Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pollyfodder (talk | contribs) at 02:12, 18 April 2007 (→‎[[Break.com]] {{coi-links|Break.com}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
    Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests
    Talk:American Council on Education
    Talk:Anaxam
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Black Diamond Equipment
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Sujit Choudhry
    Talk:City of Whittlesea
    Talk:Slaid Cleaves
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Collodion process
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Rebekah Dawson
    Talk:Louis DeJoy
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Drama Juniors
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:Kellie Gerardi
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Steven Grinspoon
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Hempel Group
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Infillion
    Talk:Orit Ishay
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Knight-Hennessy Scholars
    Talk:Chris Kubecka
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Bruce M. McLaren
    Talk:Media.Monks
    Talk:Menil Collection
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Joan Nestle
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:OneHope
    Talk:Origin of the Kurds
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Gregory Pence
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Revolut
    Talk:RTI International
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:South Fort Myers High School
    Talk:Space Capital
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:Traton
    Talk:Edward Trobaugh
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Vandalism on Wikipedia
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Xavier University
    Talk:Yelp
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

    Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-08-04 20:13 (UTC)

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


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

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

    Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    It could go back. Having improved the article is a legitimate reason, but that editor simply removed the tag and word "auspicious" from the intro [1]. Tearlach 08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, done. — Æ. ✉ 20:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been somewhat improved, so I removed the prod, but it's still marginal and I'm thoroughly sick of it—a performance artist notable only in the most fringe of fringe art circles in a few non-English-speaking countries. I've taken it off my watchlist, leaving it to other NPOV editors who are willing to look after it. — Athænara ✉ 11:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    • Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Wikipedia article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder talk 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Wikipedia gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/- Warren 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewonder talk 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both Afds (one, two) resulted in keep. — Athænara ✉ 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's fine ... but User:Superdeterminism participated in a highly COI way during the second AFD. I see that Jehochman put a warning on SD's talk page. Keesiewonder talk 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood (I wasn't disputing anything, merely added a factoid.) Is this section active or should it be archived? — Athænara ✉ 20:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Keesiewonder talk 21:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Badmonkey is likely a representative of an anchor manufacturer (Ronca Anchors), is attempting to include favorable biased information of his anchor in article and reporting removal attemps of biased information as vandalism. Russeasby 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Defense: Refer to incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Wikipedia's right to anonymity. Badmonkey 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nm.: Russeasby has been blocked for 3RR violation. Badmonkey 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (Edit conflict. Addressing 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC) post) [Not "revenge act"]. See the description of this noticeboard's purpose at the top of this page.
    After several days of disruptive and tendentious editing, much of it by single purpose account user Badmonkey, the article has been protected. — Athænara ✉ 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    NPOV editors: Research summary posted 20:37, March 30 2007 (UTC) by Hoof Hearted. Article protection is scheduled to expire tomorrow. — Æ. ✉ 02:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Good style, link to your favored diff of the talk page! Try Talk:Anchor instead. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 03:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Note User:Badmonkey is back at it, reverting removal of link spam (4 out of 5 links on the Anchor page link to POV and COI rocna.com website. He has also removed breif mention of competitor anchors. Russeasby 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    For goodness sake what is there is not link spam! They are two magazine articles, one Coastguard handbook article, and an essay by an anchor designer - all of which have been published by independent parties. It's interesting that there used to be a dozen or so links there, but someone went through and cleaned them all up - leaving all the ones that happen to be hosted on the Rocna website, plus only one other... Perhaps you could contribute to some content instead of campaigning against that which you don't like!
    Regarding other anchors, see the talk page. Brands should not be mentioned unless they are unique and noteworthy. The simple mention of those three implictly demands the mention of hundreds of others, which is neither worthwhile nor, probably, possible.
    bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Now the user has also removed the subsequently added "citation needed" templates from the article without an edit summary (diff). I have reverted his edit and posted a {{uw-maintenance1}} on his talk page; the user has not yet responded. -- intgr 11:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The user is now accusing me of harassment and asking for time for citing his sources. (diff of my talk, diff of Talk:Optical Carrier). He has also removed previous comments from the aforementioned talk page (diff).
    I have once again removed his text from Optical Carrier (diff) and demanded reliable sources (diff, diff).
    I also warned him for re-introducing unsourced information and deleting others' comments. (diff). -- intgr 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know whether to laugh or cry, so I am crying while laughing over this incident.
    It appears that this company is some investor scam, and they wanted to use Wikipedia for promotion; however, the vigorous intervention of users intgr and NigelJ have brought this innovative R&D company to their knee-equivalents! Quoting their web site [2]:
    "[...] WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO ARRANGE AND ADD OUR RESEARCH TO WIKIPEDIA [...]"
    "[...] THESE EFFORTS HAVE BECOME DIFFICULT AND IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO ACTIONS OF BY AND BETWEEN INDEPENDNANT EXTERNAL CONTENT EDITORS FOR WIKIPEDIA. IE USER:intgr IE User:NijelJ "
    Looking at their "products" page, they have also developed a fiber optic backbone that has integrated storage in it! "124.6 Gbps ® via a patent pending electronic device with 80.29PiB storage and 676 processors."
    It would help if they actually had a clue about technology. :)
    High five, NigelJ! -- intgr 15:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The cabal strikes again. MER-C 04:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I also got the horrible talk page message... diff Intgr: thanks for the high five ;) btw, he also has removed my warnings from his talk page (Including the one when I notified of this section), maybe blocks should be considered for abusive behaviour? (shrug) --NigelJ talk SIMPLE 07:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    RJASE1 Talk 17:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've left warning messages and suggested that he go to WP:RFC to get the article reviewed. He has been nominated for a few major awards, so I think he would qualify as notable, and as far as autobiographies go, this is far from the worst I've seen. However, the article lacks references, so I tagged it as such. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    * I'm a "trekkie". I've not heard of him, but I'll take a look at the article. Bearian 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See also:

    According to his userpage, the user operates the above website. Over a period of time, the user has apparently added numerous links to his own website in citations and links for several articles.

    1. diff
    2. diff
    3. diff
    4. diff
    5. diff
    6. diff
    7. diff
    8. diff
    9. diff
    10. diff
    11. diff
    12. diff

    I could add many more examples, but I think the above is enough to make my point, along with the fact that this is still continuing today - diff.

    I'll also file a report at WT:WPSPAM but cleanup will be difficult as many of the link additions are embedded in material citations. I'm not even going to get into the WP:SPS problems here. RJASE1 Talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FYI, this is a Wikipedian with an article - Dennis King. RJASE1 Talk 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user seems to have done quite a bit of editing as User:208.222.71.17. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's another severely conflicted editor [3] getting in on the action at Independence Party of New York. Seems like there are problems on both sides of this controversy. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The WT:WPSPAM report is here. I know this is duplication to some extent but this needs to be looked at from a couple of different angles. RJASE1 Talk 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user apparently never answers his talk page posts. Still editing, but none of the links have been self-reverted nor have the concerns been addressed. What do you recommend we do here? RJASE1 Talk 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Linksearch on this guy's website shows twenty nine at the moment. Only eleven are talk pages: the other eighteen are articles. I'm thinking get them out of the articles. If their use is valid in any case, NPOV editors can replace them. The site owner should not. — Athænara ✉ 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Down to nineteen now. Tedious. — Æ. ✉ 08:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The list of so-called spam links to my site includes at least three links on talk pages placed there by people other than myself; in two cases they were talk pages for articles I had never visited much less posted on. I believe there are more. If I have placed links on talk pages to articles on my web site, it has been as part of an ongoing discussion with other editors in order to provide them with access to pertinent information re the issues being discussed. As to links within the articles themselves, my web site is not a commercial site; I do not sell products and I do not employ bots to build traffic. It is an archival site that contains copies of published material by myself and others that I have used to properly cite statements in articles relating to two political cult leaders that I am an acknowledged expert on. There have been disputes and edit wars on these articles, and admins have upheld my right to cite my own writings. I find it ironic that after a long fight on one of these articles to prevent the edit warriors from removing links to outside web sites critical of them, including mine, the deletion is now being accomplished on spam grounds. To give two other examples: On the article "Jewish Defense Organization" not only was the link to my website deleted but also the entire sentence it referenced, including the properly sourced bibliographical print info, was removed. In the article "U.S. Labor Party" the link to two articles archived on my web site was also deleted although these articles are probably the only published source of detailed information about the electoral record of this defunct and rather obscure organization. If there is a time that I was placing many links it was during a dispute regarding the article "Lyndon LaRouche" a couple of months ago. Followers of Mr. LaRouche placed in the article a description of my book on their leader which seriously misrepresented the contents of the book; I placed links in the article to various chapters of my book to refute their claims. This is now moot since the entire section of the article has been removed from the article (along with the people who started an edit war over it, who have been banned from Wiki indefinitely). I don't know a lot about Wiki rules, but after reading over the policy on spam I frankly find the actions that are being taken somewhat puzzling.--Dking 22:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Mr. King, we've been trying to contact you on your talk page for a week - the problem is not so much spam as that you have a conflict of interest in linking to your own website. Adding these links to talk pages for the consideration of others is fine, but you shouldn't be adding these links to the articles themselves. I left a link to the conflict of interest guideline on your talk page when I expressed my initial concern. RJASE1 Talk 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    For many months the followers of Lyndon LaRouche and Fred Newman, leaders of groups widely regarded as political cults, have engaged in edit wars and filed interminable admin complaints (including one on this page in February) saying that I and Chip Berlet, authors who specialize in political cults, should not be allowed to edit on the subject, that links to our web sites should not be allowed, etc. There is a whole body of editorial consensus building and admin decisions in which their claims were rejected. In particular, the problem of LaRouche followers on Wikipedia dates back to 2004 and I invite you to look at the archives of these discussions and to note that several of the LaRouche editors have been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. To say the issue is "conflict of interest" is to raise an issue that has already been decided although I supposed any Wikipedian can raise it again at any time about any other Wikipedian. Conflict of interest as I understand from the guidelines involves legal antagonism (there is none--the last time LaRouche sued me was 23 years ago and he lost); financial interest (again none, I do not sell products on my web site but rather offer my book on LaRouche and other writings for free in electronic form), and self-promotion (no one has spelled out precisely how I am promoting myself as opposed to trying to present truthful information to warn people about the danger of getting involved with these Nehemiah Scudder-type outfits--would you please specify exactly what evidence you have of self-promotion). I must say that your citing conflict of interest is surprising since the links to my website are being removed with the explanation that this is "spam" removal. And why, if the concern is self-promotion but there are no specific charges, are links to published articles and book chapters archived on my web site being systematically removed in a summary fashion? You say you'd been trying to reach me for a week, but a week is a short time as these matters go--why the sudden haste?--Dking 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a problem with links to Dennis King's book and published articles being included as references so long as they are clearly relevant. General links to the website may be more problematic, but it would depend on the context. King is certainly a "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field," [4] within the meaning of WP:V, and so he may be used as a source, even when his material is self-published. Dennis, perhaps you could be careful in future only to include links to your website where the material is clearly needed as source material, but not as a general reference. Wikipedia does discourage self-citation, using the argument that, if the material is worth citing, someone else will do it eventually, so it's best to keep it to a minimum. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we agree that Mr. King should not insert links to his own website in articles, but rather place them on the article's talk page, with a description, so that more neutral editors can decide if they should be used? This would seem to satisfy WP:COI guidelines. (By the way, I liked the Robert A. Heinlein reference in Dking's last post.) RJASE1 Talk 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there :) I've been trying to overhaul the Fred Newman article, recently, which has meant giving myself a crash course in political fringe groups and becoming pretty familiar with Mr. King's stuff (and contributions here)... So I figured I'd plop down my $0.02.
    Re: consensus on Mr. King's citations on talk pages--I'm not sure that would be a functional solution, alas. If you review the talk pages for the articles Fred Newman and Lyndon LaRouche, among others, it's pretty clear that these are some very hotly contested topics--and there are editors, while I wish to AGF, who would fillibuster the inclusion of any content by Mr. King into obsolesence. Such a requirement would, in effect, block him from editing.
    I understand the concerns about potential COI--I'm not sure there's a "good" answer to that one--but I submit that, as per SlimVirgin, Mr. King's published articles and books are relevant and notable source material. It appears to me from the sampling of links submitted here that his refernces are rather scrupulously relevant, all to published material, some of which (like newspaper articles from the 80s) would be extremely hard to find if not archived on his site. Only three out of the 19 links presented link to the general dennisking.org mainpage: one from the Wikipedia article about him, one from his User page, and one from an article's talk page.
    If there's evidence that there are links to the general main dennisking.org site "masquerading" as source citations, then I'd consider there might be spam or self-promotion afoot. However--not to paint the man a saint or anything--self-promotion doesn't seem to be his bag. Take a look at the main page of the website in question. Then scroll alllllllll the way down to the bottom. One link to a book on amazon.com. The other one's a PDF scan (free) of a work he would still be making money off of, otherwise. And there's a link to his blog, as well--which it looks like he keeps rather scrupulously separate from his research/published source material on dennisking.org (i.e., dude knows the difference between his own opinions, strong though they appear to be, and what's relevant). At least, that's how it all looks to me.
    Best regards, Wysdom 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Helen M. Grace (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    See also:
    Editor has also made articles for the movies that she has directed. janejellyroll 01:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Added additional article links. RJASE1 Talk 02:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The author is also uploading numerous promotional images. RJASE1 Talk 02:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have tried to rewrite the articles to remove any possible vanity or self promotion -it is difficult when a director starts their own articles!!! but As a seasoned editor of WP Films I do beleive these articles are worthy on wikipedia the articles now stick to fact rather than a promotional effort. If any body else had started the articles and uploaded the posters no one would have blinked an eyelid. I hope you'll see my efforts here to rmeove any notion of self promtion and turn it into encyclopedic fact ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They are just normal film articles not self indulgent articles Are You Ready For Love? in particular is well worthy of an article. SOme of the films have been nominated for BAFTA awards so notability isn't an issue ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 02:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Ernst, you've done a great job in mentoring here - I'm just trying to figure out why the 'unreferenced' tags are being removed and no reliable sources are being provided. You have to admit this seems to be tainted by vanity. RJASE1 Talk 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nor has she stopped editing her own articles. Tearlach 12:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see what you mean!! But you can't discourage new articles which are valid just because they seem propelled by vanity!! Although I completely see how it might violate the pollicy of NOT writing about yourself!! If someone else had started them no one would have blinked an eyelid!! If you feel the need to add the reference tag thats fine as long as the articles aren't deleted. I have a check again now see if their are any self promotional comments but from what I saw they are encylcopedic. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Although I completely see how it might violate the pollicy of NOT writing about yourself!!
    It's not a policy, but yes, writing about yourself does, funnily enough, violate the guideline about not writing about yourself. As well as the clear instructions against doing so on the intro page whenever you create a new article. Tearlach 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I added some comments to her talk page that might help. Hopefully this can be settled easily if she'll only take some time to communicate with other editors about what's going on. --Ronz 20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The messages to date are apparently not working - she's still editing the articles on her projects. I left yet another message on her talk page. RJASE1 Talk 19:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some new editors don't even realize they have a talk page. I've sent the user an email saying that other users are concerned about her editing and asking her to check her talk page. -Will Beback · † · 19:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure about that? Special:Contributions/Helengracedirector doesn't show any contributions after April 8th. Before this thread was started or any messages were left on her talk page. Is using other accounts? -- Siobhan Hansa 20:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Gah, I'm an idiot. Someone else edited one of those articles, causing it to pop to the top of my watchlist. Sorry about that. RJASE1 Talk 20:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, just when I was feeling guilty and drafting my apology, the user is apparently back with a sockpuppet - Albiepalbie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Account was just created today and is editing the exact same articles, in the same style. Is COI editing grounds for a checkuser? If so, I'll draft it. I'm holding off on leaving any messages for now. RJASE1 Talk 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Add to that 88.110.150.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which appeared immediately after I left a question on Albiepalbie's talk page. RJASE1 Talk 14:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP and Helen must be the same person. Notice the sequence of edits at User_talk:Helengracedirector, where a comment added by 88.110.150.97 (talk · contribs), was 3 minutes later reformatted and expanded by User:Helengracedirector.
    Helen Grace has corresponded with User:Ernst Stavro Blofeld on his Talk page, though she hasn't mastered signing her name, so she knows something about our system. The problem we are trying to solve is that she won't stop editing her own articles.
    After her indignant disclaimer to RJASE1, we notice her IP account 88.110.150.97 (talk · contribs) correcting a spelling mistake on one of her films. Perhaps she reasoned that a spelling mistake didn't count. Less creditable are the edits by Albiepalbie (talk · contribs), which also occur this morning just after the indignant disclaimer. I suggest we wait a few hours more before getting all bent out of shape, though.EdJohnston 18:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    RJASE1 noticed she removed the 'unreferenced' tag from Helen M. Grace, apparently thinking it was enough to cite IMDB and her own Myspace page. This suggests she doesn't understand our sourcing rules, besides ignoring the COI policies by removing a tag on her own autobiography. Whether the tag should be removed is something for the rest of us to decide. EdJohnston 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've issued a one week block on the registered account and a one month block on the sockpuppet IP address. Please add the sockpuppet templates to userspace, restore the unreferenced tags to the articles, and follow up as necessary. DurovaCharge! 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I believe the editor you are reporting has violated WP:NPA several times after being warned, and even called a respected member of the community a liar. I've asked an administrator [5] to consider banning the disruptive editor. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 06:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hour block as of 07:02, April 11 2007 (UTC). — Æ. ✉ 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi -- I'm sort of tracing the sequence of who said what to whom, leading to my 72 hr block (I'm preparing for arbitration and just want to get all the worthy ducks lined up.) I just came across this link -- so who are you, exactly, and what was your part in all this? I thought "Durova" put the block on me, but this sequence makes it sound like you did. A curious mind wants to know. -BC aka Callmebc 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Prunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the author and main contributor. Article survived an AfD (based on notability concerns) about a year ago, but the article seems to have expanded into a resume since. RJASE1 Talk 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I had to laugh at this - he removed the 'unreferenced' tag and left a citation that he, personally, was the reference. RJASE1 Talk 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This page looks like an autobiography to me because of what I've seen here:
    Anynobody 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    RehanQayoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is author and sole editor. RJASE1 Talk 14:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Prodded. MER-C 03:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Appalachian State Cycling Team (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Appstatecycling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creator and contributor. Puff piece with no sources. RJASE1 Talk 17:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    gsociology.icaap.org
    Has been adding links to his own website (above), apparently since April 2004. RJASE1 Talk 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    International Services Trade Information Agency (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Services Trade Information Agency. (result was delete)
    → See also: Discussion at Community Sanctions Noticeboard (now closed, with a community ban of Jennifer Powell)
    → See also: User:Istia's complaint at WP:AN/I
    → See also: Unidentified SPA, Vela0w2, threatens legal action on Durova's talk page
    → See also: Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Istia.
    Comment: Case is making a lot of noise. Others may be working on this enough that we don't have to. Of course you are welcome to review the debates listed above. EdJohnston 03:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a heads up... In this AfD, an executive for the topic company has been quite aggressive in pushing for keeping the article. In addition, there are several [6] other [7] editors [8] there [9] who are new single purpose accounts also doing very similar aggressive pushing, none who appear to understand wikipolicy. There are thus plausible suspicions of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry; indeed some editors have made such accusations there (there are a couple of other editors on the keep side who appear to be independent and good faith editors there, the whole baby-and-the-bathwater thing, although apparently canvassing for keep discussion also occurred). There does seem to be one admin (User:Gwernol) keeping an eye on things. I have seen worse scenes but I wish not to have this one get out of control. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I've put a month long block on Istia and indef blocked the others as presumptive sockpuppets. The Applesinaft account has already been blocked since yesterday as a sockpuppet.[10] So based on Istia's subsequent edits you have grounds to run a class F checkuser request on all of the suspect accounts and IP addresses. Notify me at my user talk if it comes up positive and I'll apply a series of indef blocks for COI, sockpuppetry and votestacking. DurovaCharge! 04:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See also:
    Promaxum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    OISV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    This user is the article subject, editing his own biography and the articles on some of his ventures. RJASE1 Talk 02:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Also removed maintenance tags, I put them back and left a talk page message. RJASE1 Talk 02:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor seems to be clear on the policies now - we had a conversation on my talk page. Can a third party please review the article for neutrality so we can remove the tag? RJASE1 Talk 01:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Single purpose account for self-promotion. Violates WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:SPAM. Removed linkspam, issued block warning on user talk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durova (talk • contribs) 01:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    This user is back at it today - exact same behavior. RJASE1 Talk 15:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And now he has a sockpuppet - PGG6327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). RJASE1 Talk 17:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blanked his userpage and talkpage on primary account. RJASE1 Talk 05:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And also blanked the talk page on sockpuppet PGG6327 (talk · contribs). RJASE1 Talk 05:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Department of Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    These users have been creating promotional articles for the art education department of Virginia Commonwealth University, apparently as part of a class project (Mbuffington and Vcu art education are both Melanie Buffington, an assistant professor at VCU). Mbuffington also created Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University, which I redirected since individual departments of colleges generally do not get their own articles. I'm actually a student at VCU, so I wasn't sure if I should be handling this myself, though I have left notes on User talk:Mbuffington and User talk:Vcu art education. --Coredesat 03:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The footote "The content of this page is under development by students who are learning to use wiki. Please do not delete this page" will raise a few hackles (see Wikipedia:Article ownership). Wikipedia isn't an annexe of their department's Intranet. I don't think it's a speedy-delete candidate, but in its current form it certainly fits WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Tearlach 04:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have full protected the main university article for one month, added an advert template, taken out some of the PRese, and added fact templates. Am redirecting the departmental fork to the main article. Inform Professor Buffington that I am willing to discuss this situation. DurovaCharge! 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking into things a bit more, Jimbo spoke at this university yesterday, which probably explains today's misfired attempts at contribution. Other problems at the article are serious enough to merit protection, though. DurovaCharge! 08:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, Jimbo spoke at VCU yesterday, and before that there was another seminar on Wikipedia featuring a panelist who seemed to condone and endorse COI, so I was worried something like this would happen. I think a month might be a little too long, though (maybe two weeks?). --Coredesat 08:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm composing an e-mail to Cary Bass at this moment. So far no one from the university has responded to my post on the talk page. I'd be willing to reduce this if they respond reasonably, but the violations I saw were quite serious and I'm very concerned that a professor appears to have made a class assignment of violating Wikipedia policies. Recommend User:Durova/The dark side to any University personnel who read this thread. DurovaCharge! 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The professor who created the assignment left me a polite message that appears to be in good faith. So I've unprotected the university and encouraged its employees to contribute in their areas of academic expertise rather than directly to an article where they have a conflict of interest. Cited material to the university article is also welcome at its talk page where uninvolved Wikipedians can evaluate it and adapt it in standard style. DurovaCharge! 17:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

    Rolled back, NPOVed, and full protected for 1 week. DurovaCharge! 17:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    I've changed the templates and semiproted the article for 1 week. DurovaCharge! 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yahoo! Movies (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Y! Movies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I'm pretty certain this is a Yahoo! rep PR'ing the article. RJASE1 Talk 20:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Y! Movies's edits are far from professional and look like a young guy's works. Perhaps he or she is just a fan of Yahoo! Movies. I belive that a Yahoo! rep will do a much better job and can do it secretly.--Neo-Jay 00:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The username was blocked as promotional and/or impersonation by WP:RFCN. RJASE1 Talk 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a Jo Job. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sami aldeeb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this article was just removed from the noticeboard not long ago, and he's back editing his own article again. I left him another, more strongly worded, message. RJASE1 Talk 04:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protected the article for one month. This is more serious than the MIT professor example above: continued COI violations after two different editors left cautions at the user talk page, an uploaded image deleted for copyright problems, and generally a lower quality article with no other contributions at all. One week userblock. DurovaCharge! 08:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dvandeventer contributions are primarily adding references to own books

    See for example [11], and of course the user contributions page. There are many; while they do not appear to be "bad" references on their own, the self-promotional aspect is clear.--Gregalton 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I left a talk page message requesting self-revert, needs follow-up. RJASE1 Talk 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No edits from this account since the cautions were posted. Follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unregistered IP address has made a flurry of edits that have the same books and references (although some useful text edits as well). [12] and [13].--Gregalton 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Now appears to be sockpuppeting as User:Diazfrancisca. Flagged as such.--Gregalton 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed a large number of these references and other contributions as spam (promotion). Now that the coi is clear, I'll wait for the editor to respond. --Ronz 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    see also:Gulf Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Araa Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    FloGRC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Articles associated with the Gulf Research Centre, its publication and founder. For some reason, they updated, then blanked, the organizational page. The magazine page was obvious spam and flagged as such. I'm unsure of the founder's notability. Articles tagged, user advised of COI concern. RJASE1 Talk 05:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    List of basic health science topics (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    Resolved
     – blocked by Ohnoitsjamie

    and many other medical pages, such as

    etc.

    Editing as:

    And creating more socks by the minute.

    The user is spamming his anonymous splog throughout medical topics; has reacted violently against me and User:Ohnoitsjamie when reverted, including vandalization of user pages and various cries of censorship and forthcoming Nazi rule on talk pages. Has yet to make a productive edit; vandalizes HagermanBot signatures to hide when he's left behind rants on user talk pages. // THF 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Things are much worse than that. Stargtr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has said:
    • Please stop reverting this - I represent Beki and you are not authorised to do this ! Beki wants this page left alone THANKS [15]
    • please PLEASE contact me - you are messing up my life - how can I contact you ? This is unfair - would you like your partners details put all over the web ? How you sow , so shall you reap ! CONTACT [16]
    Oh my. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has only edited Vice Squad and related articles. MSJapan 19:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As of today, user is still violating WP:COI and WP:OR and is engaging in edit warring by removing properly sourced material "because it's wrong" and because he doesn't want his girlfriend's birthday in Wikipedia [17]. Nardman1 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Desertson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    This article is back for the fourth time (after 3 speedy deletions) with the same COI editor. He just doesn't get it. The article is up for AfD this time. RJASE1 Talk 21:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article will either be AfD'ed, or else merged. Do you think any of the other participants in AfD are sock puppets? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    see also: - The Freedom to be Yourself (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Vincent bethell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    62.173.88.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Individual editing his own biography and the article on an organization he founded. Some real WP:OWN issues here, too - as an example, see this edit summary which states "I'm the ultimate authority on who I am. If people object to my viewpoint as not being neutral I will remove all my details from Wikipedia." Also a a very odd edit here on another associated individual - a possible joke? RJASE1 Talk 02:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also see this message on the article creator's talk page. RJASE1 Talk 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Vincent is an interesting fellow and those edits will raise eyebrows, The Russell Higgs edits would argueably go on another page and they would need verification. I'm trying to make the article more NPOV and cite sources when I have time to do so. I hope others can help join efforts to help sort out the facts. Cheers, User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He posted that same message (or a similar one) on my talk page as well (eight times, no less) for (re)tagging the article {{npov}}. Cheers, Afluent Rider 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    BIG Ben Kennedy (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BIG Ben Kennedy
    BIG Ben Kennedy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Very strange situation here - look at the contributions for the above user (particularly this one. This user wasn't even the article creator - Sharpie23 (talk · contribs) was. I'm wondering if this isn't a case of impersonation. RJASE1 Talk 03:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Rgarfias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Extensive autobiographical editing by article subject. RJASE1 Talk 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Reverted. MER-C 04:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've proposed merging this into the parent company's article. There isn't very much here. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I draw editors attention to the Break.com page. It is blatant advertising. hence Wikipedias description thereof, "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion".

    There is an obvious conflic ot interest as will become evident when you view the discussion page Talk:Break.com. Additions have been made by break.com sock puppets Mtwang and IP: 69.108.152.153 both located in California, the same State (and area) as the office of Break.com!

    This whole page is clearly advertisement/spam and it is beyond me why it is still here at all. I ask editors to have a good look at this page and the discussion page Talk:Break.com and break.com's attempts via its unsigned sock puppets to discredit me in an attempt to gain an upper hand whilst I tried to create an even balance of information in relation to this page. --Pollyfodder 20:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    California is a huge state that evidence is weak. I looked at the talk page, and COI wasn't obvious to me, but I may be dense. Can you cite specific diffs, and explain exactly succinctly why you think there is COI based on the pattern of edits? Jehochman (talk/contrib) 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Pollyfodder has posted this same complaint four times: [18], [19], [20], [21].
    Rather than repeating yourself, I suggest you cite specific edits that support your claim of COI. Right now, all I see are naked allegations. Thank you. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 07:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow this whole situation makes me want to roll my eyes. Pollyfodder, this article is not advertising just because it doesn't reflect your POV. All the press that break.com has gotten is good press. Sorry. Thats life. We don't get to add our own feeling to the article if we can't find sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Jehochman "I suggest you cite specific edits that support your claim"? Here are a couple, if you read (and comprehend) the rest in the discussion page you will find more. "Mention that it includes a family filter which is on by default". "There is NO intention to use wikipedia as an ad. It's not". "It's most a humor site for men 18-35 and,more specifically, college students". "Compare the article to metacafe or collegehumor.com. See if they are on par in terms of objectivity editors". Jehochman Naked allegations? When I first edited the Break.com page it was up for deletion. Thats what caught my eye! Since then I have been removing the references to "sexy girls smashing things" etc because of their commercial value. I have always wanted the parental discretion warning on the break.com page. If you bother hitting some of the citations you will know why! EDver since I have removed alot of the hype from the Break.com page these 2 IPs have done nothing but try to discredit me and label me as a person with a "score to settle" and god knows what else! Let the PREVIOUS EDITS and the defensive babblings on the discussion page speak for themselves. A blind man can see what is happening.--Pollyfodder 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    71.197.70.177 (talk · contribs) - Tim Riley / 71.197.70.177

    Accountancy is very difficult to learn. (I know because I'm in school now trying.) Moreover, my research using Google and Wikipedia has not been at all helpful. Only when I realized that accountancy should be taught like a math class did I realize the academic deficiency. However, since no accountancy math book exists, I'm writing one. And for every chapter that applies to a Wikipedia article, I think other Wikipedia users would also benefit from my research. I resent the "blunderbuss approach" statement. Every Wikipedia article linked from was chosen because it contained the exact subject of the book (GAAP) or a chapter. Previously, the links went to accountancymodel.org, which is a page on my commercial site introducing the two-book-set -- the math book and the corresponding examples. However, I have since moved all of the links to the math book itself. The reader will then read the prefix to see that the corresponding examples is also available and where to go to get it. Still in limbo is the Wikipedia article on the Statement of Cash Flows. Would someone who understands the difficulty of producing this statement please visit the talk page and decide the external link would be valuable? 71.197.70.177 08:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) Tim Riley[reply]
    Please read WP:SPAM. MER-C 08:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Mr. Riley, your book does not yet qualify as a WP:Reliable source because it is not yet published. And it does not meet the inclusion criteria of WP:External links because it is a personal website. I appreciate your eagerness to add specialized knowledge and information, but because we are striving to become a reliable encyclopedia we cannot link to such information. Please read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research.
    If you manage to get the book published at some point, I'm sure other, unbiased editors will cite to it where appropriate. -- Satori Son 00:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Best would be to simply add (referenced, sourced) text to the body of the main article.--Gregalton 01:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    Warnings have been placed. At least two apparently neutral editors are on the scene. There are some assertions of notability. This could be tested at AfD, but my suggestion is that we close this case. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jdingman's ‎Christian Lyrics Network article and links

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

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

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

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

    Please view my latest entry to that article, it explains the past and the future.

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

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

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

    I could use a second opinion here. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not a fan if his rationales on the pictures are correct (he says he created them all, so he seems to be the owner of the label and main artist). I've deleted all the pages as being non notable speedyable anyway. Fram 11:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Maria Vargas

    Are these employees, students, or just fans? Bearian 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are fans, they are extremely single-minded ones. As far as I can make out, their sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to develop the articles on Dr Floridi and the two subjects he is supposed to have invented (Information ethics, Philosophy of information), and to create links in other articles to Dr Floridi and these two subjects. They must be very close to Dr Floridi, to have such extremely detailed knowledge of his life and works. RichardVeryard 00:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wrigley's Gum campaign

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

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

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

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=123703109"