind that researching and analysing the activities of individual users in order to come to an objective set of conclusions is part of what you are meant to be doing too, as part of investigating possible spam/coi problems. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?: "Who will watch the watchers?". Anyone who notices problems, that's who. --Quiddity 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Quiddity. You are absolutely correct and thank you for stalking. The edits of those IP addresses were in extremely bad faith. You might not be aware of this but in SPAM and COI cases it's standard practice that all socks are considered to be the same individual / entity. I also just found User:68.46.123.33 who is an extremely interesting sock. That IP address has been banned, indefinitely blocked, and somehow added 300 mobygames.com external links. The more I dig the more interesting it gets. (Requestion 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

The User:68.46.123.33 case is interesting. I'm also curious as to how that happened.

However, that doesn't address why you added 3 levels of warning templates at once, to users like User:TnS. Is that standard practice too? It seems overtly hostile, and is gaming-the-system in my opinion.

Are there any admins who could weigh in please? --Quiddity 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could I guess. WP:BITE and WP:AGF are important but we also allow an appropriate treatment recognition of "obvious socks". The disagreement is because you look at a pattern of use and read it as "clearly" something different to how requestion does. I think that takes us beyond policy into subjective judgement. I would personally say that a single anon IP who you suspect to be a sock and does nothing but add a dozen links to a site with spamming issues you probably on balance get guided by WP:BITE and WP:AGF, and talk to them gently, but by the time you have multiple such accounts all similar the chances there are genuine naive users behind them becomes vanishing small. So, I am with Requestion on this one. You are welcome to ask another Admin of course. --BozMo talk 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant an uninvolved admin... However you didn't address the only question I asked: Is it standard practice to put 3 levels of warning templates at once on pages like User talk:TnS and User talk:59.182.37.97? Does that not seem excessive and rude? I understand jumping straight to a high-level template is normal, but not posting 3 at once. --Quiddity 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem Quiddity? You follow me around and throw wrenches into the Wikipedia machinery like you are trying to make a WP:POINT about spammer sympathy. User:TnS already had a warning from Chicken Wing and Nposs. I just added a 3rd warning but those previous warnings don't even matter. Like I said, it is standard practice to inherit warnings across accounts. Also many spam fighters start at a spam4 warning in cases of mass spamming which +1600 links definitely qualifies. (Requestion 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Well, yes I added a lot of MobyGames links alphabetically to stub video game articles. I can't say anything new, just repeat myself: "I do not work for MobyGames and I am not affiliated with them in any ways. If you noticed I have added MobyGames links mostly to game stub pages. Game stub pages are usually quite uninformative without screenshots." If you noticed I've not added a single link to MobyGames since the warning of Nposs. And thus I would like to ask the removal of the "Courtesy messages" section from my talk page because it is quite embarassing. I did all the additions with good intentions, according to Talk:MobyGames#MobyGames template. I understand that I made a mistake because of adding too many links to low content pages on MobyGames. But that was because of the lack of rules. Someone should update the MobyGames template page and the Talk:MobyGames#MobyGames template section with the guidelines/rules of correct linking to MobyGames. The NeveR SLeePiNG 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello TnS. Wow, your response was quick. I have a deal for you. I'll remove the "Courtesy messages" on your talk page if you agree to remove the 1600 mobygames.com external links / templates that you added. Seems fair. What do you think? (Requestion 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Not all the 1600 links are bad, most of them contains more value than the Wikipedia article. That's why I need the guidelines/rules so I can make the removal according to them. The NeveR SLeePiNG 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Gbooks24 / KatieSimon

• Gbooks24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KatieSimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.106.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An admitted employee of Simon & Schuster using the above registered usernames and IP is posting numerous S&S author bios using text copied from other websites, including the S&S website. I posted the info to the spamdalism noticeboard and an admin left a very nice message for the editor in question explaining WP:C. I think the WP:COI concern is much more substantial. Another editor notified her of WP's COI policy, and I asked her to disclose her identity on the article's talk pages, but she is reluctant to do so. I think the idea of a major publisher posting copyvio bios of its authors on WP is highly inappropriate and borders on User:MyWikiBiz. Anybody agree? --Butseriouslyfolks 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, highly inappropriate and violate WP:NOT. — Athaenara ✉ 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, also: I have requested a move of Kate brian to Kate Brian. This is one of the articles created by User:KateSimon. Bearian 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Cberlet / Dking

See also

→ Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Lyndon LaRouche
→ Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1#LaRouche/Dking conflict of interest
→ Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Dking (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

Cberlet and Dking are Chip Berlet and Dennis King, political activists who campaigned back in the 1980s for the jailing of Lyndon LaRouche. The two of them have started an edit war at the article Lyndon LaRouche, because they object to the inclusion in the intro of a quote from former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who casts doubt on the legitimacy of the LaRouche trial. Quotes from Berlet and King are plentiful in the article, but the two of them seek to dominate content in violation of both WP:OWN and WP:COI. They are also engaged in abuse of Wikipedia for self-promotion -- Dking was featured earlier on this noticeboard for linkspamming (see this],) and Cberlet is engaged in similar activity. --Don't lose that number 06:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that this is a COI issue. Moreover, the quote from Clark was sourced to the LaRouche site, and I understand he was hired by him. nadav (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the basis for this understanding? --Don't lose that number 13:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. It's not our problem. Take it to WP:AE. MER-C 07:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't see an issue here. FeloniousMonk 16:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Quicken Loans

• Quicken Loans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ok, please excuse my stupidity if this is the wrong place to post this, but I am new here so I haven't really learned all the policies yet.

Anyways, there is a slow moving edit war over at Quicken Loans between anti-Quicken users (many of which are obvious sockpuppets) and other, possibly corporate, users. Here's a list of the troublemakers, going back fairly far in the article history:

• Clayc313 (talk · contribs) has made some good edits, but seems to be pro-Quicken. Most of his/her edits are to Quicken Loans, a fair amount of others are to Dan Gilbert (somebody who works at Quicken Loans), and then there are a few edits to Michigan related topics, including Livonia, Michigan, which is the headquarters of Rock Financial, a company that seems to be (from my quick research), a subsidiary of Quicken Loans.

• Drig06 (talk · contribs) seems to be a sock of Clayc313, which I'm hypothesizing based on similar edits. While this user does not edit exactly the same articles as Clayc313, he does edit Quicken and related topics. For instance, s/he edits Fathead, which is owned by the aforementioned Dan Gilbert. However, also like Clayc313, Drig06 does have some good edits.

• 12.165.188.130 (talk · contribs) seems to be the same person. Key clues include his/her most recent edit and this edit, changes very similar to ones previously made by the above users. This also seems to be a pretty good clue. Finally, this IP has also made several edits to Fathead (the disambig page) and Fathead (brand). This user does have some good edits in his/her contribs, but has some vandalism as well.
  • I think you'll find this quite informative. Looks like time for a WP:RFCU. Raymond Arritt 17:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fianlly, there's Rockfinancial (talk · contribs) (and some seemingly associated IPs, but that doesn't really matter), which, besides having a clearly corporate username, keeps putting information back in that's removed by the above three users. Since that info is verified, this seems like a good thing.

This is just a sampling of the most recent disturbances, if anyone would like to go further back in the article's war zone of an edit history, I'm sure there are other suspicious contributors to be found there. However, this is the most I can deal with at the moment.

Thanks so much and sorry to have to bother you with all this (and again please accept my humble apologies if this is misplaced or unnecessary!). Slan-cheh 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• You've come to the right place. I went through the article with a machete and cut out about half of the content, which was either not sourced or reflected a non-neutral tone either for or against the company. The current version should be neutral.

Going forward, it is clear without a checkuser that the first three users you listed are sockpuppets. I'm not sure what to do about that, but knowing is half the battle. Leaving messages asking them to mind NPOV would help; temporary page protection is also an option. I'll let someone else make that decision. YechielMan 00:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Dice

• Mark Dice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner 2
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Resistance Manifesto

This is a soapbox matter rather a straight COI but COIN is probably the best noticeboard for it. "John Conner" is a pseudonym used by Mark Dice until recently. His internet radio show and writings appear similar to Alex Jones (radio). Under either name he is known for self-promotion. For the past couple of years promotional edits favoring him have been made to Wikipedia. In the past he's been sufficiently non-notable that most of the references have been removed. The "John Conner" article was successfully AFDed twice, and speedily deleted a couple of more times too. Obviously it's been recreated several times. The various promotional efforts have paind off and he's probably notable enough now to merit at least a short article. If so, we need to watch it closely to prevent it from becoming a soapbox for fringe theories. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is another one that needs to be looked at more carefully not onyl for COI, but notability. He's merely famous for stalking and for being in the news, not being or doing anything per se. I've tagged it, too. Bearian 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Curling Club

• Ottawa Curling Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Earl Andrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I cleaned up a lot of unsourced and trivial information from the Ottawa Curling Club page diff, and noticed that this user edits widely on curling topics. Many of the articles edited by Earl Andrew contain a great deal of unsourced and (often trivial) personal / organisational information, indicating he has a strong connection to the people and organisations he is writing about. The OCC article contains information about various aspects of club business, including a long table of current league statistics, redlinks to club members, past presidents, and so on. Rather than answer my concern, he reverted the cleanup without comment and declined to answer questions about why he believes the information to be notable and his connection to the subject. Earl Andrew is a solid Wikipedian, but given the statement on his userpage that he is a member of this organisation, there is clearly a barrier to his impartiality on this topic. I sense a revert scuffle if I attempt to clean up the article again, so if a 3rd eye could be cast over it that would be much appreciated. Deiz talk 07:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the COI, but these articles certainly need major attention for sourcing and style. For example, Jenn Hanna: "In the final, Hanna's team played well, and led for most of the game, and were looking like they were going to win it. In the tenth end, Hanna's team was up by two but did not have the hammer. Hanna's team had a rock on the button that was already well guarded, and decided to throw another guard rather than take away Jones' only chance at scoring, an in-off. Jones managed to make the extremely difficult shot, coming in-off of a Ontario stone just in front of the house, to take out Hanna's shot rock to score four and win the Scott". Gordonofcartoon 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional opinions are needed at Talk:Ottawa Curling Club. -- Satori Son 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Earl Andrew has talked about the need for consensus which is positive, but still seems a little resistant to any changes despite the consensus which is emerging in favour of removing the questioned information. As of right now, the article is in line with ps & gs, hopefully we can keep it that way. Deiz talk 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Douglas Olson

• Mark Douglas Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Avidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Swanny123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Minnesota Republican 6th Congressional District Chair, Mark Swanson [[28] ]is editing the page for his friend Rep. Mark Olson who is awaiting trial in July for domestic assault. Mark Swanson was once Rep. Mark Olson's campaign manager. Swanson is defending his edits on the comment section of the MN Publius blog [[29]]. Avidor 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User Avidor's recent edits follow more along the lines of this section. He an avid critic of Rep. Olson. Recent edits by me were done in strict accordance with the neutrality policy and an impartial administrator should be able to judge the reason for my edits and the COI that Avidor is exhibiting. As such his recent edits should be reverted or the article deleted entirely (since he created it). Furthermore, he is using the COI policy in an attempt to discourage me from making appropriate editing and should be nominated for at least a temporary block.Swanny123 17:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Earnest

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Earnest

• Matthew Earnest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MATTHEWEARNEST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Note article and username are the same for this article. -FeralDruid 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I was flagging it for uw-coi, another user flagged it for AfD. -FeralDruid 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Drum Major Institute

• Drum Major Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drum Major Institute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unclear what to do. Seems to be a notable org, but tone of article is promotional. YechielMan 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems notable, but What a mess of an article: Red Link City, USA. COI and messy articles seem to go hand in hand. Bearian 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And this edit violates NPOV, since Drum Major is a thinktank way to the left of the nonpartisan Brookings, which is characterized as "liberal." THF 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also:

• Chelesay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - spa (and sockpuppet/meatpuppet?) for DMI, created 12 June
• Andrea Batista Schlesinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - DMI official article created spammily by DMI and edited by Chelesay -- THF 11:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• 140.239.224.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Drum Major Institute similarly to the above editors.

I notified the first two editors about possible coi issues, and recieved a reply from the first: [30]. I'm concerned that editor Drum Major Institute has continued editing both articles, including removing a likearesume tag, without contributing to the Talk pages of either. I'm hoping a note from another editor would be helpful. -- Ronz  20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Bernard J. Taylor

• Bernard J. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Terrell Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Siebahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article on playwright created by a person claiming to be the webmaster for his promotional website who is also adding promotional information about the playwright to other articles and has started an article about at least one fictional character in playwright's plays. WP:OWN issues are arising -- user is removing appropriate templates. Erechtheus 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the COI admission. I've left a warning. Block indefinitely on the next COI or spam edit. Somebody needs to go clean up this big mess. This user has been a prolific spammer. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User maintains webpage:

• bernardjtaylor.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please indef block this abusive editor?

Grab your mop. Every edit from this account is self-serving COI or linkspam, hitting multiple articles. (e.g. [31][32][33]) Wikipedia is being abused for a publicity campaign. The editor has been warned up, but persists, and has been leaving obnoxious messages with any editor who opposes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Occupational Illness and User:PintoPotts

• PintoPotts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pinto Potts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Occupational Illness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- spa for advertising a law firm, cleverly using a non-law-firm article to accomplish its purposes. Check especially the userpage. THF 11:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

New urbanism edits by a marketing person

• Antoinette Panton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• New urbanism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Antoinette Panton edited this article, adding a URL and some info for a new development. Panton appears on Google as a press/marketing person for other developments in South Africa, such as [34] and [35] AW 16:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Billion Tree Campaign - UNEP

• United Nations Billion Tree Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Billion Tree Campaign - UNEP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The UN is promoting its billion tree campaign with this account. This is probably very low on the COI radar, just giving a heads up, especially if this account were to become blocked, this could lead to some bad mojo. -N 16:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Half Cousin and Iodine - Album

• Half Cousin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Iodine - Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gronland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - An employee of Gronland records appears to be creating and editing articles by the bands it publishes. Bearian 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

FHM spammer

• fhmonline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com - Added linksearch. — Athaenara ✉ 11:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

12.0.24.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- This IP address associated with FHM almost excusively adds FHM links to Wikipedia and rarely adds content. Chicken Wing 20:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Mike Gravel articles

• Mike Gravel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Political positions of Mike Gravel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• National initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TheNewHampshireVolunteer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user appears to have conflict of interest in that he works/volunteers for the campaign in question. Metros 13:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

James T Clement

• James T Clement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sting of the Viper "LEGACY" ACT I (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sting of the Viper “UNFORGIVEN” ACT II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sting of the Viper “REDEMPTION” ACT III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Blukem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.55.188.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.55.30.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user name Blukem corresponds with the name of one the films listed on James T Clement's filmography and the name of a comic on the website listed as the official website of the Sting of the Viper films. BlueAzure 15:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic Submission

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Dynamic Submission
→ See also: Article deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review#8 June 2007

• Dynamic Submission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• akc9000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been playing me for a fool. I had tried to help him restore NPOV to this article, after he said that he had no COI. Upon checking the domain name registration records, I see that he is intimately involved with this software. (IP location: "New Jersey - East Brunswick - Akc Consulting")

Full disclosure: I first became acquinted with this editor when he nominated search engine marketing for deletion. I opposed that action strongly.

Under the circumstances, this user should be considered for an indef block as an abusive account. I've already nominated the article for speedy. It should be salted to prevent recreation. Jehochman ^Talk 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

akc9000 is also removing maintenance tags. [36] Jehochman ^Talk 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Now he's blanked the page. Inexperienced user thinks he can cover his tracks... Jehochman ^Talk 22:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree: the article should be deleted and salted and User Akc9000 blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I say we give him 2 hours to fix the article without anyone else touching it, if it is no better by then it should be deleted. -- :) Chetblong 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we should not do that. He's blatantly violating WP:COI and WP:NPOV. This user needs to be blocked until he agree to abide by Wikipedia's content policies. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... You know Jehochman you are an outright liar! If you look at the deletion review log, you wll see that I told everyone in deletion review that I owned one website that sells/maintains this product. So what? There are thousands of people that sell this product! I own an ISP, I do not own the company that made this product. You are just looking at everything I write and causing problems for me because I had your article afd. Well I will tell you know, if you wrote it right, I would not have complained. I was upfront and honest with everyone. Deletion review stated that COI does not prevent me from writing an article if I am non-partial. Let me tell you. I know why you are doing this! I finally figured it out. You cannot stand products like this because you charge customers money for what program does for free. No I did not blank the article for that reason. That artcle justy came out of deletion review and you started manipulating it to state that products like this do not work. Again, because you are in this field and these type of products make you lose money. You should be ashamed of yourself telling me I am violating COI, you are twisting things to your advantage and you employed sockpuppets to get your way. What is it with you? You are following all my edits that have anything to do with your line of work and causing problems. You should be banned from Wiki for this! --Akc9000 01:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)