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 Dongwenliang (talk | contribs) at 17:19, 12 October 2007 (→‎Korea War). 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
    Draft talk:Abdulla Al Nuaimi
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Monica Behan
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Shmuley Boteach
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Michael Calvey
    Talk:Brian Chesky
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Nina L. Diaz
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Eric Gallager
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Global Citizen Awards
    Talk:Global Strategy Group
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Greystar
    Talk:Harsco
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Christian Kälin
    Talk:Elham Kashefi
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Reworld
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:Steve Tappin
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Martha G. Welch
    Talk:Yahoo Finance
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    Possible autobiographies found by bot

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

    Articles tagged for COI that need to be cleaned up

    Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

    Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    CSGV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Timjohnscsgv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are both associated with this organisation, please review the edits and check for neutrality if you have expertise in the matter. MER-C 05:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Their edits to their own org's site consist mainly of adding references and one initial edit that actually made the article more neutral. They seem to be respecting NPOV and COI very nicely. Arakunem 22:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Arakunem, there appears to be no problems here. Tiggerjay 08:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Jesse James

    Editor is the owner of the website http://firstmention.com/ and is adding images and references linking back to his website. The website is not a reliable source per WP:RS and constitutes linkspam. He is doing this to many many articles, not simply the ones listed here. It has become a daily activity eventhough he has been warned against this practice. See his edit history.--Strothra 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor was warned several days ago, so go ahead and revert the spam links and caution that continued activity could land a spot on the spam blacklist. Editor also seeks to upload useful public domain material, so let's hope this is someone who's adjusting to site standards. DurovaCharge! 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello everyone. It's taken me a while to discover this COI discussion page, and my apologies if I've seemed to be ignoring warnings up to now. My bottom-line read of the situation is as follows: Me: I feel I am adding high-quality, very relevant edits to select Wikipedia articles (Durova seems to agree, at least in part). The edits are based on information that I've compiled for my own website, firstmention.com You: Feel my posts violate one or more policies, and have removed many of them. As a case in point, take a look at my page on Hitler at http://firstmention.com/hitler.aspx It includes a fascinating, primary reference to a profile of Hitler as a young man, first emerging on the political scene, and includes the full public domain newspaper article that carries the profile. Why would anyone not want information like included as part of the Wikipedia entry on Hitler? Yet the information was deleted, apparently because the reference linked to firstmention.com. How can I provide such information, without getting dinged? How can I do a better job of "adjusting to site standards"? I'd really like feedback from folks that goes beyond pointing me to policies. I've read them, but I'm still not clear on the best way to proceed with providing what I think is wonderful information. (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Dsarokin 20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have repeatedly warned this user to not add inline links and attempts to redirect Wikipedia traffic to his site. Although I had concerns that his site was not a valid reference, and a concern of COI, I did not address this previously, and was mostly happy with his edits as long as they were structured in such a way as to not be designed purely to send traffic back to his site. Really I believe this user can offer useful contributions, and has done in the past, but it is certain he is only interested in reporting things back to Wikipedia that are directly related to the content he places on his site. aliasd·U·T 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dsarokin, please excuse us but we have heard the "why wouldn't anyone want this really useful stuff" argument many times before. You need to understand that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a publicity tool. If you participate the right way, you will find many rewards, but please don't start out by arguing for inclusion of your own website. - Jehochman Talk 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks to everyone who has commented here. I'm not going to respond point by point to what folks had to say (though I'm certainly willing to, if anyone wants to go down that road). Instead, let me say that what I'm hearing is this: a few folks have gotten sort of comfortable with the posts I've made, in terms of adding value to the articles, and having gotten more appropriate in tone and overall usage. Others, probably a majority, aren't very comfortable yet, for a variety of reasons. I've heard your concerns, and will take them to heart. I'm going to repost some of my information to the Hitler page, because it strikes me as valuable information that clearly increases the overall quality of the article. Please have a look at the post, and let me know with your comments, here, if it still causes any concerns. Now that I know a little more how the behind-the-scenes dialogue works, it should make the whole process quite a bit easier in terms of airing any opinions about my posts. Thanks again. Dsarokin 23:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, the Hitler cite didn't last long. Let's go with a less volatile page. I've added a reference to the etymology section of the article, Athletic Shoe. Let me know what you all think. Dsarokin 00:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC) PS -- some folks here have a superscript Charge! next to their hyperlinked names. What does that mean?[reply]
    • The historic Nadezhda Durova was a cavalry soldier in the Russian army two hundred years ago. She ran away from home on her favorite horse disguised as a boy, and (among other things) charged alone into a group of enemy dragoons to save the life of an officer. She enlisted as a private and retired a decorated captain. DurovaCharge! 01:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, it really doesn't matter which article you approach: your personal website doesn't meet this site's standards of a reliable source. What would really help and be welcome is if you cited the sources where you derived that information for your website. DurovaCharge! 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I do understand that some folks have concerns that the links I've provided are against policy. But I've been through the policies, and I just don't agree. However, I haven't been posting lately, as I think things through. But I will say this: by replacing the firstmention.com links with citations to the original newspapers, you're now denying Wikipedia users easy access to the articles themselves (which are often posted in full at firstmention.com), since they have no straightforward way to access the original newspaper pages. I can't believe that this is in Wikipedia's own best interest, since it makes information access more, not less, difficult Dsarokin 18:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Hello everyone. These posts probably shouldn't be in a Jesse James thread anymore, but I'm not sure where else to best put them. Anyway, I've updated the article on Tempest in a Teapot. Please let me know your thoughts as to the appropriateness or not of this edit. I'd appreciate it if it could stay intact at least for a few days, so that anyone interested will have a chance to give it a look. Thanks.Dsarokin 13:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems the link to the article doesn't work. Can anyone enlighten me as to why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsarokin (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't agree with Wikipedia policies, admit it, and say that you're going to go against them to promote your website.. something is wrong here. I'm cleaning up the edits. Hannabee 16:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It seems he has no intention to comply with policy. I strongly recommend a blacklist at this point. He has been warned many times. His behavior is interrupting Wikipedia and causing other editors to waste time chasing behind him to clean up his mess. --Strothra 19:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Dsarokin's earliest edits spammed http://xooxleanswers.com, which is another site he operates. --Ronz 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I started an ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive307#User:Dsarokin --Ronz 22:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James Browning Kepple

    Resolved
     – All 9 coi articles deleted. MER-C 13:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears that this user is using wikipedia to promote his poetry collection. He started his own bio article, and all edits by this user have involved inserting mention of himself and/or the collection of poetry. -steventity 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    PROD added to James Browning Kepple, Kim Göransson, and Pretend Genius. For those names listed at Pretend Genius, PROD should be added to J. Tyler Blue, Sean Brijbasi, Josh Davis, Kenneth Dawson, Stephen Moran, Dean Strom, and Blem Vide if they are un-red linked. -- Jreferee T/C 16:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh Davis is now a disambig page. The only prod survivors were James Browning Kepple and Kim Göransson, which are now on afd. MER-C 04:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not resolved. You have deleted a publishing house with long standing wiki status. You need third party? Is the Guardian Unlimited a publication? [1]

    I do not represent Pretend Genius, I am but a poet that had you delete them. I'm sure they have the connections and people skills needed to have the article restored I just thought it a tad reactionary to a small press offering 5000 quid for a short story. Regardless, Reinstate the pretend Genius article, I apoogize for skipping my death to see a reference. --72.172.7.134 04:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article you produced doesn't even contain the phrase "pretend genius", so I wouldn't count it as a reference. MER-C 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    [2] Once again I do not represent Pretend Genius, I am only looking to correct the error that was made when addressing a two line bio that you decided wasn't notable, we all have our tastes in the arts I suppose. There was no reason to delete a longstanding wiki entry about a publishing house. You can find all the references that you need (whether its the authors of the publishing house hobknobbing it with various literary celebrities) in regards to Pretend Genius. Or, for furthur reference you could pick up a few copies of there publications, hey even enter a short story (no fees or restrictions) to give yourself a chance at the 5000 quid prize and publication in the a pretend genius book. Regardless of all of this, please restor the pretend genius article as it was before any of this. Thank you in advance for your understanding.--72.172.7.134 15:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:SputnikmusicReviews

    Resolved
     – No article, no problem. MER-C 13:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Editing Sputnikmusic, claiming to speak for the website. Corvus cornix 21:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article now is at AfD. -- Jreferee T/C 14:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Sybian

    The diffs and links that follow are not worksafe. This article has been altered several times[3] [4] recently by an IP address who claims[5] to represent ABCO Research Associates, the marketers of the Sybian and the owners of the trademark (see [6], at the bottom of the page). The IP asserts that offsite links to (admittedtly pornographic) images of the Sybian in use are not to be placed in the article, and has removed them. I reverted and placed a COI notice on the IP's talk page, but they removed the links again. I believe that this IP's involvement is a clear COI situation, and I know that this site is not censored for minors, but I would like to solicit comments. I'm slightly uncomfortable (just... slightly) with reverting back to a version that links to middlecore porn. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    a) Any external links need to move out of the "See also" section.
    b) I don't see the value in the first link (the one presently in the "See also" section). I couldn't care less about the explicitness of the content, it's just not anything that isn't obvious from the design of the device as well as the text of the article. As it stands now, it's simply an advertisement for a for-pay porn site. Kill it, COI notwithstanding.
    c) The one labeled "specs" (although that's not a very accurate description) is decent and probably can stay. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Skinwalker, I think you should revert to a previous version. The user in question who deleted many of the links I believe acted in an overzealous manner. JMHO --Buttysquirrel 21:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I did not know this discussion even existed, otherwise I would have through gone through the proper channels to express my view. As such, I agree with c) above, the link to the specs should remain as it has been there for quite some time and it does not peddle any products whatsoever. Buttysquirrel 01:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've been having quite a bit of follow up in the Sybian discussions, and I agree with bbatsell that the link on the Specs (maybe even rename it to "Sybian Review" or "Other Description") the link in c) above is fine and should be included in the External Links. When asked why the link (which has been there January since 2005) was removed, Ronz's response for the deletion, "The policies and guidelines have changed. What used to be allowed is in many cases not allowed. Advertisements have nothing to do with it.", is weak at best. --Buttysquirrel 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, the WP:COI states, "avoid, or exercise great caution when:...Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)" --Ronz 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case "exercise great caution" applies here. Again, this link is not spam, therefore it should not even be considered under the rules of spam. I do believe there has not ever been a single, clickable link on the page in question. The link Specs on the Sybian just contains information about the Sybian that you cannot find in the main Sybian article. --Buttysquirrel 03:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Your edits in article-space to date consist mostly of adding links to the website you run. I realize that you made most of these edits years ago, but today such behavior is considered to be spamming. Please familiarize yourself with the current guidelines, especially Wp:spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. --Ronz 03:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
    I disagree. I have contributed several photos of the Sybian, and other related photos such as the Topco Love Machine, which I had our photographer take. In addition, I have added content to several articles that never link back to our site(s). So I do not believe most of the content I have added have been links that to go back to our site. Besides, your argument reads like I'm banned from making any editions because you deem the link (link removed) spam. --Buttysquirrel 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ronz, why did you just remove the link above? This is a discussion page, and that link was placed there so that others in this discussion could simply click and see what the argument is about. Now everyone has to click the history tab to see what link I we are debating. --Buttysquirrel 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Fadi Kaouk

    Resolved
     – Both coi articles deleted. Spammer hasn't been seen since. MER-C 13:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've warned the user up through uw-spam4 and given him a COI notice. -- Versageek 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC) A new COI page by this user - KGC International - one of the companies run by Fadi Kaouk --Versageek 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've nominated the articles for speedy because they are pure vanity. This user is spamming lots of articles in rapid fire, and has never made a productive edit. Administrators: can we get an indef block please? - Jehochman Talk 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Also reported at WT:WPSPAM here. -- Videmus Omnia Talk 14:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Rocketboom

    Page is currently protected due to reverts and blind reverts by the above user. Article is highly promotional and the edit history reveals that any negative material is routinely removed. A cited BusinessWeek reference analyzing the popularity of the site was repeatedly removed to make way for unverified numbers provided by the site owner that were refuted by the BusinessWeek article. The Rocketboom article and the related Andrew Baron article would benefit from the attention from other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanr (talk • contribs) 25 September 2007.

    Andrew Baron

    Similar issues to Rocketboom above plus WP:VAIN. Article may be a potential merge candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleanr (talk • contribs) 25 September 2007.

    BQE Software

     Confirmed corporate vanity. It turns out that the first result for a google search on the company's name is http://spam.billquick.com. I'd also watch the spammer's user page, as it is starting to look spammy. May be notable, as a google news search brings up a lot of stuff... MER-C 13:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged the article for COI, and reported the inappropriate username (promotion). - Jehochman Talk 13:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Phil Konstantin

    Philkon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) uploads photographs, adds them to articles with a namecheck. We also have a lot of links to Special:Linksearch/americanindian.net/kusi, which is Phil Konstantin's website on KUSI, mostly added by 24.165.8.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is almost certainly the same individual since the edits are al to add these links or to Konstantin's image captions, see these three sequential diffs: [7], [8], [9]. And Philkon also edits KUSI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This does not look good. Cruftbane 19:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    http://spam.americanindian.net

    americanindian.net: 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

    Spamlink template so the bots can pick this up. Cross-posted to WT:WPSPAM#http://spam.americanindian.net. MER-C 14:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Brand Aid Design

    Resolved
     – Article was deleted at AfD. An administrator blocked User:Brandaid pending creation of a non-promotional user name. EdJohnston 12:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is currently at AfD after he contested a speedy deletion. A few people are trying to work with him on the article issues, but he seems a bit annoyed by what he views as arbitrary application of notability policies. I've given him a welcome & a COI notice. --Versageek 21:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I reported the username at WP:UAA since they were obviously here to promote, not to contribute. - Jehochman Talk 13:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexander Ferocia

    Resolved
     – Article was deleted at AfD. EdJohnston 01:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Created by User:AlexanderFerocia; no sources.--BirgitteSB 14:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Ferocia. MER-C 03:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edmund S. Crelin, Jr.

    Created own article; no sourcres--BirgitteSB 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Created own article
    I hope not: he's been dead since 2004. But it could well be a relative. Gordonofcartoon 22:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to be some sources now, including an honorary doctorate. People with COI do not necessarily write good articles showing the notability clearly even when the subjects are important. DGG (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    maybe there's more to the afterlife than we know? --Rocksanddirt 20:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Hamilton Pianist & Poker Player

    This appears to be an autobiography. The creator's name describes the two careers of the subject of the article. Bearian 02:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Davidross1943, promotional edits for drsusanblock.com

    Davidross1943 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self-identifies as a "sexuality writer and researcher", but this researcher's only findings are pages on drsusanblock.com, to which this editor links various sexuality-related articles. Has recently taken to adding article text of marginal value using Susan Block's blog as a citation. When such linkage is removed, editor waits a while, then adds again. With the exception of the Susan Block article, these additions are usually inappropriate per WP:EL. If I recall correctly, also created (and certainly edited) at least one deleted article on Susan Block's books. Obviously the article Susan Block is also being edited in COI — her page has had some balancing edits, but still makes a few grandiose claims. That said, I'm actually more concerned about the pattern of spam linkage than the Susan Block article in particular. / edg ☺ ★ 11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The article isn't to bad, needs to have the various references done as inline ones. And reduction in the use of blogs (especially dr. blocks) as references. --Rocksanddirt 16:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is more about the editor than the article. Davidross1943's history is almost entirely linking drsusanblock.com from various articles. / edg ☺ ★ 22:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comets and the swastika motif

    self-quotation to the point of OR. This is basically an article covering another article by the same author written in 1992. dab (𒁳) 16:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the main theme of this article seems to come from work by Bob Kobres, which is actually not published in any refereed journals that I could see. (The 1992 SIS Workshop is unlikely to be seen as refereed, for our purposes). The main reference is to his personal web site, which does not qualify as a reliable source. If everything cited to Kobres were removed, I guess there wouldn't be much remaining material. Have you considered proposing this for AfD? If you are uncertain, you could also ask at WT:ASTRO. EdJohnston 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not intend to put this on Afd myself: this is why I posted it here for review. I do suppose a case for deletion could be made, though. Failing that, the article needs to be reviewed by neutral editors to rid it of the worst instances of self-citation by Bkobres. dab (𒁳) 09:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Boxed up a response by User:Bkobres that exceeds the 200 word limit (see top of page). Click to view
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    The main theme of Comets and the swastika motif is predicated on the fact that the artifact mentioned has a drawing that most people would now describe as a swastika, labeled as a long tailed pheasant star (di-xing). Clearly there was an association between this particular view of a comet and a fowl! All that I have added (and published many years ago) to what is obvious from the Chinese artifact is the supposition that the association of swastika like drawing with a bird is due to the bird foot-print like aspect of the comet depiction. I learned recently that this relationship between the swastika or fyl-fot motif and a fowls foot was actually suggested over one hundred years ago:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=85oYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA109&dq=svastika+bird+foot+print&as_brr=1#PPA122,M1
    Fyl-fot. The Teutonic name of the Svastika or cross with feet, Greek gammadion or "crooked" sign (see Count G. D'Alviella, Migration des Symboles, 1892). This sign, found from Peru to Cornwall, is called Fuel-fut, Fujel-fot, and Fyl-fot, among Aryans, and identified with Thor's hammer, being found on dolmens in Cornwall, and, as a charm against thunder, on bells in Yorkshire (see Bells). It appears to signify the "fowl's foot" (German Vogel "bird"), a "flying foot," alluding to the whirl of the Svastika wheel (see Svastika) It was everywhere a sacred emblem. The Aryan root Plu signifies "to fly." The symbol is also the croix cramponee, or "crook cross," of heralds.
    Faiths of Man: A Cyclopædia of Religions by James George Roche Forlong - 1906 vol.II pp 121-122

    As for my published speculation of a connection between the swastika motif and the Astika parva in the Mahabharata--this too has been supposed earlier:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=QvQeAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA145&dq=astika+bird+foot&as_brr=1#PPA329,M1
    It was in Hindu mythology the symbol of the two united female and male Suastikas (卍) (卐) the female marking the sun going northward at the winter and the male its going southward at the summer solstice while the eight rayed star includes both movements The name Su astika embodies that of the god Astika or rather as he is also called in the Mahabharata Ashtaka the eighth 2
    Primitive Traditional History: The Primitive History and Chronology of India ... By James Francis Katherinus Hewitt

    Garuda, which is the main focus of the Astika parva, is not a terrestrial bird:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Wy0MAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA52&dq=garuda+talons+celestials&as_brr=1
    11 13 The greatly powerful king of birds the slayer of enemies rose on his wings and stayed in the sky over the heads of the celestials with their lord Indra who showered on him double edged swords iron maces sharp lances bright arrows and discuses of the form of the sun Being thus attacked from every side 14 The king of birds fought the great battle without being weary for a moment and the greatly powerful son of Vinata blazing in the sky attacked the celestials on all sides by his wings and breast and scattered them in all directions 15 Mangled by the talons and the beaks of Garuda copious blood began to flow from the bodies of the celestials
    A Prose English Translation of the Mahabharata: (tr. Literally from the ... By Manmathanatha Datta, Manmatha Nath Dutt

    Postulating recent prior encounters with extraterrestrial debris is now well within the scope of contemporary scientific inquiry:

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0706977104v1
    A carbon-rich black layer, dating to {approx}12.9 ka, has been previously identified at {approx}50 Clovis-age sites across North America and appears contemporaneous with the abrupt onset of Younger Dryas (YD) cooling. The in situ bones of extinct Pleistocene megafauna, along with Clovis tool assemblages, occur below this black layer but not within or above it. Causes for the extinctions, YD cooling, and termination of Clovis culture have long been controversial. In this paper, we provide evidence for an extraterrestrial (ET) impact event at {cong}12.9 ka, which we hypothesize caused abrupt environmental changes that contributed to YD cooling, major ecological reorganization, broad-scale extinctions, and rapid human behavioral shifts at the end of the Clovis Period.

    I discussed how this particular paper came to be published by SIS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swastika#Comets

    I do not think that it is fair to casually label a publication that has been active since 1974 unacceptable simply because you are not familiar with the subject matter that group is interested in. As for the WP article under discussion, I think that there is certainly more evidence to support the notion that the swastika motif as an important religious symbol had more to do with its frequent appearance in the ancient sky than with basket weaving, which is suggested without support in the main swastika article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika Bkobres 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On his Talk page, Bob Kobres added this comment:
    ...I have no problem with moving the discussion to the discussion page of the article in question. What I was trying to convey is that the article, which was originally added to the swastika article in December of 2004, is not only about the relation of the swastika to the foot of a bird and should not be deleted due to the quality of the SIS publication. I've also negated the OR aspect of the piece by providing earlier contentions that the swastika was associated with the foot of a bird as well as the Astika parva in Mahabharata. Bkobres 16:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    Update. Dab has renamed the article Swastika origin theories, per Talk. Further reform of this article is being discussed at Talk:Swastika origin theories. EdJohnston 16:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Two articles by User:Ramesh Grover

    Ramesh Grover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Vishal Grover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ramesh Grover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Obviously, Ramesh Grover has created articles about himself and about his family member. Deletion may be an option, but I decided not to take it directly to AFD because the articles assert notability (albeit w/o references). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I think AfD for both articles would be reasonable, since there is no way of independently checking notability from the references provided (there are none). The submitter should be notified of the AfD so he gets a chance to find more material. EdJohnston 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Google finds a number of articles, some in magazines that should be references. What is the company size cut off for notability of its founder? Keith Henson 21:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at WP:CORP I didn't see any size cutoff. They give this all-purpose test:
    A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
    If Ramesh Grover is the head of a 10,000-person company you would expect to find a lot of press coverage. EdJohnston 23:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The Indian press coverage about the company on Google says 4,000 people. There are about 50 links on Google to his name. It's somebody else's judgment call if the articles are non-trivial. Keith Henson 17:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sam Lit

    Reg Smythe

    Holmcroft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the cousin of cartoonist Reg Smythe, creator of Andy Capp, and wants to expand the article from unpublished personal knowledge. Consequent WP:COI, WP:V and WP:NOR problems. Gordonofcartoon 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham Streeter

    I picked this up at User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult, and tagged it. The creator has the same name as the article. It may be an autobiography, or agent or fan bio. Bearian 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Raëlian history and beliefs

    Resolved
     – Not a COI issue
    Thank you for the information. Sorry, it looked suspicious. I will remove the tag, on behalf of my alter ego. Bearian'sBooties 16:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Raëlism/Raelian scheme

    Here is the Wikipedia Raëlism/Raelian scheme:

    The above categories and templates lead to a significant number of more articles that are soapboxes for Raëlism/Raelian. It seems likely to be growing due to those with COIs. The trifecta requirements of Wikipedia:Content forking, that a topic is to stay focused without going into unnecessary details, and that only material that is independent of the subject be used in articles is designed to keep Wikipedia from becoming a soapbox for the topic. The Raëlism/Raelian topic has gotten out of hand because the editors to this topic have not complied with these requirements. It would be nice if someone tackled this Raëlism/Raelian soapbox issue. -- Jreferee t/c 20:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't your concern lead to an AfD or a CfD nomination? I would listen to the arguments presented if so. If we are merely documenting something that exists, in a neutral manner, and not going beyond what the sources say, I don't see the problem. Some people may consider this movement bizarre, but documenting it seems harmless. Please point out if a particular article seems to be a soapbox. The work of Kmarinas86 seems to make an attempt to be neutral, though he is clearly interested in this topic. EdJohnston 22:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It has become apparent to me that some the Raëlian articles do not fit the notability guideline. I will try to merge these in to other articles - carefully.Kmarinas86 04:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Paul

    Resolved
     – The subject of a biography (or an associate) is allowed to remove unsourced defamatory claims. Does not raise a COI issue for us. EdJohnston 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this belongs here. I was doing RP patrolling and came across this edit summary from Madpuss."(i took out "sean paul recently came out of the closet" as sean paul is not gay. he is a good friend of mine, and his manager just asked me to edit it. thank you)".--Sethacus 20:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The user reverted unsourced defamatory claims from the biography of a living person. Even though he has an outside-wikipedia reason for doing so, the outside interest he pursues is perfectly in line with Wikipedia's interest. Thus, there is no conflict of interests, and therefore no problem at all. –Henning Makholm 21:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (For reference, here is the vandal, and here is the revert by Madpuss.) –Henning Makholm 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I marked this as resolved. Revert if you believe there are issues that still need to be addressed. EdJohnston 03:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bella (film)

    Check the talk page. This is largely written like a publicity blurb and has mostly been written by someone involved with the film. Utterly coincidentally, there seem to have been a pile of posts to a lot of LiveJournal communities of late heavily pushing it. Could some disinterested editors please give it a thorough editorial review? - David Gerard 21:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave it nice editing. It should be watched to make sure the hype doesn't return. - Jehochman Talk 04:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    INVOLVEMENT NEEDED: Content war in the Alexander Lukashenko article

    In the Alexander Lukashenko article there's a criticism section which included only negative critisism on hom. For the sake of NPOV, i added a paragraph, with references, what his supporters think of him. Nevertheless, there's a user named User:Bakersville who keeps on removing what i added and adding information against the man. If the information is sourced, i dont mind it to stay, but i dont like him deleting my information. I started a discussion on the talk page (where, as you could see, i offered a compromise, but it was ignored), yet the user was supported by the user User:Barend who gave against me two lame claims: 1. Thereferences being in Russian (1. Whats the problem to ask a Russian administrator to check it?? 2. One of the references was in English. 3. If the references give the material thy fit. I wxplaimed it in the discussion). 2. Me supporting Lukashenko and calling him the only real democrat on the talk page (And? But i havent wrote that in the article. All i gave in the article was referenced, nutral and objective). Please, stop this political idiotism. Wikipedia haven't sworn loyalty to any political ideology, so the article has to be NPOV and show both sides on the coin. M.V.E.i. 12:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    And he just cant stop! Not talking about the fact he already broke the 3RR. M.V.E.i. 12:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Toto (band)

    • I'm going to make sure he has a proper warning. Let's get him to stop edit warring first, then we'll go back and fix up the article. Some of his edits are improvements, so we need to be selective about what we delete or revert. - Jehochman Talk 16:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor disregarded my warning and continues to spin the article. He's deleting negative, sourced material. I don't think this person cares about Wikipedia at all. He's looking at this site as a chance for free advertising. I've left him one final warning. This seems to be a COI-only account, so we can block it if he continues. Once that's resolved we'll have to clean up the article. - Jehochman Talk 23:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We need to block him, I'm writer1400, throughout the day, I've had to keep coming back here and revert his edits, they were bias, promos, and fan writing. He does not care, he just cares about giving Toto a positive image. We have to block him because he's going to keep doing this. We have worked hard on the Toto page for months and he's now coming in and changing everything. Please help. Writer1400 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't edited in a couple of days. Follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 23:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur R. Collins

    Artinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only created and made edits to what might be an article about himself: Arthur R. Collins. -WarthogDemon 03:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Stirrup

    First-person shooter

    User appears to be the owner of firstpersonshooters.org (abbreviated to FPS.org for this report) based on comments, no reason to doubt it.

    On the page First-person shooter there used to be a rather hefty set of external links, including FPS.org. Eventually, this user (going by a handle of "Advocate" but still using an IP, moves the FPS.org link to the top as described on the talk page here and talk page diff here, main page diff [10]), on July 15.

    Eventually, these links were removed in a general page cleanup (here), on Sept 9. Starting on Sept 22, this user starts adding them back (first one here), and ended up in a WP:3RR situation over it, though he was approaching uncivil and personal attacks about this. About that time, I started to try to put up a reasoning for all the links in question include FPS.org, and cited that as having three problems: COI, possible copyvio (as the site houses abandonware, which the folks at WP:EL suggest that it shouldn't be linked), and general usefulness. Another anon while this other guy's IP was blocked argued with me about them (I don't believe it was the same person, but likely a friend), but I left it at the point that once .198 was unblocked, he would be able to speak his peace about the links and a rational discussion could continue. No such event occurred.

    Now this user is back again adding or reverting the removal of FPS.org from the page. He hasn't offered to talk of the points I listed out, but instead has now put effectively an advertisement up for his site on the talk page of first-person shooter here.

    The FPS.org site doesn't appear to be a site driven by ad dollars (but as we know, WP doesn't refer searches and thus can't be used in that way) , but this really feels like a COI violation, if not a violation of some other sort. I doubt the editors will be able to make him understand why FPS.org isn't appropriate to be linked given his past behavior. Any suggestions of what to do? --MASEM 04:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Two previous blocks failed to remedy the problem and edits from today demonstrate that it's still ongoing. I've implemented a one week block on the account and invited the editor to draw upon the reliable sources he or she used to create that site and make cited additions to Wikipedia's article. I hope that has an impact. If not, follow up at this board and cite this thread. Semiprotection and/or longer blocks would be the next step. Thanks for your patience. DurovaCharge! 07:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sid Haig article being protected by his webmaster

    This has come up before. [11]

    User:75.82.3.135, User:75.82.58.52, and User:Spirot are the same. I believe there are others as well.

    The individual is Sid Haig's manager webmaster. At one point, he/she had Haig pose with a photograph with a sign "verifying" the content of the article. [12]

    Anyway, what called my attention to this happening again is 75.82.3.135's reversion of this edit [13] by User:Yakofujimato. He or she was unwilling to accept that the word "revival" could appear in the article, in the context of "vaudeville revival." This struck me a very odd thing to be passionate about, considering the cite used that exact terminology.

    This user is not WP:CIVIL, telling me to "sod off" [14], called me a liar [15], accused me of some kind of vague sock puppetry [16], and in another case, Wikistalking the entries listed on my user page [17] -- (edits around "illegal prime", where he/she edited, in sequence, articles linked from my user page.)

    This person is continuing to protect/guard page with vigor, in clear conflict of interest. Quatloo 09:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I did?!? Man, that must have been cool. Shame I don't remember it... Actually, that was me, not the IP you just cited. Check your facts before slinging accusations, mmkay? Thanks. If that is what your paranoia tells you, I invite you to request a usercheck. "Spirot", who had the page just fine with the help of TWO admins before you came trolling into town, was done with this site a while ago, but there are a lot of us who are sick of seeing you try to destroy a reputable person's page with your constant screeching about the most petty of things. The vaudeville thing was an experiment to see just how far you would take your pettiness. I guess we all have our answer now. In the case of your "stalking" accusations (which you should turn on yourself), I marked some of your pages for sources BECAUSE THEY HAVE NONE. Isn't that what you're ALWAYS tagging other people's articles for? Well, why do you feel you don't have to practice what you preach? Are you immune to the need to cite sources? I have made NO edits to your "drivel" (to use a word you use constantly in your edits - perhaps you should read up on CIVILITY yourself), save for tagging all but the New Zealand one and the Heartagram one because of the lack of sources on them. How exactly is asking you to adhere to the rules you so fervently enforce on the work of others "Wikistalking"? I would like to know. Maybe an admin can spare some of their time to let me in on the secret to being as omnipotent and immune to all rules and discipline like you seem to be. I would also like to know why asking someone to follow their own rules is a "conflict of interest", other than conflicting with your own interests of continuing your destruction of people's pages. In the future, you may wish to think about requesting a usercheck before labelling someone as who you *think* they are. Good luck in your rampages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.58.52 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    All three of those accounts have the exact same flavor of edit history -- same undue abrasiveness, same use of uppercase, edits essentially only to Sid Haig and Ken Foree, same ISP, same geographic area, and all three maintain protective edits on the Sid Haig article. There is no doubt they are all the same individual. In this edit, [18], Spirot admits to being User:75.82.3.135. In this edit, [19], Spirot claims copyright ownership of the biography. In this edit [20], Spirot admits to being Haig's publicist. Regardless of your actual title -- webmaster, publicist, or manager -- it is inappropriate that you have exerted undue ownership over the article over such a long period of time. You have a clear conflict of interest here, and should not be editing the Sid Haig biography at all. Quatloo 04:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MY title? Riiiiight...that's me, all of them! lol! You really are too much. May I ask where your sources are for this "fact" you've been spouting over and over? Are you next going to tell me I'm CyberGhostface, too? They worked a ton on that page, so I guess that's me, too, right? How about F13 and AllHallowsWraith? Are they me, too? DeadCentral? Hell, keep going, you're on a roll! Also, Spirot never hid the fact that she was his Publicist! Read before you type! So the hell what if I edit Devil's Rejects cast people's pages? What of it??? What is your obsession with disrupting that page anyway? Did he turn you down or something? I'll bet that's pretty close.

    24 hour block on the IP for WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. Wikipedia isn't Usenet. Looking into the other claims. DurovaCharge! 06:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to the longstanding problems here I've put six months of semiprotection on the article. Three previous protections didn't solve the disruption. Strongly recommend WP:DR such as article content WP:RFC to resolve content issues. If any of the suspected socks edit during the 24 hour window then file a request at WP:RFCU on the whole drawer. Kudos to Quatloo for a patient and diligent approach. To the other party, conduct to date has been in serious violation of multiple site policies and current trajectory heads toward a ban, after which point all future attempts to contribute can be reverted on sight and ignored. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please treat it as such. DurovaCharge! 06:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    FreeSWITCH‎

    Overrun with SPAs and desperately needs more eyes and/or uninvolved administrators. Attempts to neutralfy, or even tag disputes or wikify, are routinely reverted. —Cryptic 22:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    According to the change log it appears that there were 3 people editing at the same time, cryptic, mscollins1 and an IP. The changes were only reverted for the tags that were put at the top, and still no explanation was given on the talk page as to why. The IP requested that an explanation given why cryptic tagged the page, and suggests that its out of malice. The content was not just readded, it was reworked, and some new content was added. It seems questionable to me at best that tagging a page without explanation other than to say that someone else was editing at the same time, and then requesting deletion when most of the changes that were made by cryptic were to remove cites.
    Can you show a changelog entry where an attempt to neutralify, or wikify were reverted?
    Aside from the 2 tags that you added when another user was editing at the same time, were other tags reverted?

    Trixter ie 13:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AFD for lack of adequate sourcing. One reference is a conference listing, another is the firm's own press release, then a blog. Etc. Looks to me like at most one marginal source. Probably fails WP:CORP and WP:V. DurovaCharge! 06:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that "Trixter ie" is one of the SPAs that cryptic is referring too. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Trixter's post didn't sway me; it just looks like it deserves an AFD for the reasons I listed. DurovaCharge! 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added a few today, there are 9 cites in total now (I think there were 5 or 6 when I started I dont recall). Admitedly its difficult at best to find something that is meaningful and will pass scrutiny. I ask that you revist this issue.
    There are now 2 press releases (different companies selecting freeswitch for different reasons), the oreilly conference, beta anouncement, interview with the lead developer (commit states required to meet a citation request), and opinions expressed in 4 different trade publications (2 counter each other, so it should be a fair representation as required). Trixter ie 15:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I still advise putting the page on the block. This is about quality of sources, not quantity. Self-published material and non-notable blogs don't satisfy this site's standards for inclusion. More of the same doesn't change that. The O'Reilly interview is the only source that comes close to the level Wikipedia normally requires. If you can provide more like that then my opinion might change. Since there appears to be a conflict of interest here, I strongly advise posting suggested changes with citations to the article talk page so that uninvolved editors can review and adapt it as appropriate. DurovaCharge! 23:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the commenters above who think that FreeSWITCH should be nominated at AFD. These open source switches are in an area that lacks much mainstream coverage. Our policies tell us that we should be reflecting what mainstream sources find noteworthy enough to cover. Curiously, though Asterisk (PBX) is much better known than FreeSWITCH, at least to me, that article also appears to lack good sources. I wouldn't AFD the Asterisk article because I think that editors could easily find better sources. EdJohnston 02:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    that was one of my initial things that started this whole mess. Asterisk and FreeSWITCH had roughly the same cites, content, etc and asterisk wasnt getting tagged in any way, yet FreeSWITCH, YATE, OpenSER, CallWeaver were being tagged and 3/4 of them got deleted to date (all by the same person that tagged FreeSWITCH originally). So if they are roughly the same in content and 1 isnt getting tagged but everything that competes is, it doesnt seem unbiased. At one point I even went to the Asterisk page and basically cut and pasted the content changing only what was required to make it about FreeSWITCH, and it was still tagged.
    So with an admission that there isnt good sources on the asterisk page you wont tag it just because you know the product and feel that authors can find better sources. That seems a bit biased to me. It should be that either everyone has to have the same quality or no one does.Trixter ie 10:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    James H. Fetzer

    Recuse due to the 9/11 connection. DurovaCharge! 06:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't object to the block suggested by Rklawton given the multiple warnings to this editor, and his apparent lack of response. (His most recent inappropriate edit was on 6 October). Since he has not changed the article since a final warning was posted on his user talk, I think waiting for the next violation is appropriate. EdJohnston 03:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    American Chess Association (again)

    American Chess Association is again being radically revised by someone with a COI. The changes have better sources this time, so the I have started with a NPOV warning 2 but I am off to ZzZz now. John Vandenberg 19:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous semiprotection didn't solve the problem. I'm putting it on six weeks this time. The editor is welcome to register an account and/or add cited suggestions to the talk page. Simply overwriting large segments of well sourced material won't do. They're making somewhat better an effort to source their preferred version so I'm not blocking, and these are throwaway IP addresses anyway so a protection on the article will likely be more effective. DurovaCharge! 23:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Moulthrop

    LotusEliseBlog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the author of three articles: Matt Moulthrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Ed Moulthrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Philip Moulthrop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). These are three generations of woodturners. All three are essentially unsourced, save for a reference to "MOULTHROP: A Legacy in Wood", which has no publication details and does not show up in any of the usual booksellers' catalogues. I would say that, to a very high degree of probability, LotusEliseBlog is the youngest of these three. There is evidence of notability for Ed Moulthrop at least, but the article is heavily compromised by peacock terms. I do not know what to do next. They are not a slam-dunk delete as vanispamcruftisement, but they are not compliant with policy I think. Cruftbane 20:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Red X Unrelated. I did a google search on the username, and it refers to this blog, which do not mention the subjects. There isn't a COI here, as far as I can tell, but you should nominate at least Matt Moulthrop for deletion due to notability issues. MER-C 02:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    By a strict application of policy, both articles would have to go, since they have no reliable sources. It is unfortunate that art-related articles are frequently difficult to source properly. The image licenses look a bit dodgy as well. (Since the ultimate source isn't noted, the pictures may have been scanned from a catalog. Possibly fair use could be claimed). I looked for anything on the web to substantiate Ed Moulthrop's connection to the Georgia Institute of Technology, but found nothing. EdJohnston 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Matt Moulthrop at AfD.. others have a good stab at establishing notability, tagged for sources. Deiz talk 11:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wild Wild Westmar Show

    Also note this discussion:[26] --A. B. (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And this admission --A. B. (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Supercouples

    Resolved
     – Not a COI EdJohnston 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone returned the edit I made to the "Luke and Laura" section referring to them as being from General Hospital on first reference. I restored this honest mistake. The fact is, when I was reading the article, I had no idea who they were and had to google them to find out. That's why I added it.

    I have a journalism degree (focusing on editing) from one of the top journalism universities in the nation. I've worked at major metro newspapers, including The Philadelphia Inquirer. I know a little bit about editing. The show they're on is mentioned later, but as the Internet becomes more and more immersed in our society, attention span declines further and further.

    Where Luke and Laura come from, especially considering how long ago they were a Supercouple, should be mentioned on first reference.

    I understand the motivation of the person who made this change, but please, defer to my training and knowledge on this type of thing. But if I made a formatting mistake, by all means, please fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kctwty (talk • contribs) 22:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This noticeboard seems to be the wrong place. Please make your case over at Talk:Supercouple. This does not appear to be a conflict of interest issue. EdJohnston 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Masculine psychology#The Male Fear of the Feminine

    In the known (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding ISSN numbers and offsite links related to Werner Kierski books. There has also been a bit of activity at Masculine psychology#The Male Fear of the Feminine that seems to be promoting a single book. Based on the images the user uploaded, it is very likely that this editor is W. Kierski. I think it is very important to have experts contributing to wikipedia, however I am a little bit concerned about how much this content focuses on the author's work.-Andrew c [talk] 22:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this looks rather self-promotional. As further evidence, note that the user signed himself "Werner" in his first two edits. I would be inclined to revert the contributions — even though published in apparently respectable sources, we should not assume that Kierski's work is encyclopedically notable until someone not directly involved considers it worthwhile to write it up. –Henning Makholm 22:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have invited the user over here to help clear up what's going on. –Henning Makholm 23:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just read that postings should have a maximum of 200 words, so here is a shorter version of my first reply: Dear editors, Thanks for your comments, which I shall take on board. On the issue of conflict of interest: I am indeed Werner Kierski. In the initial discussion on the male psychology site I proposed a section about the male fear of the feminine in the following way: "the topic as such has been under discussion since the early 1930. O'Neil, Blazina and Kierski are currently the most important people working on this. . The community received my suggestion positively. This is my first Wikipedia posting, so I hope I get it right. I did not think there is a conflict of interest since I am the only person who has ever empirically researched this topic. I have tried to present the topic as clear as possible, describing the historical development till present time. I have faithfully done the same with every reference and piece of information in the chapter so as to spread out the topic and include works from other authors. Is there anything you can suggest that I can do to rectify this, such as changing, editing, deleting? Bearing in mind that whether or not I am the author of that research the research still stands on its own legs. Best wishes--Werner 08:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Dear editors, Thanks for your comments, which I shall take on board. I will change the image properties to make them publicly available. These thinks take a bit of time since it is the first time I am doing this so I am still struggling (the tutorials are not always user friendly though).

    On the issue of conflict of interest: I am indeed Werner Kierski. In the initial discussion on the male psychology site I proposed a section about the male fear of the feminine in the following way: "the topic as such has been under discussion since the early 1930. O'Neil, Blazina and Kierski are currently the most important people working on this. . My suggestion was received positively by the community. This is my first Wikipedia posting, so I hope I get it right.

    I did not think there is a conflict of interest since I am the only person who has ever empirically researched this topic. I have tried to present the topic as clear as possible, describing the historical development till present time. I have struggled with some technical details of my contribution, especially the reference/bibliography section and was only able to add ISSN numbers and other details one-by-one after I figured out where to find them. I have faithfully done the same with every reference and piece of information in the chapter so as to spread out the topic and include works from other authors.

    It would however be an ommision of facts if I did only talk about the male fear of the feminine and exclude my own work.

    The links I have included to some previous publications of mine are just there for the sake of completion. I have done the same with the publications from other authors. All my previous publications and conference presentations were within respected scholarly communities and independent publishers, thus they are cited. This may look like a conflict of interest but at the same time presents the facts. I have not left out any other contributor and have kept the description of male fear of the feminine short.

    Is there anything you can suggest that I can do to rectify this, such as changing, editing, deleting? Bearing in mind that whether or not I am the author of that research the research still stands on its own legs. Look forward to your comments. Best wishes. --Werner 23:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Office Open XML

    An edit by an IP assigned to Microsoft corporation removed a link critical of adoption of Office Open XML. Office Open XML is a standard Microsoft is trying to get passed. This is a clear conflict of interest. The edit was a reversal of something that had been discussed lately. I wonder if any of the editors wanting the change also have Microsoft IP addresses. Kilz 01:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sophisticated paid editing scheme

    Probable:

    Possible:

    Articles affected: about 95 -- see list at User talk:68.58.116.72

    Domains involved: about 30 -- see list at User talk:68.58.116.72

    Clients appear to include Honda, Fisher-Price, a politician, an architect, eHarmony, Road & Travel Magazine, Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, among others.

    See these revealing edits in search engine optimization directories:

    This is just a summary entry -- I've listed much more detail at User talk:68.58.116.72.

    This effort has been sustained, complex and subtle. There's some link-spamming but this is more about paid editing. I don't think anyone has connected the dots before on this case and I'm sure I've connected them all. Much of the writing is very professional and I am reminded of last year's MyWikiBiz case.1, 2, 3, 4, 5

    I'm wary of kicking the community ant-hill and triggering a knee-jerk, anti-commercial deletion of a lot of potentially useful material. I think this case requires the more nuanced approach to preserve content while protecting Wikipedia's editing and content standards so I'm bringing it here to WP:COI since I know you're good at walking that fine line.

    How have you handled this sort of case before? What's the next step here? Thanks for your help, --A. B. (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I tagged the high profile articles you mentioned with {{COI}}. I'm out of time, but the next step would be to tag each userpage with {{uw-coi}},(adding) and invite them to comment here. Then we need to run through the edit histories and check each article they've touched. - Jehochman Talk 04:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It really looks like you may be onto something here. However the eHarmony page does not look like it was really affected by this. The only two edits made by these possible editors were two minor edits of no real WP:SPAM or WP:COI, so I think this particular article is fine. I also reviewed the changes since July 1 and we look really good at this end too. The only part which ready a little marketing-ish is the beginning paragraphs, but they have been in the form for a long while now. The bulk of the edits have been BOLD edits by myself to cleanup large POV issues and vandalism. Tiggerjay 06:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing to consider is that although 95 articles were touched, some of the COI or spam may have been reverted already, and that some of the activity could be harmless editing to make their activities harder to detect. - Jehochman Talk 13:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There were perhaps 10 to 20 other articles that fell into the unrelated edit category -- mostly about sports figures. The 95 I listed were all related in one way or another with the paid editing. I have arranged the articles thematically on that user page. Take a look at the 3 SEO directory edits -- at one point this guy did handle eHarmony; perhaps it was just a brief engagement. Interestingly, over much of the recent life of that article, it's been subjected more to anti-eHarmony edits by SPAs than pro-company. (Jilted lovers perhaps?)
    Thanks for everyone's help and advice on these. I'm glad I raised this here rather than WP:ANI. --A. B. (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Craig Horrocks and Zorbing

    Yesterday I noticed the Zorbing article contained NPOV material, marketing-esque material, and this content had been added by User:Craig Horrocks who claims to be the CEO of Zorb Limited, the company behind Zorbing. So I tagged the article with {{COI}} and other relevant tags for review. Then an anonymous editor revised the article significantly. Then User:Craig Horrocks reverted that revision and replaced it with his original version, minus my tags. Help please. --Fjarlq 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User Geoeg

    This user's editing came to my attention after a neutrally phrased request about disputes on Talk:Petr Vaníček and Talk:Vaníček analysis was posted on Wikipedia:Third opinion.

    As Bfigura pointed out on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg, this apparently single-purpose account, which registered last week and is more than willing (links and diffs in the WP:WQA section) to violate the civility and no personal attacks policies—e.g. this (which duplicated this) plus this hint of a legal threat—has conflict of interest issues.

    Extensive changes have been made also to the Geodesy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article from the Geoeg account. For example:

    • this edit, among other changes:
    linked amazon.com for book (Vaníček), linked Ph.D. dissertation (Omerbashich)
    (both listed here at UNB Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering)
    removed astro-geodetic zenith cameras and geoid computations descriptor from Hanover Institute
    removed Geodesy, Radio astronomy and GPS descriptor from Bonn Institute
    removed astro-geological geoid, IGS and VLBI descriptor from Vienna Institute
    removed geophysical geodesy, GPS etc. descriptor from ETH Zurich Institute
    inexplicably de-wikilinked quite a few institutions, cities and countries.

    Note: I have not reviewed all of the edits from the Geoeg account, only those to the two talk pages and three articles mentioned. — Athaenara ✉ 07:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppet, too

    He also has a sockpuppet. In this edit, where he forgot to log in, and then reverted and re-did logged in, he reveals himself to be the same editor as 77.77.194.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); this IP address is in Bosnia, and mostly contributes on Bosnia-related articles. Perhaps not coincidentally, Dr. Mensur Omerbashich, Ph.D., the author of the thesis he likes to reference, also writes on Bosnia topics on blogger. But Geoeg has denied being an ex-student of Vaníček, and Omerbashich says he's in the U.S., so they can't be the same person if they're being truthful. Dicklyon 20:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I take it back; Omerbashich's letter of July 29 (in this blog) lists his address as Sarajevo. So it looks increasingly likely that that's who Geoeg is, though he denies it and threatens me with legal action for asking. Dicklyon 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagged NWQA, but ...

    The Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg discussion has been tagged as {{NWQA}} ("Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere") but continuing incivility from Geoeg (who also posted from 77.77.194.14 — posted, deleted, then reposted from registered account) really needs to be addressed effectively.

    Followup: Section is now tagged {{WQA in progress}}. — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    Perhaps this should have been posted on ANI from the first, but chasing the issues across several noticeboards may not help. Outside input is needed, please. — Athaenara ✉ 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Geoeg continues to push his COI/POV agenda on the two articles cited at the start. Is there something that should be done to try to block this cycle? Should I just keep reverting, or not? Dicklyon 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion is that {{COI2}} tags should be on both articles until such time that they've clearly been brought into compliance with NPOV policy, but I don't think you should endanger your own editing record by continuing to revert him yourself. — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Athaenara's concern that Dicklyon has been doing too many reverts on Petr Vaníček. An editor like the person we are discussing who constitutes a minority of one and seems not very interested in anyone else's opinion will eventually run out of gas. It is not necessary to fight him every step of the way. It is better to step back a little and try to draw in some other editors who are willing to see if the content seems OK. It is still not ruled out that AfD is justified for this article. EdJohnston 22:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC). Oops, he is clearly notable. EdJohnston 23:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody has brought up AfD. I'm presuming that evidence of notability will probably be found and added eventually. I haven't found anything independent of his school or his professional societies yet, so I don't think those are great, but I'm certainly not pushing for deletion. I'll ease up on him if you think that will help. Dicklyon 01:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Crosspost

    Geoeg's violations of civility and no personal attacks policies have been larded with untruths as well. For example, in one message which he posted twice at 23:51 and 23:52 UTC on 8 October:

    • False: Lyon "is trying to separate" the two disputes
    • True: Lyon's request for a third opinion listed them together.
    • False: someone "said loud and clear: Dicklyon has been bashing" on Talk:Vaníček analysis
    • True: Zvika, the only other editor who had posted on either talk page before then, had not said that.

    These examples are only two of many such distortions of fact. Might a brief block have some effect on Geoeg's attack posting and disruptive edit warring? — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    (Crosspost above from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg.) — Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

    Hayter family

    EHayter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a descendant of the former, persists in trying to stretch WP:V on the basis of unpublished family records. It is a bit of a problem that two reliable sources - the Times and the ODNB - differ about someone's ancestry. But I assume that they just have to be cited at face value, and that WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR stop us collating these with unpublished material to develop an argument that both of the sources are wrong. Gordonofcartoon 14:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Disinformation_(art_and_music_project)

    These are article vanity pages. Total written by the subject 'Joe Banks' and edited with his sock puppets (new one each day). They only write on these two articles. Notability is only established though self citations - or citing pages of no relevance. These pages read more like a personal promotional website than a NPOV encyclopedia entry. Redisburys 14:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The California Society of Certified Public Accountants (CalCPA)

    Blatant conflict of interest. Bearian 20:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Auckland_University_Press

    It appears that an employee of an academic press is creating articles on its professors. Bearian 21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    Joe Szwaja/Jean Godden

    [editor 216.162.198.214] seems to be another single purpose account and seems to only edit these two articles in a very partisan manner - and seems very similar in content and tone to Landsfarthereast, an editor outed as the Godden campaign manager. Please look into this. Mikesmash24.16.211.40 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    National Arbitration Forum

    Name of creator is too similar to the article. Bearian 21:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I repaired this case report. It seems to have gotten mangled. - Jehochman Talk 13:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have used this forum myself. It's legit, and the article does not seem to contain any advertising. The username appears to be generic, meaning "alternate dispute resolution forum", not any particular brand, so I don't there's a problem here. - Jehochman Talk 13:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Flybd5

    Highly defensive about keeping his website link in these two articles. --Ronz 01:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Link meets guidelines in WP:EL and WP:SPAM for inclusion in Wikipedia articles about the BD-5 or its creator, Jim Bede. The link is not commercial, promotes no products, doesn't sell anything to benefit me. Site is the official site for the free BD-5 Network, the international group of pilots, builders and parties interested in the BD-5, of which I am the Director/Cheerleader. The site is a completely free and comprehensive repository of BD-5 information, and its Internet mailing list, created almost a decade ago, is mentioned in the Smithsonian's plaque for the BD-5B on display at the Udvar-Hazy facility near Dulles Airport. Note that there are references on both articles which use my site as an official, recognized information resource on the subject. Also, note that User:Ronz started this in ITIL v3 and is actively stalking me to other articles where I have participated or where I am mentioned. At any rate, the correct policy for these issues is to discuss first, then seek consensus, then edit, not shoot first and then ask questions later. Flybd5 01:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the accusation of stalking: I came across ITIL v3 as part of another spam investigation/cleanup, and removed improper links I found there. When Flybd5 reverted them, I naturally checked to see if he had been involved in making similar edits elsewhere, which it turns out he had and is now defending. --Ronz 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You removed valid links without asking for sourcing, clarification, discussion, etc. Your conclusion that valid links are advertising is unsupported by any facts, and I demonstrated that by adding additional refs to prove it. Then you came after other edits of mine, again without discussion. That's harassment AND stalking. Flybd5 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - Link in question fails WP:EL#AVOID point #12. It is a personal website. It may be accurate, but it is still a personal website. Author is not a known authority on the subject. Flybd5 is engaging in editwarring to retain link, claiming removal is vandalism (inter alia) and threatening to report it is such. Flybd5 has some real ownership issues with the various articles (above) which he claims Ronz is wikistalking him over. Flydb5 also may have outed another editor, User:Malleus Fatuarum‎. . Shot info 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Author is not an known authority on subject. The Smithsonian museum disagrees with you. Call the curator of the BD-5B at the Udvar-Hazy facility and ask him if he considers me to be an authority on the subject. His name is Russ Lee. The web site is not a personal site. A part of it contains information about me and my project, but the great majority of the content (easily 98%) has nothing to do with me or my project. The actions of Ronz clearly meet the standard for Wikistalking: The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. By not following policy and repeating the same pattern of deleting things without discussion across pages where I have participated, the intention is clearly to create disruption. Were that not the intention, User:Ronz would have followed appropriate, non-disruptive procedure of querying me on my talk page about this so we could discuss it, rather than throw his weight around and hide behind the disguise of the "spam-cop." Rules must be applied equitably and with the same weight on everyone. Privileges on Wikipedia does not exempt an editor from following the guidelines and policies. Flybd5 02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Flybd5 has also added autobiographical information about himself to one of these articles: [28] --Ronz 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued evidence of harassment and stalking. Is this what you are whining about now? Take it up with the issuer of the document. Flybd5 12:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I am amazed at the allegations by Flybd5 about harrassment and stalking. Regarding the value of the link to www.bd5.com, it does seem to me that it is reasonable to include in at least some of the BD-5 related articles. (I spent some time trying to add references to Scott Manning, and I found www.bd5.com at least somewhat helpful on the issue).

    There is an overall problem that the BD-5 related articles seem to be written from personal knowledge in many cases, and are not well referenced. I don't think we should let this case go from the noticeboard until there is a plan agreed to for fixing up theses articles. If necessary there should be an agreed-upon deadline for removing unreferenced information. I hope that the BD-5 flyers will work with us on this issue. EdJohnston 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:192.103.84.2

    This is a single user account whose only edits [29] have been to add links or references to books published by the Univ of Mississippi Press. These may all be publications with good info in them but they should not be added by a IP with a vested interest in making a wider audience aware of them. MarnetteD | Talk 03:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits by Mrtobacco

    Mrtobacco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Hello, I would like to call to the Wiki community's attention, a user who has been using Wikipedia to stealth market his companies smoking products. The user MrTobacco has a history full of controversial edits and has clashed with several wikipedians who have called him out on his spamming. Each time he is accused, he uses a circular logic, calling his accusers the real stealth marketers. It is my strong belief that he is directly employeed by HBI, or gains some payment for his service here on wikipedia, and other online communities which he advertises. I have found him posting on the cannabisculture forums, with the same rhetoric, promoting HBI brand papers, and telling the users about the evil Bambu Rolling paper company (a competitor of HBI):[30] If you do a search on there for his username, you can see all the HBI related propaganda he has posted there. [31]

    I do not work for Bambu or any tobacco company. I work freelance doing graphic design for a scale company which is in competition with HBI, I will admit for full disclosure. But we do not compete with them on tobacco products. I signed up for wikipedia firstly to remove the link on the Weighing Scales entry, which linked to digitalscale.com - a shill marketing site made by MyWeigh Scales (A division of HBI). The site is a fake review site, and used to create a false enthusiasm for their products. I removed it as advertising spam. After I discovered who added the link, I checked their history, which is when I discovered all the edits this HBI shill has been making over the years. My intentions have only been to stop MrTobacco from continuing his unethical marketing practices.

    Once I began challenging MrTobacco, he made several sock-puppets such as "stredler" (Steve Redler - owner of digitalscale.com) which he used to harass me with on my talk page. I also believe that the user "joshmann" is another sock-puppet of his. He claims that this one is the real owner of HBI, and engages in fake arguments with him, which he has done to cause confusion, and make it seem like he (mrtobacco) is also against HBI advertising on wiki.

    He now makes it an almost daily effort to bully people who remove his advertisements or slander. He constantly reports users for vandalism, even though they are merely removing his slander. He adds warning tags, improperly, to every users page who tried to remove his advertising. He is always trying to lock pages down which contain slander of competitors, or praise of HBI. He has been warned about advertising, but each time he claims that he is a retired ex-tobacco industry person who occasionally contributes to smoking publications. Below are a list of edits, starting with the initial one I came to remove as advertising.

    Here he adds links to HBI International's electronic scale websites MyWeigh, JScale, and digitalscale.com (a fake review site). This is the edit that I signed up to remove: [32]

    Here he creates a page for his employer HBI International: [33]

    He added the Juicy Jay's (another HBI product) image without listing the source, because that would reveal that he obtained it through HBI International, his employer. Another wikipedian called him out on this in the discussion, and he pulled the same argument on them, saying that THEY must be working for some competitors company, and just trying to make HBI look bad. Later he claims that he emailed the webmaster at HBI and asked permission.: [34]

    He created the RAW rolling papers page (another HBI product): [35] [36]

    Here he writes that RAW Rolling papers are superior, and actually the healthiest papers to use. His reference link leads to a "health consultant's" report on bleached paper, but mentions no research data, nor does it mention anything about RAW rolling papers: [37]

    Supposedly, smoking is good for you, according to MrTobacco. I just thought this one was funny: [38]

    Slandering Competition-----

    Here he begins to add negative information about his competitor Bambu Rolling Papers: [39]

    Here he adds more slander against his competitor Bambu Rolling Papers, adding that their rolling papers contain carcinogenic materials. He now makes it a daily effort to make sure this info is kept on the Bambu Page. Anytime someone removes it, he threatens them with Wiki Warnings, saying that they will be banned if they make any edits to Wikipedia.: [40] [41] Onyx86 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    American Chamber of Commerce in Belgium

    Appears to be role account - contribs are exclusively to either edit this article, or add links to it. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Sydney Explorer

    Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. (formerly Mindys12345) indicates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Explorer that he works for Sydney Explorer and that his "reason for writing the article was to help promote the service and ticket sales and to impress his boss." The article was PROD deleted and then restored after JRG's request. After some efforts by Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. to removed references from the recently restored Sydney Explorer article and some odd talk page assertions, Sydney Explorer was listed at AfD. Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. made additional odd statements at that AfD. In April 2007, Adam.J.W.C./. Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. was blocked for 48 Hours. A month later, he was spamming an article with Fatso the Fat-Arsed Wombat. In July 2007, his third request for a name change was granted. In addition to Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C., he has used other signatures different than his user name, such as جميع أفراد المجتمع المؤهلين مدعوون للتصويت في انتخابات مجلس أمناء مؤسسة ويكيميديا.. Given the clear, admitted COI, summarizing the matter at COIN may be sufficient to address the issue. -- Jreferee t/c 16:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Gilbert Wesley Purdy is back

    Gilbert Wesley Purdy has spammed Wikipedia as well as attack off-line editors removing his links. Here's some history:


    His domains (that we know of) have been blacklisted but now I see that someone's been writing Mr. Purdy into our articles:

    I wish we could program a bot to look for edits adding the phrase "Gilbert Wesley Purdy".
    --A. B. (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    P.S. A bonus for you: WP:COIN's song of the day: (Real Audio file)

    Get (conflict)

    There has been a lot of new additions to the article by Sagbliss which look a lot like WP:OR. This individual has also been very aggressive with other editors. See User talk:198.23.5.73 and User_talk:Savant1984#Talk:Reform_Judaism and User talk:24.225.137.164. In additional to combining a lot of material from court cases around the world, this person is reshaping the article "to highlight the plight of the agunah." Since he or she claims to be part of an active Canadian court case related to the topic, this also falls into a conflict of interest. Bruno23 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible political editing

    Not being sure if this really rises to the level of CoI, I posted over at the Village Pump first, but here it is just in case. Someone may be interested in the recent editing patterns of 198.135.224.110 (talk · contribs). The address is registered to the California State Senate, and is editing on political issues. Some quick checking showed that there has also been editing from 198.135.224.111 (talk · contribs) in the past. --StuffOfInterest 21:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Korea War

    Dongwenliang 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=164085342"