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 Heatedissuepuppet (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 19 May 2007 (/* Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) {{coi-links|Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)}}, Crisscross {{coi-links|Crisscross}} and Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) {{coi-links|Nick B). 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:A&P
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:James F. Allen (businessman)
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Bell Bank
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:Doug Bremner
    Talk:British Gas
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Cboe Global Markets
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Cheyne Capital Management
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Edmund de Waal
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Discovery Land Company
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Michael Douglas
    Talk:End-user license agreement
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Evan G. Greenberg
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Richard Harland
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:HOK (firm)
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn
    Talk:Anthony Marinelli
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:Monero
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:David E. I. Pyott
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:QIAGEN
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Sartorius AG
    Talk:ShareFile
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Tricentis
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:Bradley Tusk
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator
    Talk:Maya Wiley
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability


    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: 2024-05-09 20:16 (UTC)

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

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

    → See also

    --Ronz 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: MDS International is now fully protected due to the edit warrring. It looks like many of the other editors involved in the edit warring are WP:SPAs, probably with their own conflicts of interest. I've started an AN/I because of the legal threats. Now that we have someone fluent in French involved, hopefully we'll get a better understanding of Jeanclauduc's perspective. --Ronz 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This case has already generated enough legal threats for one day. It seems that Wikipedia is just providing a venue for two contending parties (MDSA and MDSI) to abuse one another. We couldn't use any of the juicy revelations from Talk:MDS International in the encyclopedia, even if they were true, because there are no reliable secondary sources. Now the CEO of one of the entities is furious that an apparent comment by him has been translated into English, and makes him sound bad! (There seems to be a remote chance his account could have been compromised; not serious enough to pursue without further info). Both parties occasionally take a break from abusing each other to abuse Wikipedia. Does anyone have a strong objection to nominating both articles for deletion? (MDS America and MDS International)?
    The only alternative is to try to protect two stubbified articles indefinitely, with hardly any secondary sources for anything interesting. I know that the WP:OFFICE occasionally shuts things down if they are just too much trouble. This could be that kind of a case, though there is no hint of any commentary from the office. It's unlikely that either party can be made happy, since we can't print any of their supposed revelations, and meanwhile they keep referring us to their law firms and denouncing the 'vandalism by the admins' (I believe that's their term for our removal of defamatory comments from the articles and talk pages).. EdJohnston 21:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a good idea. There doesn't appear to be much interest from any of the editors to create quality articles, judging by the sudden drop in editing now that one is protected. --Ronz 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an opinion on launching an AfD, please add a comment at Talk:MDS International. EdJohnston 02:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    MDS International has been nominated for deletion here. I decided not to nominate MDS America since, while that article caused trouble for regular editors, it did not lead to any legal threats. EdJohnston 01:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC). Update This AfD closed with Delete on 3 May. EdJohnston 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Update MDS International has been deleted and recreated as a redirect to MVDDS dispute. I have proposed a merge of MDS America as well, and a strawpoll has been created at Talk:MVDDS dispute. However, representatives of MDS America are naturally against the merge, and I am not sure how to take their opinion into consideration. nadav 22:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The merge proposal at Talk:MVDDS dispute seems to have stalled, with 2 supporting (but non COI editors) and 2 against (both MDS employees). There certainly needs to be more input for consensus to be reached if any other editors want to dig into this case. Russeasby 19:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider going to Talk:MVDDS dispute#Straw poll on merging MDS America and adding your opinion. If you gave an opinion in the previous AfD of MDS International then you probably have enough background to address this. The debate is not especially confrontational at the moment; it's just a question of whether MDS America has enough information of its own to justify a freestanding article. EdJohnston 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    72.19.4.235 - *MDS America Gateway; unsure who is using it.
    83.206.63.250 - *Subnet owned by MDS International
    Jeanclauduc - *Founder of MDS International
    Bhimaji - *MDS America Employee

    A partial list of the COI SPAs swarming those pages. — Athaenara 23:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope this isn't inappropriate, but I *annotated this list with the information that I am personally aware of. I haven't used any sources other than 'host' and 'whois'. I would like to avoid giving the impression that MDS America people are trying to hide; most of them just have no experience on Wikipedia and don't realize how challenging it is to have a discussion with an IP address that changes every day.Bhimaji 00:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to User:Bhimaji for his recent work, which is that of a normal trustworthy editor. User:Macrhino has been intermittently helpful, though he removed tags from the Kirk Kirkpatrick article in a way that hardly conforms with policy. User:Fabrice10 is one of the managers at MDS America and he has offered to answer questions for us on his User talk. EdJohnston 03:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the best way to get 83.206.63.250 to stop being so disruptive? --Ronz 17:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I proposed a one-week block on grounds of complex vandalism at WP:ANI but did not get any response. It could be more logical to ask for an indefinite block of both this IP and User:Jeanclauduc for making legal threats. I hear that such blocks are usually kept in place until the legal threat is withdrawn. The original legal threats are: [1], [2], and User_talk:FayssalF#Gros_Menteur. A brief scan of Talk:MDS America will see a steady stream of ongoing threats by 83.206.63.250, such as Talk:MDS_America#Printed_for_the_Court. EdJohnston 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My AN/I is archived here. Yours is here. Time for another? --Ronz 03:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine with me. EdJohnston 04:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I hoped for a while that he would be able to voice his opinion coherently, but that has been to no avail. I'll support a block of some sort. nadav 01:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. This COI item was opened on 23 April but is still hanging out on the noticeboard. There is quite a bit of progress, but it's mostly at Talk:MDS America, Talk:MVDDS and Talk:MVDDS dispute. In case we do need to ask for any blocks, it may be worth keeping this one open as a COI item for a while longer. Some of the employees of the respective companies have been helpful with the technology we're trying to describe in the articles. We even got some usable info from an IP at the company that's been yelling at us the most. We have tried to get some COI-affected editors to add better sources to the articles themselves but not much has happened yet. EdJohnston 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    After new, particularly viscious attacks from a certain IP user, FayssalF has relisted the case at WP:AN/I. nadav 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy Gordon Lawrence (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    The user truedominican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a sockpuppet of williamo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Williamo1 is self indicated as the former pastor of the church involved in this story who also now lives (part time) in the Dominican Republic. He likes to propogate his side of the story at various spots across the internet. The main goal of late appears to be to discredit another local church:

    The criminal past of the said Roy Gordon Lawrence is certainly ugly. It's place on Wikipedia has already been established by surviving some AFDs. However, the latest round of using the article as a soapbox to discredit a non-profit organization does not seem to be of any encyclopedic value. History reviews of this article show this is not the first time this article has been used this way. It may not be the last either.

    Andyru 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    → See also: Library COI dilemma on COI/N talk page

    This item has been discussed with the user, and has also been discussed on village pump (policy) (here archived). In both cases no real answer came out of the discussion so I am posting it here on COI/N as, to me, the issue is not satisfactory solved and the edits continue. User:Fleurstigter is the Marketing and Communications representative of the European Library (see their aboutus). The European Library is relatively new, and already for some time, she is adding links. I first reverted her because of spamming (wikipedia definition), and asked her to contribute in a positive way, adding contents and references, or by seeking consensus on talkpages before adding the links (or letting others add the link). She is still adding mainly external links to documents where they are of arguable value (see e.g. diff and diff, some are a bit better (see the three consequtive edits: diff, diff and diff where she tried to add a reference. The link may be appropriate, but she did not use the links as a reference to actually write (parts of) the document).

    Secondly, she creates documents where I think that they are hardly stubs, and need some wikification before they become notable. Examples: Archimandrite Kyprianos, Bernhard Borchert. Note that these articles are about the person, but that the only reference is to a artwork/document of the person (which also explains something about the person).

    All of these additions seem so that there can be a link to the European Library inserted into the document (and if it does not fit, it goes into the external links section). For some of the links I would argue that the link could better be to the original site, or even, original documents without a link to a specific library. Lately she is discussing the linkadditions on the talkpage (see e.g. diff, but that is 2 minutes after diff)

    Accounts:

    COIBot is now monitoring many of these links:

    I am reluctant to run WP:AWB again on all her additions to clean the external links she added, or to clean most of the references, though I think that this should be stopped. I know she is adding the links in good faith to help wikipedia, but I don't think that this is the proper way. It all has more the appearance of spam (as in 'promotional addition of links') than of contributing, even for the few links that do appear valid. I would be surprised if there are significantly more than 15 of the 57 links in mainspace (current count) that have not been added by either Fleurstigter or IPs from KB.nl (COIBot is only recording this since a couple of days).

    I'd like to hear more on this subject, and whether librarians do have a COI when their main edits are to link to their library. Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I notified User:Fleurstigter that this issue has been filed. Anyone looking into this item might also see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Library COI dilemma EdJohnston 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I'm afraid this is a problem. I only spent a few minutes looking at this editor's contribution history and already I have a list of articles that I think should go to AfD:
    Archimandrite Kyprianos, Khitrovo Gospel, Brussels Coin Cabinet, Oktoikh
    An AfD nomination of this set of four articles would be good because we could get a variety of opinions on the logic behind creating these articles.
    I checked two link insertions, and I think both should be reverted: [3] and [4].
    In my brief survey I only found one link that seems like it should remain, in Peresopnytsia Gospels. This is because the article is a genuine WP article about an art work and the link points to information about that work. EdJohnston 17:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so an AWB (semi-automated script) run on removing all her additions of external links/references would be difficult, though I could ignore that article. I might then accidentally clean an addition that would be appropriate, but I would not mind then being reverted by an established editor.
    For that article, could the link be used as a true reference (as per WP:FOOT?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never used AWB, but doesn't it need manual confirmation of each change? Couldn't you compare each change against an 'exception list'? Editors here might help to create an exception list, i.e. a list of articles where the links are appropriate. Even in that one exception that I found, there may be a slight copyright problem, because some of the article text appears to be word-for-word the same as in the summary paragraph found in the European Library item. EdJohnston
    AWB indeed needs conformation of every edit (unless it is run from a bot account). What I can do with it is load a users contributions list, and clean every occurance of a link in documents edited by the account. What I generally do is clean the whole line where the link is in, and use it to remove links from external links sections. Since most additions here are single-line I think that this would be typically something I could do with AWB.
    I think in this case it would be appropriate to clean all the occurances she added (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."), and, again, ask her to first discuss the addition on a talkpage, wait until consensus is reached, and then let an uninvolved editor add the link. That means indeed that some (and I expect it to be only one or two) appropriate external links are removed, but Fleur Stigter is then free to reach consensus on the talkpages for these cases before they get added (or another editor must decide to add it earlier). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fwiw, I don't think that adding a link to an online text, image, or other useful information on a library website is "promoting" the library itself. I know the European Library is not itself a library, but just an interface/portal to libraries in Europe. It doesn't make any money from people clicking through to it; it doesn't host advertisements; it's a search interface. Reminds me of WorldCat, actually. I can't speak to the user's actions in creating the AfD'd articles, but I would not consider a link to any nonprofit library organization "advertising" or linkspam. I also don't think it's a conflict of interest for the same reason - the user does not gain from people visiting the site. Just my 2¢. Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC) (librarian)[reply]
    Still, many non-profit organisations do get judged by the efficiency of their work. In other words, for online data the amount of money they get may be related to the page-hits a site gets. Why would governments put money in a large organisation that provides online information when there are no visitors? So in that view also mass addition of links to non-profit organisations, even without any advertisement, can be promotional, and therefore people who add the links to get people tunnelled to their website do have a conflict of interest. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to rephrase/expand this a bit. Librarians have in first instance not a COI when they would 'pull a book out of their library' and edit an article, improve it, and add a reference to an online version of the book on their site (though a general link would be better, e.g. the ISBN, but lets assume that we are talking about a unique or very rare book). The situation changes when a librarian is going through pages on wikipedia, and (almost exclusively) adds links to documents on their site to the documents where they could possibly fit. As has been stated often, I and many others will not have a big problem with the former (improving a document, and providing a reference to the online version on a site one is affiliated with; although WP:COI states 'Avoid or exercise great caution writing or editing articles ..."), but the latter does at the very least suggest that the addition of links is to promote the site (in whichever way, being it for money, to gain hits or to make the site more known to the public), and when that is the case, I would describe that as a conflict of interest. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    To the extent that the site they are adding is important and central to the purposes of WP, there is no problem. Each page has to be taken on its merits. If the items are worth the description, there is justification. some of the articles mentioned on individual manuscripts are worth the description--there are several WP eds. around who would be interested in using the stubs provided as a starting point & I will check if they know about the articles. There is nothing necessarily wrong upon knowing that one has some unique documents available, to see if they can be used. But if I did that for new articles, i would try to write more complete ones.
    To the extent that the EL does become a search interface, then, a Her Pegship says, we will all use it. There's nothing wrong with making us aware of it.
    But in both respects, I would go a little slower and more carefully than has been the case so far.DGG 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There is indeed nothing wrong with knowing that the documents are available. I am not questioning if the European Library would be a valuable resource, or that whe should link to the European Library, it is and we should. I am questioning if a librarian should add links to his own library to articles him/herself (especially if the edits all are mainly or exclusively adding the links, or edits to facilitate links). Making us aware of that can be done via the talkpages, or via wikiprojects. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I believe that User:DGG and User:Pegship are librarians, and they have joined this discussion, can I ask if you have had occasion to use the European Library in your own work, and if so what you use it for? EdJohnston 16:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    After almost two weeks of inactivity, user:Fleurstigter added one reference to Serbian culture (diff):

    • The document linked was clearly not used as a reference;
    • The linked page contains documents which are part of the Serbian Culture, but the document does not tell about the Serbian Culture (it tells about specific treasures, it might have been appropriate on articles of the separate treasures).

    I also looked a bit further in other edits, and although they were above described as useful starting points, they appear to be copyvio. E.g. Bernhard Borchert, Fleur Stigter created this document, and after her initial edits (link to version) the document contains two paragraphs with text, and one sentence pointing to the external reference on The European Library. The two paragraphs:

    • "Bernhard Borchert (1863-1945) was a Baltic-German artist who spent the greatest part of his life in Latvia. He has worked in the field of painting and has produced book and magazine illustrations." is a copy of "The author of the Baltijas makslinieku gleznu izstade (Baltic artists’ painting exhibition) is a Baltic-German artist Bernhard Borchert (1863-1945) who the greatest part of his life has spent in Latvia. He has worked in the field of painting and has produced book and magazine illustrations." (first couple of words changed)
    • "He is the author of the "Baltic artists’ painting exhibition" (Baltijas makslinieku gleznu izstade). This represents the German school to which his talent has added the reservedness so characteristic to the mentality of Baltics." First sentence is a rewrite of the first part of the copy of the previous paragraph on European Library, The last sentence is a copy from "The poster represents the German school to which B.Borchert’s talent has added the reservedness so characteristic to the mentality of Baltics."

    A similar comparison can be made for Gospel Book (Ethnike Bibliotheke tes Hellados, Codex 2603) (version after Fleur Stigters creation: link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    I can't figure out whether this section issue has been resolved or not. Someone please tell us. — Athaenara ✉ 16:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing has been done with the edits that have been performed, and I was hoping user:Fleurstigter would share her view with us. I also left an explanation on the talkpage of Fleur Stigter, but also that has not been answered, yet. Any advice on how to proceed? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    DataSynapse, Inc. (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    You say that he "seems like a nice understanding guy". If it is your impression that he has seen the error of his ways and will not continue to edit within his COI, nothing more is really necessary − we're not here to punish the wicked if we can convert them to contributing constructively (or, failing that, at least make them stop editing unconstructively) without punishment. –Henning Makholm 23:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This appears to me to be a major company within the marketspace, and there exist plenty of reliable sources, so I've created the article as a stub. FCYTravis 23:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This article was already bagged twice on articles for deletion in June 2006 and August 2006. Very little has changed since that time. This is clearly not the company's first attempt at spamming. If the competitors articles are similarly spammy, they should be AFDed.Montco 00:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The company has been the subject of significant reporting by independent sources - I've only got two refs as of now but there's plenty more where they came from. DataSynapse appears to meet WP:CORP, and is a substantial player in its market sector. FCYTravis 00:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On the DataSynapse, Inc. page there are two third-party references. Both of them are passing mentions. One is from 2005 and the other is a ZDnet blog entry. I hope there is more to be said; otherwise another AfD might succeed. The GridServer and FabricServer articles are so thin and unsourced they might qualify for G11 speedy.EdJohnston 03:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gospel Hall.

    The Gospel Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (about a sort of religious denomination/affiliation) appears to have been written by members of Gospel Hall assemblies. I have attempted to re-write the article since the previous version read like pieces from letters to the editor by members. But I don't have any familiarity with the subject matter and it will probably need correcting. It would be helpful if other editors would add the article to their watch lists so that any changes that are made can be reviewed by several sets of eyes. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    No improvement in the article in many months, no references or assertion of notability in a year. {{prod}}ed. — Athaenara ✉ 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I prodded it with reason "This article has had neither references nor assertion of notability since it was created a year ago. Time to let it go."

    142.177.73.65 (talk · contribs) removed the prod tag the next day after another edit which was typical of the COI SPA edits which have contributed nearly all of its meagre unreferenced content. — Athaenara ✉ 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    For a psychologist, he doesn't seem to understand the value of subtlety very well, does he? All his linkings look like spam to me, and if that user is indeed the author or the publisher, they're totally COI -- albeit unimaginative and non-prolific COI. --Dynaflow 10:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Added two pertinent linksearches. — Athaenara 23:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the links seem to have been removed. Is there any way to do a historical linksearch? --Dynaflow 23:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I added them in aid of checking for re-addition of COI links. I'd like to know the answer to your question, too. — Athaenara 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The bot that used to have that database is already for quite some time down, otherwise people at WP:WPSPAM could have done that (I'll ask when I see the person who programmed the bot). I have for now added the data to user:COIBot, which will record the additions from now. COIBot does not have connections on user:talentsmart for the last couple of weeks, apparently the link was not added lately (I can't detect plain text additions, would be too much a strain on the wikipedia database). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged this COI SPA's Emotional Intelligence Quick Book with {{db-spam}}. — Athaenara ✉ 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That was apparently the tip of a larger iceberg. The entire Emotional Intelligence article is fragmented by POV-pushing and has an extremely messy references section which may be the result of conflict of interest editing by people whose careers (academic or otherwise) are involved. It needs some serious attention. — Athaenara ✉ 20:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    user: Keyence (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Keyence)

    Articles
    Links

    User pushes his links and information to articles he is related to, with the excuse the pages already contain similar link/information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    219.127.205.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks like a sock puppet. Note that 219.127.205.65 = fw.keyence.co.jp Erik Warmelink 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I'm not sure if this comes under COI, but I'd appreciate other opinions. This is a near-SPA devoted to pressing for the inclusion of mostly unverified material about King Ronald I from the website kingdomofbiffeche.net (though not editing the article itself).

    Recent Talk page contributions - Talk:Biffeche#Bethio and Biffeche - have taken a rather dark tone that would be legal threats if, as I suspect, this user has some connection with King Ronald. Are there grounds for asking for a CheckUser? Tearlach 18:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    See also: Keith Henson section in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive15.

    HTTP File Server (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

    → See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Http file server (last year)

    HTTP File Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Appears that the main editors of the page thus far have been the developers of it. A recent AfD reached no consensus, but the article was quite spammy. I removed most of the spam and left a caution on the talk page, but a few extra eyes wouldn't hurt here. (If someone can translate the German source brought up at the AfD, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get some third-party material into the article either.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Latinguides

    For the record. latinguides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 190.83.2.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are adding external links or adding information to articles with links to latinguides.com.

    latinguides.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 genteelite.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

    COIBot is watching. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Came to my attention through a self-promotional offsite find that included ...and even has his own page on Wikipedia!' Not surprisingly, this thinly substantiated Wikipedia bio has quite a few edits from Cgordonbell.[7] At User talk:Cgordonbell the account confirms that this is Gordon Bell himself editing. I have left a message for Professor Bell in conjunction with this report. Request urgent attention so that issues may be resolved before his university marketing/PR lecture later this month. DurovaCharge! 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the notability is there; he may be the most famous computer designer, in a class with Seymour Cray or Ken Olsen. Someone should add the fact that he turned down the original proposal for DEC to build a personal computer, back around 1973, believing people wouldn't want them. Of course he shouldn't edit his own article without discussion. EdJohnston 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't contest the article's notability, but the behavior does appear unseemly, especially the weight the announcement of his lecture gives to the Wikipedia biography and the fact that he's planning to speak on PR and marketing. It makes me wonder whether he intends to tell the audience to manipulate Wikipedia articles. DurovaCharge! 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He could include it as an example of how not to go about it. Tearlach 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova, Gordon Bell is a legendary computer scientist. Publicity from this page is absolutely insignificant compared to the multitude of references about him all over the net. You'll notice that this Wikipedia page, unlike most, doesn't appear within the first page of Google search results for the subject. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    How about this - we put up a highly visible notice on the article on our non-tolerance of corporate vanity/paid for editing before the time of the lecture and keep it there for several days so as to get our point across.

    I added a {{coi2}} to the article, by the way. MER-C 13:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    We should follow WP:BITE and show some respect to an old timer who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's community standards. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy now. Gordon Bell does not appear to be giving a marketing/PR lecture. The lecture is on entrepreneurship, technology startups, and innovations from Microsoft. I suspect this lecture writeup was done by an eager PR intern and that Bell didn't even see it or care what it says. This is analogous to some youngster saying that William Shakespeare must be important because he has a Wikipedia page. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    → See also: Linksearch for *.tiraspoltimes.com

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

    Sockpuppeteer User:MarkStreet who is editor of Tiraspol Times, confirmation of identity to Jayig (at that time, the link http://tiraspoltimes.com/aboutus.html mentioned MarkStreet's name with a link back at his Wikipedia userpage), known also with the name Mark us street, with known sockpuppets Henco, Esgert, Truli, Buffadren is edit-warring for long time in Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia, one of main activities being to include refference at his webpage "Tiraspol Times" in Wikipedia [8], defending the credibility of "Tiraspol Times" [9], voting for the inclusion of a link to "Tiraspol Times" [10] and in general promoting in Wikipedia the POV of necesity of international recognition of Transnistria's independence like "Tiraspol Times" is doing (note: Tiraspol is the capital of Transnistria). I consider that a conflict of interest exist and MarkStreet/Buffadren and all his sockpuppets should be banned to edit Transnistria-related articles in Wikipedia.--MariusM 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    I added a {{db-spam}} and a {{coi}} to it.
    COIBot already saw the additions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Let me know if I need to do anything else? 207.107.246.140 20:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the article as spam, and as per above comments. Bearian 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard is just slightly more complicated than that. If you believe an article should be deleted, please take it upon yourself to apply one of the pertinent tags, like {{prod}} or {{db-spam}}, or initiate the articles for deletion process, or ask other editors to help you with those procedures. There's no role here for !votes like Delete / Keep / Merge, really. — Athaenara ✉ 02:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The three articles describe recently published psychology tests that all have as an author Ronnie L. McGhee. This person's initials coincide with those of RLM2007. Both RLM2007 and 168.10.112.2 have added multiple links to these tests to psychology, counselling and speech-language articles, for example including the tests as "prominent examples" (a phrase that was there already).[11]. RML2007's edits appear to have a single purpose at present.

    I wrote a note on RLM2007's talkpage inquiring if they were McGhee and pointing to the conflict of interest and spam guidelines. There has been no response and indeed another article was created and the link adding has continued unabated. I note that RLM2007 signed as Carol Phillips School Psychologist, at one point, however.[12] I would be glad of some advice and help at this point. Slp1 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged all three articles with {{COI}} and {{advert}}. They all deserve {{db-spam}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    This appears to be written entirely by the subject, Billkay and his wife partner Lynne Bateson. Note that the article says that William Kay is married to lives with Lynne Bateson. I can't verify anything by following the links in the article. --Steven J. Anderson 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Apart from the probable COI, the actual contents look fine apart from getting sources. William Kay is indeed a long-running Sunday Times financial columnist. I've sourced two of the awards. Tearlach 17:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article seems to have been written by a relative of the recently deceased subject, possibly his wife. All edits were made by Azariahmoreno except some minor ones made by me (under my IP address - oops). Looks like it will pass notability, but there are no sources. Needs to be verified by an editor without a conflict of interest. --Steven J. Anderson 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Just making a quick inspection, I don't even see how it would pass notability. I'm probably missing something here, but it just seems to be an obituary with wikilinks. I see some Google hits for a George Azariah-Moreno, but most if not all of them are signed comments on bbc.co.uk articles. Apart from references, the article doesn't assert the subject's notability well at all. I would put a prod tag on it unless, again, I'm missing something major. --Dynaflow babble 04:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    William Lerach (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and related articles

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

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

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

    1) created two articles directly related to the company in which (s)he linked to the company/magazine [13][14]. (S)he inserted links and references to Metropolis/Japan Today/Mark Devlin in several other articles as well:[15][16][17]Puts Crisscross news above Kyodo(!!)[18][19][20]
    2) Has been removing "negative" material from these and other articles related to either Metropolis, Crisscross or Mark Devlin. Removal of poorly sourced/unsourced "negative" claims: [21][22][23][24][25][26]. Removal of unsourced "negative" material, which probably should have been fact-tagged: [27][28]. Removal of "negative" well-sourced material: [29][30][31].
    3) Repeatedly drew attention to how allegedly large/important said companies/products are, in listed articles: [32][33][34][35][36] (see also point 1)
    4) Removed "notability", "advertisement", "primary sources", "importance", "unreferenced", "fact" and "merger" (prior to any discussion) tags from said articles: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. In no more than 2-3 of these reverts did (s)he actually post on the talk page. Also closed a merger proposition after only 4 days of silence [50], instead of 10, as WP:MERGE specifies.
    5) Voraciously defended the Metropolis article from deletion: VfD/Metropolis
    6) Has written extensively on the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article, despite that Mark Devlin is seriously involved in the whole situation, and referred to Mark Devlin several times. (reverted somebody with the rationale "Unlike you, Devlin is a leading, published critic of the case")[[51]] [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62]: [63][64][65]
    7) Edit warred extensively on listed articles(see most of above links), but especially on Nick Baker (too much to list every single instance, see [66], it stretches back to December 2005). Showed, and continues to show serious WP:OWN issues.
    (links in bold shows where (s)he reverted my own edits (bolded text is for emphasis only). The above link diff's are only a sample (!) of all the editing/rv-ing/edit warring Sparkzilla has done on listed articles)
    • Evidence that Sparkzilla is Mark Devlin (or closely associated to him):
    1) Nature of edits are very similar to 219.123.156.18 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - an IPwhois traces this IP to "Crisscross KK", which at the very least shows there IS somebody at Crisscross who is prepared to ignore his/her own bias and position when it comes to these articles. Sparkzilla might be using a proxy now, but a checkuser might show that he too comes from "Crisscross KK"
    2) Mark Devlin's e-mail is "sparky@crisscross.com" [67]
    3) Mark Devlin refers to the Wikipedia Nick Baker article on his personal blog [68], and in another post, openly stated "We are happy to make corrections to our Wikipedia page" [69]
    4) ((very circumstantial but worth mentioning)) Forum postings on Fuckedgaijin (discussion board for expatriates in Japan). [70][71][72] (site is currently down but google cache exists (NOTE: might take a few minutes to load): [73][74][75]). By a poster called "Sparkzilla", relating to the whole Nick Baker situation, suggests he has been very much involved in the case (dates back to 2005). Also, Tribe profile "Sparkzilla". "Name: Mark. Country: Japan. Age:40". Dates back to 2004 [76] (changed since this CoI was posted, but see google cache [77]).

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

    Phew! did you get all that? It is clear from the obsessive report above and from the user's history that Heatedissuepuppet (an SPA sockpuppet that was recently blocked for disruption [78] is not interested in improving Wikipedia articles, but is simply interested in attacking and exposing a particular user to influence content disputes. Heatedissuepuppet has made no constructive edits to any of the articles mentioned and is upset that poorly sourced defamatory information has been removed [79] Let my history of constructive edits, the notability of the articles, and the quality of the sources speak for themselves...
    • Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) survived AFD by 8-1[80]. Even so, Heatedissuepuppet insisted on adding notability tags multiple times to all Metropolis related pages, and continuied to do so after being told to discuss the issue on the article talk page. [81] The article has six external sources.
    Note also that Metropolis is a leading source of information about Japanese culture, arts and living. It has an archive of hundreds of features and commentaries about Japan going back 13 years. It is not unreasonable that relevant links to Metropolis articles should be included in some WP articles. If the magazine wanted to spam WP they could spam hundreds of articles rather than adding links to the handful of articles noted here. The intent here is obvious -- this editor dislikes Metropolis and wants no mention of it in Wikipedia.
    • Crisscross survived a merge discussion with Metropolis by 3-1. Editwarring over the closing of this discussion casued Heatedissuepuppet to be blocked. The editor nmisrepresents the time the discussion was open. It was closed after 5 days as policy dictates. Check here Talk:Crisscross. The article has six external sources [82]. Feel free to nominate it for deletion on notability.
    • The disputed section of Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) was the subject of a recent RFD (which I initiated) [83]. I have done many, many constructive edits to this page, including two major rewrites and finding/confirming almost all the sources for the page. I created an RFC for disputed text about the case [84] that only appears in a round-up article in Metropolis. The disputed text is curently not in the article. The current criticism of Baker's campaign by Devlin and Baker's MP [85] has two sources for each claim, and has been rewritten to take undue weight concerns into account. Mr Devlin, as the publisher of Metropolis [86], the No 1 English magazine in Japan, and Japan Today [87], the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world, has clear notability when making claims about a support group's attempt to mislead Japan's foreign community, and the media, about a Japan-related issue.
    The poorly sourced negative material that I removed is as follows:
    • Japantodaysucks.com. [88]. Obvious attempt to include defamatory domain. This site does not exist, it is not in Google, or on the Internet archive.
    • Japan Traveler: [89] Article does not exist on japantraveler.com website, Google, or Internet archive.
    • Tokyo Weekender [90]. Article that Heatedissuepuppet claimed backs up Japan Traveler claims actually proves Japan Traveler's unreliability. Comprehensive rebuttal with some 20 points why this source is not acceptable at the bottom of this page: Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)
    • Bogus claims and vandalism [91] [92][93] No editor would let any of these stand.
    I will accept, and have accepted, properly sourced information on any of these pages, but even if I was intimately involved with Metropolis, I would still be allowed to remove poorly sourced, libelous, defamatory claims. This is what the policy says:
    An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved.
    I do not think I should be penalised for upholding Wikipedia content policies.
    I am happy to give further details to interested editors on request, but please note that I will not respond to Heatedissuepuppet or David Lyons (a non-constructive Nick Baker supporter's SPA) here. I will not feed these trolls further. Thank you for your consideration. Sparkzilla 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    As an outside observer, here's my take on the points raised by Heatedissuepuppet. First, I do think the evidence that Sparkzilla is either Mark Devlin or closely associated with him is very convincing. That said, point by point from Heatedissuepuppet's complaint:
    1. I don't think it's that bad a thing to have created the articles on Crisscross or Metropolis, and whatever happened earlier aside, they are relatively neutral and fair now. However, Metropolis' take on all sorts of other issues is promotion and inappropriate. I especially disapprove of edits like the creation of Omotesando Hills with Devlin's commentary included (which is still there). I don't know very much about the topic but I find it suspicious that this particular commentary is worthy of mention to the degree at which it is included. WP:COI discourages edits like this: see "Citing yourself." Similarly, the edit to japan is not appropriate.
    2. I don't blame Sparkzilla for any of these removals, I find those passages suspicious as well. Even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important. But this is part of the evidence that convinces me there's a connection between Sparkzilla and Devlin/Crisscross.
    3. I definitely have a problem with this. It is not on point to be promoting Metropolis in other articles by boosting its apparent importance, and given the conflict of interest, it is not appropriate. Again, see "Citing yourself" at WP:COI.
    4. I encourage Sparkzilla to try to address the complaints behind dispute tags like these via communication. However, several of these were justified removals. For instance, he removed the "Unreferenced" tag while adding 5 sources. He removed the "Advertising" tag when the article was definitely neutral in tone. Still, it's good to remind that these dispute tags are sometimes put up as a middle-ground compromise between editors who disagree, and for that reason it's important to be more responsive. As for the notability tag, I really don't think that's in the same category: that's sort of like a pre-deletion tag and doesn't truly call for any kind of change to the article... and when an AfD has already been run and has not resulted in deletion, it is no longer needed. As for the Merge request, I can't help but feel that the whole 4 days vs. 10 days point is pretty irrelevant, and a call for process for process' sake, but it shouldn't be edit warred over.. but then, I think this is a problem for both editors involved here.
    5. This happens all the time. I consider this good evidence that Sparkzilla is connected to the topic, but not problematic behavior in itself, I don't see any of the behavior there as disruptive.
    6. Apparently it is not part of the dispute whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant. So, I don't fault Sparkzilla for contributing on that topic, but...
    7. However, this is problematic. Sparkzilla, as a connected party, should appreciate that his perspective is too close to the events to make good editorial judgements, and back off, and remember that he doesn't WP:OWN the article on Nick Baker. Sparkzilla has eventually, seemingly, submitted to some outside input, but had been pressing an extensive amount of material from Metropolis / Devlin into the article. Sparkzilla should back off.
    Overall, I feel that it's clear there's a strong connection between Sparkzilla and Mark Devlin, Crisscross, and Metropolis, just from the edits, with additional points reinforced by Heatedissuepuppet's further evidence. Sparkzilla, you need to come clean about it: you do not need to acknowledge that you are any specific individual, but acknowledge that you are connected with these topics in real life. If you don't, you should just stop editing that relates to Metropolis or Devlin in any way. Second, Sparkzilla, you also must stop inappropriately promoting Devlin and Metropolis. It's one thing to edit the articles on Metropolis and Crisscross in line with policy (and I do think you've done okay in these areas, but should be communicative), but it's quite another to add external links or favorable wording to unconnected articles, and it's inappropriate to cite yourself in situations where the Metropolis coverage is not clearly noteworthy. It's an issue of WP:UNDUE weight on the coverage in your own publication. I am particularly concerned about this because Metropolis, despite being prominent in its small niche, is obviously a pretty low-level publication as things go in Japan, AND it's hard for most editors here on the English Wikipedia to understand the Japanese coverage (or even search in it!) which means that many mentions of Metropolis are probably inappropriate, and even more so when they're included by someone with a conflict of interest. If the Metropolis coverage is worth mentioning, let someone else be the one to include it: even then, I would imagine it's likely they're making a mistake by not being able to read the Japanese sources, but at least it won't look like a malicious choice. I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way. Consider this a wake-up call: you have made some valuable contributions but you have also been editing inappropriately and it needs to stop. Mangojuicetalk 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    MangoJuice, I do respect your assesment and your constant level-headedness, but I can't help but think you are far too lenient on Sparkzilla. If you go one page up (WP:COI), some of the very first sentences which greet you are: "... if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)". Can you see any evidence of "great caution" being exercised on Sparkzilla's behalf? I think a more approriate description of his behaviour would be "bulldozer-ish", if you excuse the colourful language.
    I do however largely agree with your comments, with the following reservations:
    1) See above quote, no evidence of any "great caution" being exercised.
    2) I agree that many of those reverts were completely legitimate, and I would have done them myself had I spotted them. But some of them were not... You say "even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important", that might be true too (for the whole Japan Traveller thing), but do you really think Sparkzilla, who has an apparent COI, should call the shots whether it should be included or not? If another editor had removed them, I wouldn't have had a problem with it (Note, I was not the first person to include them).
    4) I agree to what you say to some extent, but is removing a Merger-tag an hour after it was initially put there OK? The whole merger-closure thing (which got me blocked indef for "abusing multiple accounts"), personally I'm really tired of talking about it because I think it's far from the worst thing Sparkzilla has done, but the point in question is that there was no way of telling in which way the discussion would have went when only 4 people (one with a CoI, another one saying "perhaps not necessary") had expressed their opinions. I was also waiting for responses from other editors, and I did/do think there was a clear case for merger. Should Sparkzilla, with his apparent COI, be the one who closes it prematurely? Again, if somebody else had done it, my reaction would have been different.
    5) See the above quote. Do you think Sparkzilla exercised any caution whatsoever?
    6) It was a part of the dispute "whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant", but my mistake, I didn't include these link diff's [94][95][96][97].
    Also, I'm not sure if it's just me but I'm uncertain exactly what you meant with this sentence, "I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way", are you telling Sparkzilla to not make any edits whatsoever related to any of these articles, or are you telling him he can make edits to the Metropolis and Crisscross articles, as long as he doesn't make references to CC/Metro/Devlin in other articles? Heatedissuepuppet 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    BTW, interesting edit made to the Tribe profile I posted above: There is no longer any mention of the name "Mark" in the profile, [98] which I can swear on my grandmother's grave there was before I posted this CoI report. Interesting to note that it was "last updated 05/18/07", and that the name "Mark" is still there in the Google cached version of the page. [99]. Not that I think any amount of covering-up is going to change the outcome of this report, it just strikes me as interesting. Heatedissuepuppet 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

    → See also: Linksearch for *.eserver.org

    Similar SPAs:

    See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#eserver.org and Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Links_to_online_libraries. --Ronz 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The individual links appear to be customized to the specific article. However the fact there are already 322 links is alarming. I think we should insist that User:Geoffsauer stop adding the links until he gets a consensus that they are appropriate. EdJohnston 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's a campaign. This is a high quality web resource that naturally attracts a lot of links. It would be classified as link bait. I don't think this is spamming. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    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: [100] An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: [101] Enforcing COI is very important, but I think we need to be more careful to investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions.

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

    What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 [102], and hasn't made a single COI edit since. He did do a few little fixes to clear up image licensing problems, but I don't see any problems with those edits. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=131983390"