From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  1. Spammers are becoming more numerous, more determined, and more bold in their assertions that their promotional additions somehow constitute legitimate content.
  2. Editors rarely look beyond the last one or two edits before drawing conclusions and thus tend to believe the most outrageous claims, despite persistent, long-running patterns of abuse as long as they're buried deep enough in the spammer's edit history (i.e., more than the most recent edit or maybe (and only maybe), the one before that).
  3. Wikipedia:Proposed deletion deletes evidence of misbehavior, including reasons for deletion.
  4. It's labor-intensive to keep copying the same evidence from PROD to talk page to ANI to talk page, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, the Persistent Spammer Archive is born.


Reference: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive393#User:Hanvanloon

User:Sbowers3's claim What the record shows
"As a relatively new user he has made mistakes"

Van Loon is in fact a long-time anonymous editor: The first edit that I can identify is a spamlink of his consulting company,, into ISO 15504 in August of 2005:

...despite his claim that "I only ever did that on pages in my initial editing 3 months ago."

"One mistake he made was to add links to a product that he created." Van Loon is a consultant who runs the Switzerland-based LC Consulting. What User:Sbowers3 calls his "mistake" is really a three-year effort to promote his consulting business, as follows:
  • Within days of the purportedly "independent" actions by the shill, van Loon spamlinked the sham articles
  • And "corrected" the sham article (now deleted):
"It is clear from context that this was not an attempt to promote his product, but because he thought it would be a useful addition to the article." On the contrary, the edit in question, to PDCA, was lifted nearly intact from the sales pitch at (note the web page <TITLE> became the title of the section added to the article). Van Loon then re-worded the sales pitch to avoid the WP:COPYVIO objection and to hide the deletion of the WP:OR objection.
"I submit that Hanvanloon has made useful contributions, that his few edits that might have been COI were not efforts to promote his product, but were simply good faith attempts to improve the articles by adding what he thought was relevant information."
  • The fact that he actively vandalizes legitimate content, to which he has admitted, should be proof enough that he is up to no good:
  • Similarly, his changing stories as to why he felt obligated to "edit" anonymously:
...despite having cited the not-for-profit professional association American Society for Quality's "selling services, courses, consultancy" as his justification for blanking legitimate links to the ASQ website
(Note also that they do not sell consulting services as claimed: and that the link ( in the content he blanked does not sell anything at all)
  • Finally, his continuing efforts to whitewash his past misdeeds: