Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 9

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

Please also see this message on the article creator's talk page. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vincent is an interesting fellow and those edits will raise eyebrows, The Russell Higgs edits would argueably go on another page and they would need verification. I'm trying to make the article more NPOV and cite sources when I have time to do so. I hope others can help join efforts to help sort out the facts. Cheers, User:Dandelion (talk|contribs) 04:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He posted that same message (or a similar one) on my talk page as well (eight times, no less) for (re)tagging the article {{npov}}. Cheers, Afluent Rider 09:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is begging for a block. Look at this edit. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a {{uw-delete3}} warning on his User Talk. Is there an all-purpose incivility template anywhere? EdJohnston 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The above entry shows 62.173.88.59 (talk · contribs) as a secondary account for him. I think this must be a public terminal, because interspersed with the POV edits to his own article are some sensible ones, for instance a vandalism revert in Blood type. EdJohnston 04:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Break.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 210.49.232.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

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

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

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

California is a huge state that evidence is weak. I looked at the talk page, and COI wasn't obvious to me, but I may be dense. Can you cite specific diffs, and explain exactly succinctly why you think there is COI based on the pattern of edits? Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Pollyfodder has posted this same complaint four times: [1], [2], [3], [4].

Rather than repeating yourself, I suggest you cite specific edits that support your claim of COI. Right now, all I see are naked allegations. Thank you. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 07:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Three times actually! Someone moved one to the bottom of the page and I thought it was deleted (was my fault).--Pollyfodder 02:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow this whole situation makes me want to roll my eyes. Pollyfodder, this article is not advertising just because it doesn't reflect your POV. All the press that break.com has gotten is good press. Sorry. Thats life. We don't get to add our own feeling to the article if we can't find sources. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Jehochman "I suggest you cite specific edits that support your claim"? Here are a couple, if you read (and comprehend) the rest in the discussion page you will find more. "Mention that it includes a family filter which is on by default". (Excuse me? How does he know this? Its not mentioned anywhere in the site). "There is NO intention to use wikipedia as an ad. It's not". (Excuse me but I would surely call that the work of a Break.com employee). "It's most a humor site for men 18-35 and,more specifically, college students". "Compare the article to metacafe or collegehumor.com. See if they are on par in terms of objectivity editors".
Jehochman "Naked allegations"? When I first edited the Break.com page it was up for deletion. Thats what caught my eye! Since then I have been removing the references to "sexy girls smashing things" etc because of their commercial value. I have always wanted the parental discretion warning on the break.com page. If you bother hitting some of the citations you will know why! Kids use Wikipedia as a source of reference. Wikipedia provides a link to Break.com. I will let you work out the legalities and why a parental discretion warning needs to be included. Ever since I have removed alot of the hype from the Break.com page these 2 IP's have done nothing but try to discredit me and label me as a person with a "score to settle" and god knows what else! Let the PREVIOUS EDITS and the defensive babblings on the discussion page speak for themselves. A blind man can see who posted what and work out intentions therefor. LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PAGE you dont need to be an Einstein to work out what has been happening!.--Pollyfodder 02:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no real interest in this, but I can suggest that anyone genuinely curious should Google "989media" as well as "apedump" to see what other "enterprises" TMFT, the owner of break.com, is behind and/or connected with. That perchance might hint at the nature of the people behind the IP edits. Whether such an enterprise should be given essentially free ad space on Wikipedia is perhaps a more discussible topic. -BC aka Callmebc 12:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I have slightly greater interest after finding this PDF "press package" from a competitor. It appears that the break.com Wiki entry was just part of a greater overall "viral seeding" operation, which for all intents and purposes appears to be no more than an elaborate spamming network. FYI. -BC aka Callmebc 17:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank the editors (above) for looking into this. I know all about TMFT Enterprises other pornographic sites! I learnt many things about them whilst trying to get an overall background on these people, hence my continual attempts at adding citations etc to the page and to the discussion page. You will note by going through the Break.com page history that I added several links to their other websites in the external links section to throw out a strong hint to other editors in regards to what these people were up to. I also remind editors that the secondary sources, hence, the news articles etc are all paid content. Break like other websites PAY for their media coverage! They have a huge publicity machine. As one editor said (above) "All the press that break.com has gotten is good press" (J.S) Firstly, not all good. Secondly, THEY PAID FOR IT! If I wanted to I could open up a site tomorow, pay for coverage of my site, build up a high Alexa rating and have my own page here in Wikipedia on the grounds it is covered by numerous news sources and secondary sources etc. This Break.com is one of the largest cyber-hype machines in cyberspace! I strongly strongly urge that the parental discretion warning be added to the TOP of the page! [5] I have NO INTEREST in Break.com, nor do I hold a grudge against them nor am I bias. At the end of the day, all I care about is the FACT that they are HERE on Wikipedia beating the Break.com web site like everywhere else. I notice one comment from an editor (above) "The user has edited very few other articles". Well, when you get to my age (67) you do what you can when you can. I smelt rat from the beginning with the Break.com page esspecially in regards to its content and advertising value and I suggest editors go back to the beginning and see how the Break.com page looked before I edited it! I am glad I am on record here and in the Break.com discussion page for what I have tried to do. Thank God there are others who see the truth behind what is going on. Keep up the good work editors, future generations depend on your edits and accuracy! :)--Pollyfodder 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments but I'm not really a regular Wiki editor at all -- I'm in the midst of a dispute with some editors and admins, and was just poking around to see what else is going on in this wild and wacky Wiki world. The people behind break.com and the like appear to be no more than web-based hustlers apparently intent on exploiting any avenue for click-through income, as well as securing exclusive rights to amateur videos via whatever means possible in order to drive people to their site(s), and maybe as well as get "Removed" notices on YouTube as sleight of hand advertising. It's all just another form of spam in any case. I think the break.com Wiki entry should be removed entirely, but I don't have much say here. -BC aka Callmebc 00:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I only started digging after this Break.com ring-in editor started defending the page and trying to discredit me. I THEN began looking into this organisation. The more I dug the more I found! I then began capturing pages and putting them on to Flickr for reference purposes. Since then I have had numerous requests from media and television networks asking permission to use my material. I hope to God this website does not bring Wikipedia down with it! THEY ARE WATCHING and again, I can blab on for hours about what I have discovered, but form experience, I doubt anyone will listen. I am glad that I can always say I TOLD YOU SO! I do not have a COI in relation to this page, I am merely trying to stop these people using Wikipedia as an advertising platform as they do in so many other places. Look at the content of the history when this page was up for deletion, I DEFENDED THE PAGE. I even added references! Then I learnt certain things about TMFT and my attitude changed. The reason they are here is because Wikipedia is amongst the first entries in Google and Yahoo search etc. These people like so many other sites will use any platform available to beat their drum for the all mighty dollar!--Pollyfodder 01:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's notable, but I'd wish that people with slightly less COI would get involved. I am clueless about such videos and games; it doesn't interest me. 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have NO INTEREST with Break.com or any of their other sites! Would be nice if you would sign your entry so people know who you are. Esspecially under the circumstances.--Pollyfodder 01:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fathomed the purpose of this account: he/she appears to be a disgruntled former member who got his/her stuff deleted, see [6] (google cache). I even tried using an open proxy. Wikipedia is not a forum for your complaints. MER-C 05:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, that's not exactly "fathoming" anything. Pollyfodder seems to be a bit more accurate than his/her critics relative to best evidence (Think you guys can fit in any more PR links for Keith Richman in the Reference section?) That Google cache you found shows the last login being 5 months prior. Break.com is not a very "notable" company and its Wiki entry looks more like a PR release, especially when compared to the Wiki entries for competitors like Ebaum's World, College Humor, and Albino Blacksheep. If you're going to allow these sort of companies to list, just keep their entries basic and to point. In break.com's case, it would seem that all you need do is just follow the existing wiki format of similar businesses like the one's I just listed. -BC aka Callmebc 15:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

That Google cache page links to PhotoDuck. Now everything fits together. Pollyfodder has only edited or linked to Break.com and PhotoDuck. Nevertheless, there may be something going on with Break.com with COI on both sides. I believe that CallmeBC is completely neutral with respect to this article. BC, if you'd like to investigate this a bit and gather evidence, let us know what you find and we'll see what can be done. I am glad you're here. Pollyfodder, even if you have COI issues, there are ways to submit things to the Wikipedia community for consideration. You may want to read Wikipedia:Search engine optimization for a few ideas. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been only biding my time to allow certain parties sufficient opportunities to explain themselves in regards to certain matters. I think I'm done here -- I have bigger ducks to quack. -BC aka Callmebc 22:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My account still exists there today. I set it up after the tsunami tragedy when I had the tsunami archive. Over 70,000,000 hits! Then in Christmas last year Positive Systems (photoduck) sold their business and I have been rebuilding the tsunami archive since. Takes a long time to transfer over 25,000 photos, stories and film fottage, esspecially at my age. I took the fils out of break because the link to the archive is null and void. At the time I had footage from the archive in many many sites. I was even featured in National geographic online. Search pollyfodder in google and see for yourself. I forgot all about that acc on break to be honest. I have no beef or grudge with break.com. For interest (in case people want to pick some more) I ran this archive single handedly and paid for it out of my own pocket. there were no ads! You have no idea what the bandwidth cost me, but I did my part for the victims as best I could. The new archive will be opening soon, and no, I will not be on here beating the tsunami archive drum!--Pollyfodder 08:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I warned Jdingman (talk • contribs • count) about linking to his website earlier this year. He replied he was quitting Wikipedia.[7][8][9][10]

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

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

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

Please view my latest entry to that article, it explains the past and the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.45.226 (talk • contribs) 18:01, April 17, 2007 (UTC)

• Senang Hati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  
• Jack Merridew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Hu12 10:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

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

The author edited his own article, "removing several incorrect facts" (or something like that), but in the process, made it sound spammy and removed all linking information. Part Deux 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User Gregchilds edited exactly once in early January. Two editors happened upon it three months later and reverted it. I see no active noticeboard issue here. — Athænara ✉ 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Tesfatsion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - although perhaps valid in context, external links are being added to various pages by the above, and they are all to his/her own website(s), The descriptive text added to each article is tailored to suit the subject, and I suspect that the contributor thinks his/her site is a cure for all ills. The contributions since 29 April 2007 from the user do not show much else in the way of creative editing to Wikipedia. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a fair number of the links, but there are still about 20 left. I may get to that later. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have established contact with the editor in question; she admits lack of research into Wikipedia guidelines. Apart from the insertion of links into other articles, another concern was her authored article, Agent-Based Computational Economics, which had a sharp self-promotional slant. Having liaised with her initially, she carried out a thorough NPOV on it herself, without request to do so, and this now allays all my concerns. I believe good faith has been shown to exist in her work, so I wish to withdraw my report. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Andy Reis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article was created by Andyreis and seems primarily to promote himself. IrishGuy ^talk 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Not really Notable, see google search: [11]. Bearian 02:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MA'AT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hogd2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mp474ret (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tatenen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Leviathan6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three Four Five single purpose accounts show up almost simultaneously to "correct bias" in articles related to the Golden Dawn. They seem to be members of one group foucused on editing the article of a competing group to that group's disadvantage. GlassFET 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to a few diffs that seem bad to you? The article as a whole does not seem much changed from the version of 2 January, 2007. I see a discussion about whether current temples should be included. No doubt that could be controversial. Still, it helps to be shown a smoking gun. EdJohnston 17:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few. Note the tone of the edit comments. [12], [13], [14], [15] and for the Inc. article: [16], [17], [18]. GlassFET 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the tone of the edit summaries is very alarming. Since the abuse here seems flagrant, it should not be hard to get help from administrators.

• Your first diff shows User:MA'AT removing a line with a reference and replacing it by a very confident, but unreferenced, contradiction of that statement.
• Your second diff shows User:Hogd2007, spouting policy talk, revert User:Fuzzypeg's carefully referenced statement, using the words 'vandalism' and 'spam'
• Your third diff shows User:Mp474re replacing the previous neutral-sounding version with WP:PEACOCK language about 'the single greatest twentieth century influence on 20th century occultism', and while doing so use the word 'spam' in the edit summary,
• Your fourth diff shows User:Tatenen reinstating the WP:PEACOCK language after you had removed it, complaining about improper reverts by you and User:IPSOS.

I suggest that this behavior deserves a stern warning by an administrator on the article's Talk page. If no improvement results, then I think raising the issue at WP:AN/I is fully justified. This stuff is so blatant, those editors won't get much sympathy. I'm glad to see that some experienced editors are helping you out on the Golden Dawn page. Anyone with experience will sense a whiff of sockpuppetry about such flagrant edits, but I have no details. I notice that User:Tariqabjotu semi-protected the page for you. He may be willing to do what's needed. EdJohnston 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Dvandeventer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Diazfrancisca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 67.53.52.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

See for example [19], and of course the user contributions page. There are many; while they do not appear to be "bad" references on their own, the self-promotional aspect is clear.--Gregalton 04:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a talk page message requesting self-revert, needs follow-up. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No edits from this account since the cautions were posted. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 04:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Unregistered IP address has made a flurry of edits that have the same books and references (although some useful text edits as well). [20] and [21].--Gregalton 00:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Now appears to be sockpuppeting as User:Diazfrancisca. Flagged as such.--Gregalton 00:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed a large number of these references and other contributions as spam (promotion). Now that the coi is clear, I'll wait for the editor to respond. --Ronz 03:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been no edits from user Dvandeventer since April 14, and none from users Diazfrancisca and 67.53.52.98 since April 16. Have other userIPs been used for the same task or has this ceased? — Athænara ✉ 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Benjamin Speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mister Speed - The Dreamer (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The People's Republic Of Animation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• and others...

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

• Maria Vargas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to specialize in contributions promoting the life and work of Luciano Floridi. --RichardVeryard 11:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC) As once did User:Leonard-nelson. --RichardVeryard 13:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Are these employees, students, or just fans? Bearian 17:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Freedom Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Freedompress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Has been createing multiple article connected with the activities of David Steinman Articles include:
  • David Steinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Founder and central figure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
  • Green Patriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Political party, seems like one-man band
  • Freedom Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Small publisher, publsihes Steinman's books

Seems like a co-ordinated campaign. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Altimit OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Altimit Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DarkAkira (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Seems to have it in his/her head that their corporation is the fictional corporation, and that their OS is the fictional OS, for which Altimit Corporation and Altimit OS were created, or that their project supercedes the fiction (not quite clear). User has stopped reverting, but continues to try to justify taking over the article for their corporation. Discussions: Talk:Altimit OS#ALTIMIT Corporation, User talk:Nique1287#A Little Clarity, User talk:DarkAkira#ALTIMIT. Nique talk 14:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre. I'm staying out of this one. Bearian 01:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I took it to ANI first because I'm not sure that it is a conflict of interest, more of a... conflict with reality. But they directed me here. Nique talk 01:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is sort of like Dagobah, but less notable, and unreferenced. I've tagged Altimit Corporation with prod, and suggested merging Altimit OS into .hack. There's no need to have so many articles about a minor fantasy world (one less notable than Star Wars, in any event). I don't see any WP:COI issue at all. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 06:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• Standard-design (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - obvious "corporate" account
• Standard Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Matt Smith (illustrator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - company's illustrator
• Mister Reusch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - another illustrator
• FORTY-3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - their zine from college

• Recommend a {{prod}} party. None of them really assert any notability, and if they do they're all COI so should be rebooted if actually notable. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Looking back, I think the illustrator is notable enough. I tagged the other three with {{coi}}, maybe should've been prod... We need a {{coi-rewrite}} tag... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Bearian 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Daily Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is obviously autobiographical, COI, POV material. Is it real? Is it notable? Bearian 22:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC) They appear to be real, but are in Arabic. Bearian 22:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairly obvious corporate vanity, tagged as such. MER-C 03:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• David Doyle (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ddoyle99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User appears to be subject of article. Created article, sole contributor. All of user's other contributions are on same subject. Fru1tbat 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• IEntry Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unreferenced article about an Internet company founded by "Rich Ord". Article was started by a one-edit editor and later worked on by RichardOrd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suspect this company or its publications are notable, but the article doesn't demonstrate this. --A. B. ^(talk) 02:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with this space. The company is almost certain to pass WP:N so I've changed the tag to unreferenced, and warned User:RichardOrd about WP:COI. IEntry own several websites that qualify as reliable sources. These sites are being cited by other media, so it shouldn't be difficult to find ample references. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am closing this investigation because there's no apparent, active COI editing. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Trax FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 217.33.92.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Deleting a section regarding a co-location of the radio station from Bassetlaw to Doncaster, including its references to external sources. Looking through the anomyonous users contributions, all contributions made to Wikipedia, aside from one, are all to Lincs FM Group articles (please note: Trax FM is a Lincs FM Group station). --tgheretford (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done a WHOIS trace on the IP address, and it is registered to the Lincs FM Group (Source). I have left a message on the anon editors talk page. --tgheretford (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wattscooke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Edits only to one article, admits is friend of one of the members, fails to cite changes. Maybe some third party could help me pointing out to relevant guidelines. Monni 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Doesn't really assert notability, may be deletable. Let's see what happens. MER-C 12:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• The Conner Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Filmwave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• This article seems to be an autobiographical, resume, with obvious COI, for possibly non-notable persons, with a POV. Bearian 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• Filmwave appears to be a single-use account to create this article and related articles based on two guys who make short movies. Bearian 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See also:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr#Dking (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.222.71.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• *.dennisking.org

According to his userpage, the user operates the above website. Over a period of time, the user has apparently added numerous links to his own website in citations and links for several articles. 1. diff 2. diff 3. diff 4. diff 5. diff 6. diff 7. diff 8. diff 9. diff 10. diff 11. diff 12. diff

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

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

FYI, this is a Wikipedian with an article - Dennis King. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This user seems to have done quite a bit of editing as User:208.222.71.17. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's another severely conflicted editor [22] getting in on the action at Independence Party of New York. Seems like there are problems on both sides of this controversy. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The WT:WPSPAM report is here. I know this is duplication to some extent but this needs to be looked at from a couple of different angles. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

This user apparently never answers his talk page posts. Still editing, but none of the links have been self-reverted nor have the concerns been addressed. What do you recommend we do here? RJASE1 ^Talk 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mr. King, we've been trying to contact you on your talk page for a week - the problem is not so much spam as that you have a conflict of interest in linking to your own website. Adding these links to talk pages for the consideration of others is fine, but you shouldn't be adding these links to the articles themselves. I left a link to the conflict of interest guideline on your talk page when I expressed my initial concern. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

For many months the followers of Lyndon LaRouche and Fred Newman, leaders of groups widely regarded as political cults, have engaged in edit wars and filed interminable admin complaints (including one on this page in February) saying that I and Chip Berlet, authors who specialize in political cults, should not be allowed to edit on the subject, that links to our web sites should not be allowed, etc. There is a whole body of editorial consensus building and admin decisions in which their claims were rejected. In particular, the problem of LaRouche followers on Wikipedia dates back to 2004 and I invite you to look at the archives of these discussions and to note that several of the LaRouche editors have been banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. To say the issue is "conflict of interest" is to raise an issue that has already been decided although I supposed any Wikipedian can raise it again at any time about any other Wikipedian. Conflict of interest as I understand from the guidelines involves legal antagonism (there is none--the last time LaRouche sued me was 23 years ago and he lost); financial interest (again none, I do not sell products on my web site but rather offer my book on LaRouche and other writings for free in electronic form), and self-promotion (no one has spelled out precisely how I am promoting myself as opposed to trying to present truthful information to warn people about the danger of getting involved with these Nehemiah Scudder-type outfits--would you please specify exactly what evidence you have of self-promotion). I must say that your citing conflict of interest is surprising since the links to my website are being removed with the explanation that this is "spam" removal. And why, if the concern is self-promotion but there are no specific charges, are links to published articles and book chapters archived on my web site being systematically removed in a summary fashion? You say you'd been trying to reach me for a week, but a week is a short time as these matters go--why the sudden haste?--Dking 23:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with links to Dennis King's book and published articles being included as references so long as they are clearly relevant. General links to the website may be more problematic, but it would depend on the context. King is certainly a "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field," [23] within the meaning of WP:V, and so he may be used as a source, even when his material is self-published. Dennis, perhaps you could be careful in future only to include links to your website where the material is clearly needed as source material, but not as a general reference. Wikipedia does discourage self-citation, using the argument that, if the material is worth citing, someone else will do it eventually, so it's best to keep it to a minimum. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we agree that Mr. King should not insert links to his own website in articles, but rather place them on the article's talk page, with a description, so that more neutral editors can decide if they should be used? This would seem to satisfy WP:COI guidelines. (By the way, I liked the Robert A. Heinlein reference in Dking's last post.) RJASE1 ^Talk 00:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there :) I've been trying to overhaul the Fred Newman article, recently, which has meant giving myself a crash course in political fringe groups and becoming pretty familiar with Mr. King's stuff (and contributions here)... So I figured I'd plop down my $0.02.

Re: consensus on Mr. King's citations on talk pages--I'm not sure that would be a functional solution, alas. If you review the talk pages for the articles Fred Newman and Lyndon LaRouche, among others, it's pretty clear that these are some very hotly contested topics--and there are editors, while I wish to AGF, who would fillibuster the inclusion of any content by Mr. King into obsolesence. Such a requirement would, in effect, block him from editing.

I understand the concerns about potential COI--I'm not sure there's a "good" answer to that one--but I submit that, as per SlimVirgin, Mr. King's published articles and books are relevant and notable source material. It appears to me from the sampling of links submitted here that his refernces are rather scrupulously relevant, all to published material, some of which (like newspaper articles from the 80s) would be extremely hard to find if not archived on his site. Only three out of the 19 links presented link to the general dennisking.org mainpage: one from the Wikipedia article about him, one from his User page, and one from an article's talk page.

If there's evidence that there are links to the general main dennisking.org site "masquerading" as source citations, then I'd consider there might be spam or self-promotion afoot. However--not to paint the man a saint or anything--self-promotion doesn't seem to be his bag. Take a look at the main page of the website in question. Then scroll alllllllll the way down to the bottom. One link to a book on amazon.com. The other one's a PDF scan (free) of a work he would still be making money off of, otherwise. And there's a link to his blog, as well--which it looks like he keeps rather scrupulously separate from his research/published source material on dennisking.org (i.e., dude knows the difference between his own opinions, strong though they appear to be, and what's relevant). At least, that's how it all looks to me.

Best regards, Wysdom 03:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point: Users should not add their own site links to articles but are encouraged to discuss them on the articles' talk pages. Very simple, and not worth any diatribes long harangues. — Athænara ✉ 09:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I fail to detect any "diatribe" OR "harangue" above. But while we're at it, why did you not only remove site links but also bibliographical references to the print articles and even the sentences in which the links were placed?--Dking 22:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

With respect, Athænara, I've reviewed WP:COI, and it doesn't appear to say quite that. Rather, it states:

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion.

"When in doubt" would appear to be a suggestion that defers to the editor's own judgment as to whether their self-cite should be offered up for community approval on the talk page. Best regards, Wysdom 06:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The counterpoint: was absolutely and unequivocally neither composed, nor delivered, in a spirit of bitterness or even contentiousness, least of all with the aim of attacking anyone. I regret--and must confess some degree of bafflement--that it was received so. I sincerely hope the following won't be taken as confrontational--it's meant, sincerely, as an honest question with no sub-text of critique. I'm not "new", per se, by my join date, but I've only recently become active in the community, so I'm still not entirely up to speed on how everything functions; however, I'd gotten the impression from similar exchanges of ideas in the AfD forums that when a discussion has something close to consensus (or it's clear no consensus can be achieved) an administrator closes the matter and clears (or archives?) the submittal. Is there a time frame (three days, a week?) after which a still-open discussions are considered closed, by default? It seems to me (and if I'm speaking from ignorance of policy, forgive me) that removing links/material submitted for COI discussion before any actual discussion has taken place defeats the purpose of having this forum. Respectfully, Wysdom 04:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Amendment: Please allow me to clarify so that my assertion of "sans critique" doesn't undermine my sincerity or heighten any unintended offense. I obviously feel an item open for discussion should remain open and be acted upon appropriately pending the decision reached by the community--but I don't mean that as a crticism directed at anyone, an indictment of anyone's character, nor as an assumption of ill intent. One of the things I like best about Wikipedia is the assumption of good faith... I don't want to be mistaken for doing otherwise. That being said, I asked the above and professed my opinion because: 1) I honestly have those deficiencies in my Wiki-lore and would like to correct that; and 2) Because, whatever the answer to the questions, I feel the discussion/clarification of best-practices regarding edits made to COI-discussion-in-progress items is important and beneficial to the process. Best Wishes, Wysdom 04:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User Dking again linked his website, embedding it in text added the Jewish Defense Organization article. ["An amusing account of Levy's experiences with the LaRouchians is contained in pp. 243-251 of Dennis King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism at [24]." 23:03, April 22, 2007 (UTC)] (n.b. "in pp. 243-251" does not indicate which of ten or more PDF files on the linked webpage contains the material offered.)

This sort of thing may legitimately be posted on an article talk page, where other editors, from a neutral POV rather than from a COI POV, may consider the encyclopedic merits, if any, of the proposed text, its description of the contents of the webpage the user with a COI wishes to link, and whether or not the link itself should be included in the article. — Athænara ✉ 05:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I imagine he did this, Athaenara, because there's no consensus on whether your interpretation of the COI guideline is law? As stated above, the guideline de facto seems to indicate that the decision to submit to committee the inclusion of relevant material is left to the judgment of the editor in question. Yet you seem to be insisting (repeatedly) that the guideline be followed as you interpret it. Furthermore, describing a legitimate citation to a published work ("You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia") as "linkspam" (as you did here [25]) doesn't assume good faith. At the risk of going on too long, here's more from WP:COI:

The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. Were you familiar with this part of the guideline on April 12 when you began purging articles not only of citation links but of their associated content? Wysdom 08:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To be more constructive--could you please clarify your actions and assertions where they seem to be in conflict with WP:COI? There's a gap between what I'm reading (or perhaps what I'm comprehending) and what I'm seeing you say/do. The gap is just as likely my understanding, so if you could please address the points raised, specifically. Many thanks, Wysdom 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Linksearch for gsociology.icaap.org

Has been adding links to his own website (above), apparently since April 2004. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Socialresearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• 64.185.138.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) =
• 64.185.138.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) = the same user. — Æ. ✉ 09:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Social change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gsociology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Adding content to article using own website as the source. Would appreciate other editors' opinions at a discussion on the talk page. -- Siobhan Hansa 11:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I incorporated the more recent Social change report into this preexisting section about a linkspamming user who has (so far) used at least four userIPs. — Athænara ✉ 07:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Abdulaziz Sager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gulf Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gulf Research Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Image:Araa magazine GRC.jpg
• FloGRC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note this COI SPA's first edit ("UPDATED OUR OWN DESCRIPTION") to Gulf Research Centre.

Note also this edit which added the same content to Gulf Research Center and removed the {{orphan}} tag. The user may have thought blanking the "Centre" page (twice: first second) would ensure one article only—the two articles are technically distinct.

A google news search which yielded eight articles in the past month (Edmonton Journal, Gulf News, Gulf Daily News, Financial Times, Arabian Business Newsletter, Dubai City Guide, etc.) indicates that the GRC is notable. Whichever article remains, however, the lengthy content which was copied wholesale from GRC website should be removed from both articles. — Athænara ✉ 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: "Center" is the GRC's own spelling, so I made "Centre" (a stub with duplicate content) a redirect to the main article, cleared out most of the GRC website copypaste content, wikified, etc. I haven't looked at the Sager article yet. — Æ. ✉ 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The GRC article is in pretty good shape. The Sager article could use a little cleanup and is tagged appropriately. Except for one minor edit (reverted and uncontested) user FloGRC hasn't edited since April 18. This section might be ready for the archives. — Athaenara 06:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

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

so i've been watching out Edelman (firm) for some time now. recently i saw User:Gohomedying make his first edit by making some pretty detailed family information in the article here. The next the user makes this edit which made me double take. Reverted. The next three edits User:Gohomedying makes to Edelman (firm) not only dumps 25 news articles from the archives of O'Dwyers Daily, PR Watch and PR week into the article, but also erases the 'Controversies' section, adds a client list and puts detailed contact information for the firm's NY branch.

this all happened in two days and screams COI possibilities, and I wanted to know what to do. i was thinking check user and and some sort of 2nd opinion. how should i proceed? JoeSmack ^Talk 20:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from WP:ANI. MER-C 03:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The creator of the article admits COI, which is good, and which allows us to assume good motivations, as we should. I'm going to take a crack at editing the very poor writing. The topic appears to be Notable and sourced, but can be improved. (I am legal writing instructor, and it pains me to see so many errors.) Bearian 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, but I'm putting back the controversies section. It also seems like the creator and the current COI account that is editing are two different people. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Seems like"? User JoeSmack created the stub in October 2006. — Athænara ✉ 03:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

User Gohomedying may have gotten the message: no edits since April 24. — Athaenara 06:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

→See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional Education Institute

• Professional Education Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kcocco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This person is affiliated with the Professional Education Institute (PEI) and keeps deleting all negative references to PEI and Carleton Sheets, an investment pundit associated with PEI. Deletions include internal wikilinks to the article for John T. Reed, a critic of PEI and Sheets. The notability of Sheets and PEI is questionable unless you include negative refs. See also the noticeboard entry for Carleton Sheets above. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• See my notes as above. Bearian 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Sheets

• Carleton Sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kcocco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This person is affiliated with the Professional Education Institute (PEI) and its investment pundit, Mr. Sheets, and keeps keep deleting all negative references. Deletions include internal wikilinks to the article for John T. Reed, a critic of PEI and Sheets. The notability of Sheets and PEI is questionable unless you include negative refs. See also the noticeboard entry for PEI below. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• I have tagged this article/stub for Speedy delete, see my notes at the talk page of Carleton Sheets. Bearian 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Holly'smum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Seems to be the mother of the subject of the article, due to both her username and contributions, which revolve completely around removing undesirable information from the article. CA387 10:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the sentiment, I assure you this is not Natalee Holloway's mother. No need for concern here. - auburnpilot talk 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess in hindsight I should probably gather a tiny bit more information before coming up with a conspiracy theory. ;) Oh well, I suppose it would've made for a good news story... --CA387 20:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is some kind of edit war going on, but no obvious COI. WP:DR is a possible option. Is there anything more this noticeboard can do? If not, we should close this. EdJohnston 03:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I assure you this is not Natalee Holloway's mother

How do you know? Tearlach 12:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a list of names in the first entry on this page. Mine is one of them. - auburnpilot talk 21:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• T. S. Wiley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wiley protocol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hormone replacement therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 72.205.193.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Nraden is Neil Raden, T.S. Wiley's husband, and appears to be on a campaign to eradicate all material critical of his wife and her highly controversial "Wiley Protocol". At the same time he contributes biased pro-Wiley content, in some cases copied directly from marketing materials.

Edits by 72.205.193.253 are also likely originating from Nraden and/or the Wiley household (evidence: James Randi forum post).

I'm open about my COI and would very much prefer not to have to get involved in policing these articles. They need more eyeballs and NPOV cleanup, badly. --Debv 02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left User:Nraden a gentle warning and some good advice. Hopefully that will help. Please help the situation by giving fair consideration to any concerns that this COI editor may raise. If we ask somebody to refrain from editing an article, we ought to listen closely to whatever concerns they may have. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 05:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nraden has threatened legal action. {{help}}. Bearian 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I reported User:Nraden's legal threats to WP:ANI, and he's been blocked indefinitely. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Swayd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Swayd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.77.4.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.77.20.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.77.63.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 62.203.204.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.62.43.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article was created by User:Swayd, about all of the content was created by that user and several anonymous IPs that only added to that article, making me suspect it's a conflict of interest autobiography. I added tags to the article for references, resume style writing and spam for now. Dissolve 02:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous IP (the creator of the article?) removed my tags and a couple users prods with no edit summary.[26] Anyone feel this needs an Afd? Dissolve 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Added userlinks for some (not all) of the SPAs. — Athænara ✉ 05:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Julianva (talk · contribs) and AdrianaW (talk · contribs) are adding images, references, and "In fine art" sections about sculptures by Julian Voss-Andreae (married to Adriana Voss-Andreae), to articles such as Fullerenes in popular culture, Collagen, Green fluorescent protein, Alpha helix. Someone more eloquent than I may want to talk to them about neutrality, notability, self-promotion, and COI. Thanks! Femto 12:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Janko Prunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I had to laugh at this - he removed the 'unreferenced' tag and left a citation that he, personally, was the reference. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This page looks like an autobiography to me because of what I've seen here:

• Contributions to page, anon appears to be Prunk editing while not logged in.
• possible single purpose acct
• history

Anynobody 09:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not literally an autobiography, because User:Prunk is the son of the article's subject, Janko Prunk. See the son's blog. The father does have a claim to notability; he was a minister in the Slovenian government in 1992. Plus, if there are any notable historians in Slovenia by WP standards, he must surely be one of them. I suggest that the article needs drastic shortening. The author has some books in English that can be found in Worldcat, but strangely, none of them are listed in the bibliography! Wikipedia is not a directory, so we don't need the list of his publications in Slovenian. The first step is probably to discuss the issue with User:Prunk and see if he agrees. EdJohnston 15:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There were no improvements since I tagged it {{likeresume}} a week ago (April 19), so I removed the massive résumé material today (April 26). Is there anything else which should be done with it on this noticeboard? — Athænara ✉ 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

→ After I archived this section, the following message was sent to my user talk page:

"Hello ! I saw that you removed* 80% of the article about Janko Prunk, together with his published books. I asked around on wikipedia's channels, and they told me it's not against the wikipedia's policy to publish authors books. So I am asking you, if you could review the article and maybe delete only the COBISS link entries out from the books, if they are being un-appropriate for publishing. Kind regards, Prunk 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)"

Note: The edit to which User:Prunk refers* removed long lists of Slovenian language radio and television appearances, journal articles, discussion papers and books, and commented out a dysfunctional link. No other content was removed. — Athænara ✉ 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

In this conversation at User_talk:Prunk#Janko_Prunk_2 I tried to engage Jan Prunk in a project to improve the referencing of his father's work in the English language, or in any third-party commentary on it, but he didn't seem eager to take this on. I think we'll need to insist that a lengthy bibliography of works in Slovenian is not appropriate. Jan Prunk actually lives in Ljubljana, so he has the ability to add to our articles on Slovenia, and his father is a noted historian, who unfortunately (from en.wiki's point of view) seems to write 99% of the time in Slovenian, so there's not much that we can use. He is the author of a work called 'A Brief History of Slovenia,' published in English, but Amazon doesn't have it for sale. There is a copy at the Library of Congress, so it's not *totally* unavailable, just very hard to find. EdJohnston 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I followed that amazon tip, found it listed, added ISBNS etc. to the article. — Æ. ✉ 04:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello ! I saw that you were fixing the article about Janko Prunk. The book on Amazon.com is not listed correct. My father never published a book with Mihelač publishing house, "A brief history of Slovenia" was published by Založba Grad back in 1996 and then again in 2000. If you look up the previous listings made by me, you will find it's ISBN and other info. It was also the only book published into English language, and then translated into Finnish language. The book "Slowenien - ein Abriss seiner Geschichte" was translated into German language in 1996 and "Die rationalistische Zivilisation" from 2003. All his other books were released in Slovene language. Prunk 06:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Založba Grad comes under this COI discussion too. Tearlach 14:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does: "It was directed by Alenka Štante who later turned the company to her son Jan Prunk. It published about 10 books…" — Athaenara 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Rapleaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has been edited multiple times by founders Manish Shah (Manish.shah (talk · contribs)) and Auren Hoffman (Mlkhamilton (talk · contribs) - see article). Both users' contrib histories seem to be self serving. Tagged with possible COI. 71.198.183.39 08:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The sum effect of the edits by the two users was to include Shah as a founding member, and to include a reference to a project they had worked on together before they started Rapleaf. It doesn't seem too bad. (Mlkhamilton has only edited once.) Shah a note on his/her talk page though. Sancho (Review me) 11:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look bad to me. Bearian 14:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the conflict of interest tag is removed by the original poster. I'm one of the (non-conflcited) editors, and as a newbie I posted some stuff about this everywhere but here. Thanks for the attention and I'll update the page's discussion section to refer to this. Wikidemo 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

→See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Engelbrecht

• Geoffrey Engelbrecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The lion's share of this article has been edited by anonymous IP users and by User:Geoff13, who created it and appears to be the article's subject. Additional notability concerns. See also: Clean (2005 film) tomasz. 10:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Also Ängel productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Taken to AFD. MER-C 11:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Higgs

Simon Higgs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I discovered this article when putting a speedydelete tag on a slapdash article for Mr Higgs's book (The Guide To Selling Your Music In The iTunes Music Store). I found that the only editor of note for that article was also the only editor of note for this article on Mr Higgs; an article for a Michelle Higgs, whom I presume is a relatve and whose music has been produced by Mr Higgs; the only editor for Healing Rooms, an album by Michelle Higgs and produced by Mr Higgs; and the main editor for an article on a David Ruis, another Higgs-produced musician. The editor also claims to be the copyright holder of Image:Healing-rooms-cover.jpg.

The editor, Particle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), became extremely evasive when asked if he had a conflict of interest on the book's talk page (now deleted), Michelle Higgs's talk page (also now deleted), and his own userpage (which, though not lengthy at all, has been suspiciously archived by a bot, possibly so as to conceal the conflict of interest). Also note that, after this rigamarole, the user immediately blanked his userpage, which had previously linked to the Simon Higgs article with the text "Higgs' Law" [sic], and transcluded a UBX for WikiProject Contemporary Christian music, essentially scrambling to don a halo. User has also removed my spam tag from the Simon Higgs article while keeping in links intended to sell Mr Higgs's products.

This requires a more thorough investigation than I, a non-admin, can do (accessing deleted talk pages, etc.), but it is my belief this article and the actions of its principal editor constitute a clear COI. Should I just put a speedydelete tag on this article, or should I go through and root out all the satellite articles, the categories editor Particle has created for those articles, the entries on lists articles, image files, etc.? [EDIT:] Guidance from a sysop or other grizzled veteran would be appreciated. --Dynaflow 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Simon Higgs, David Ruis and Healing Rooms articles, and agree that all should be deleted. Not clear why you need a sysop to view the older stuff; the articles he has created don't seem notable enough to keep. The Simon Higgs article appears to make claims of notability but is weakly sourced. The redirect Higgs Law should also go, as a neologism. Speedy or prod would be a good way to get started. You could leave the creator of the Higgs article a User talk message about this discussion if you want. EdJohnston 03:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just somewhat new at this whole exhaustively-rooting-out-spammers thing, and I want to make sure I do things properly, hence the request for sysop or veteran advice. User Particle is aware of my general opinion of his spammy articles and of my intentions, as it was my "depredations against the innocent," or some such nonsense, that brought down the articles on his book and his (presumed) wife. I have conversed with him at length (on discussion pages now deleted), and if he is surprised at a second wave, he will have simply put too much stock in the short attention spans of today's youth. So -- do I just put db-spam tags on everything and let Nature take its course, or do I need to do anything special? --Dynaflow 03:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If he sees you as being too harsh, you could put several of the articles together in a single AfD nomination. That will give a chance for a number of people to participate, and your views will probably get a lot of support per policy. So he'll realize you're not an isolated meanie. It is considered OK to announce AfD nominations of COI-affected articles here on this noticeboard, which will probably ensure some attention to the issue. If you haven't done an AfD before, just follow the steps. Ask for help if needed. It is fair to mention the COI issues in your AfD nomination statement. EdJohnston 03:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Can I also throw in the categories he's created for himself and his wife ("Books [sic] by..." "Albums [sic] by, etc.), as well as his various redirects, self-entries on lists (the "Higgs' Laws" entry on Scientific phenomena named after people is particularly galling), and other vain weirdnesses? I suppose the list entries will have to be manually strippd out via "What links here" before the articles are deleted, but the other stuff seems like it would involve administrator attention. I'd also like to know what those deleted articles linked to so that I can strip out whatever redlinks are still extant. Also, he may have a sock or a close confederate whose edits I'll have to look through. --Dynaflow 04:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait for an AfD to go through on the spammy articles. Then you'll be able to proceed with the rest of the work with less chance of being reverted. Actually, if every article in a certain category gets deleted, I believe that a bot will normally removed the category. EdJohnston 14:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is now a multi-article nomination for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Higgs. Please drop by and put in your 2¢. --Dynaflow 18:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Foot adoration day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I saw this while looking through the autobiography list. It was created by a single-use account. I tagged it for various problems, to be deleted or fixed. Bearian 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)