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.
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.
Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead.
This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy.
Notes for volunteers
To close a report
Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could go back. Having improved the article is a legitimate reason, but that editor simply removed the tag and word "auspicious" from the intro [1]. Tearlach08:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used [2], but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 [3], I feel I'm in over my head.
Possible coi because:
poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin
I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid:
OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.
I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Wikipedia article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.
I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.
I've edited probably thousands of articles in Wikipedia ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCEorWP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer [5] for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just the one that he admits to above. [6]. He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.
In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.
Yes, but you said yourself that you didn't think you made a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. It turns out you did in August and December of last year. Also, you've linked to a site that has your username in it, something you should have brought up when this COI was started. --Ronz18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Poweroid admits to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk·contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products… Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest.[1] Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.
^These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Wikipedia article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." (emphasis added.)
Ronz, my username issue has already been discussed. It's already on record as associated with a particular company and their sites. And you/Athaenara subjected it to an RFCN which failed.
Athaenara, I'm glad you bought up the neutral encyclopedia issue as you'll find that that's exactly what my edits are - including the ones you claim as CoI. Your special concerns of organization conflicts of interest and editors paid to edit Wikipeidia are irrelevant unless you are making an allegation that I've been paid to edit Wiki articles.
Please provide examples of the selective citing and mis-characterisation of other editors' attempts you accuse me of as I don't believe there have been any at all.
Re my user name: You will note that I do not have to change it. I was not compelled to change it. I was not requested to do it. I was not even asked to consider it. My name is 100% OK. I did however volunteer to change my name. So I'll do it when I want. That I haven't had the time to do it within the last week is nobody's business and, with the greatest of respect, isn't yours either. That I haven't put on top most priority something I volunteered to do is, you argue, grounds to dismiss presumption of my good faith? What was that about misrepresentation and mischaracterisation again?
Just because the RfCN failed, doesnt mean that we should ignore other evidence relevant to your COI here when it concerns your name. --Ronz22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked over this page and the talk page of User:Poweroid and some of his contributions.By his own admission, he has worked for the company (www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk and related sites) which holds the trademark on Poweroid (his current user name), so it seems clear there is a conflict of interest on his adding links to at least those company websites.
The debate about his username, and whether a list of his clients should be provided and how, do not take away from the fact that this editor has added links to (see above) and images from [9] company websites with which he has a professional relationship in clear violation of WP:COI. This is not passing judgment on the links and images in question either, but it is a conflict of interest for Poweroid to add them to Wikipedia.
If he feels these are valid links and images he should suggest them for inclusion on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question for other, more neutral editors to decide. He is also, I believe, obligated to remove such edits he has made in the past until they can be decided on by other editors. The problem may be larger than this (the client list issue) but that in no way should obscure the fact that there is already a substantial COI problem here. This is no single purpose account for purposes of linkspam. However, he seems to be doing little to resolve and much to obscure and perhaps obstruct the solution of his COI problem. Hope this helps and apologize if I got the gender wrong, Ruhrfisch04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As of today, searches for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk returns 17 matches. This is after both Tearlach and myself have removed many others. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 60 articles, mostly around December 2006. Additionally, I've requested Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to techbooksforfree.com and dogtraininghq.com. --Ronz15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a US Government PD image and put it in the Voice over IP article as it was clearer in thumbnail than the COI image here (which is now orphaned), so we are down to only two COI links on talk pages for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk. Ruhrfisch01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I think all the questionable links have been removed from articles at this point. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 80 articles, mostly around December 2006. I've also asked Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to pregnancyetc.com and bringingupbaby.com. I'm estimating that between November'06 and January'07 Poweroid added over 50 links to 50 different articles, all links where there's a clear coi, and most in violation of WP:ATT as well. --Ronz18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, this is still going on and hasn't resulted in a ban/closure?
I notice that Athaenara makes no comments on the issue of his misrepresentation of the username issue to suggest lack of good faith on my part. He could have at least apologised for maligning me. :(
When digging out who made what links in 2004 please at least be diligent enough to check what the policy was at that time and whether I violated it. In fact, from what I can see there wasn't even a CoI page at that time, just a vanity page.
I maintain there is a lot of FUD, embarrasment at "losing" the RfCN, and a campaign to smear me here. I've no doubt now who is going to pour over exact versions of the CoI page on every day I made an edit. Like other pages in a wiki, the CoI page changes over time. Unlike some here I have better things to do than to keep track of every minutae in the small print and how it changes on a daily basis. Ignorantia juris non excusat? Get a life, guys, this is a Wiki, not the Supreme Court but who would think it from the way some of you make a full time profession of mastering the small print rules? I did not come here to spam, I made hundreds/thousands of useful contributions, I added links where I thought they would be useful to readers, and, bar the odd exception, most of my edits didn't even involve adding links. I've made numerous efforts to cooperate but that doesn't seem to be (refactored personal attack) enough.
See also a discussion of Poweroid at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Poweroid, including a list of 19 IP addresses that are also believed to be him. Fortunately I didn't notice any uses of IP addresses after January 07. Has anyone carefully determined the date of the last spam link he added, or if he has stopped? This editor's frankness should be commended, but others who have been notified of similar problems have voluntarily gone back and removed the inappropriate links, while this editor still seems to believe they are appropriate. EdJohnston15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like he stopped. The last spam edit he made was the one that started this report, his edit on March 6, [10], where he twice added an experienced-people.co.uk link as a reference. He did not indicate he added any links in his edit summary, and made two successive edits afterward to the same article - a pattern that he usually uses when adding external links.
Note that he's never responded to the concern that the links he's added as references do not meet WP:SOURCE.
Finally, because he's never provided a list of the 30-50 websited that he's said he's done work for, we have no way of knowing for sure that there aren't more than have been found so far, nor when they were last added. --Ronz19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:
His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix.[11] Stix is an "internet columnist" who has occasionally mentioned Wikipeia in his blogs. Except for that first edit he hasn't identified himself as Stix even while fighting over links to his : websites. Despite using variable IPs he has attacked another anon with a variable IP as the "Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster". He's promoted himself, including a long entry to a list of "notable journalists".[12] He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted.[13][14][15][16] For the time being I've asked him to stop adding content about or by himself. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement.
He also claims:
a.) His accusers misrepresent Wikipedia rules to criticize or redact his edits.
b.) His accusers misrepresent print publications as "blogs."
c.) His accusers stalk and censor him and anyone who supports him.
2.) His connections come from Verizon, so he may have dialup or another setup without static IP addresses.
3.) His accusers claim he is "self promoting," that he is apparently Nicholas Stix, a veteran freelance writer. They haven't demonstrated that his material, at least some of it, is improper.
4.) FYI, I have no ties to Stix, nor do I endorse his writing, but some of the accusations laid against him may not mesh with reality. I encourage anyone who wishes to examine this situation to look carefully. Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yakuman01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At what are we to look carefully? The editor has identified himself as this person. His edits are chiefly promoting links to his self-published materials and websites. It's a COI to link to one's own website, and this editor has done so dozens of times. Furthermore he's engaged in scores of reversions adding the links back. Failing to acknowledge the relationship between subject and writer is not a good faith action.
Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming links across Wikipedia is not a useful or acceptable activity. All I've asked is that this editor stop adding content about or by himself. Is that unreasonable? I'd also ask that he be more collegial and less confrontational. Civility is a core policy of Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Readers of this board who want to study this case, and may not want to read all the diffs above, might content themselves with a quick scan of User_talk:70.23.199.239 to get the flavor of this editor's communications. This is really, really Nicholas Stix and there's no sock-puppeting issue, this is just his attitude to the world, at least to the other editors on Wikipedia. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at [17]. Unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:DE. The actions already taken by administrators were not excessive. This COI noticeboard is most effective when there is still a chance to persuade people and to remove misunderstandings. That does not appear to be the case here. The question of whether some of Stix's own articles deserve to be linked in Wikipedia is dwarfed by the behavior issues. Stix should by now be concerned about the number of administrators who have independently posted to his User talk with extremely polite language. Does anyone have another idea for how to resolve this? EdJohnston03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had been trying to figure out the next steps both with respect to this editor's edits on the Nadine Gordimer article and the editor himself, but I was derailed for the last several weeks by personal stuff. I don't know the process but would be happy to start it or support it. --lquilter18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So for the lag; I've been travelling. I've only been concerned with the COI matter because it appears fairly cut-and-dry. However the disruptiveness, tendentiousness, and lack of civility are more serious issues. I'd support efforts to get this editor to respect collegiality. -Will Beback · † · 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not him, do not know him and do not speak for him. I guess I'm at a loss. I still believe that this is a bit of a misunderstanding. While I think he may not have said the right thing at times, I believe he is an established writer and not the utter nuisance he is made out to be. His edits on Gordimer are valid and I have spoken up for them and some other contributions, although not all. Much of this does seem to have a political bent. To be honest, I've seen some admins (not Will) behave worse. Also, it seems every edit of his, good or bad, is quickly reverted, regardless of article. That really isn't fair. Yakuman (数え役満)11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Durova issued a 48-hour block of 70.23.199.239(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) on 4 April for personal attacks. Scan his contribution history to appreciate the nasty edit summaries. In this edit Stix re-inserted a link to his own blog into an article, and declared himself to be reverting vandalism by Will Beback! Provocation just to get a reaction, or is that the definition of WP:POINT?
It seems that the the incivility, if it continues, might justify a series of escalating blocks, without having to do deep analysis of the COI issue. The repeated re-insertion of links, after they are removed by regular editors, often leads to a quick verdict of spam, which is simpler to reason about than COI. EdJohnston03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that the less 70.23.* posts, the more Yakuman posts. It is possible that the two are totally unrelated, but Yakuman seems singular in his unswerving support for 70.23.*, and has championed his cause, and taken up his quest to spread the word of Stix, like no others have. Yakuman seems slightly more civil, but I'm not convinced they are not indeed the same editor. Andyparkerson06:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EJ makes a good point. Incivility is simpler to deal with than COI and doesn't require delving into identity. On AP's matter, I doubt for several reasons that Yakuman is the same editor. -Will Beback · † · 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, well, I got censored again. Surprise, surprise! Next thing you know, you and your comrades will be vandalizing my user talk page. And I see that Lquilter has now gone trolling at User_talk:Wknight94, in search of more allies to join him here in his group hate, seeking to ban myself and User:Yakuman. That's in addition to his trolling at John Broughton, Will Beback, and God only knows how many other user pages and wikimail boxes.
“Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.”
For five months now, I’ve been fighting back against a campaign of organized harassment and personal attacks begun by User:Lquilter, a projection artist who has engaged in countless violations of Antipedia rules, including but not limited to WP:Stalking, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and oh, approximately one million billion other of your phony rules, in which he has been joined by the Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster, Wnjnr, John Broughton, Will Beback, et al. (For Lquilter to charge anyone in the world with “serial incivility” requires mega chutzpah.) (Third try at posting, 170 words.)
The rules are phony, because they exist only for commissars like yourselves to use to beat up on anti-communists (or anti-racial socialists, if you will) like yours truly, while you flagrantly violate them. Such rules are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, which guaranteed freedom and equality and a raft of other rights to all Soviet citizens, rights which in fact were enjoyed only by Party members. In fact, every time I so much as open my mouth to protest your abuses, you lie again, and invent yet another phony violation on my part. Which, of course, was the point of your stalking, harassment, and censorship, in the first place.
(Speaking of communism, censorship, and thuggery, I see that in the Nadine Gordimer hagiography, User:Doldrums has censored a reference to a communist leader and lawyer, and attacked Yakuman (even after the latter pointed out that he hadn’t inserted the fact), only because Doldrums was convinced that Yakuman had inserted that fact!) (175 words.)....
Speaking of which, User:Athaenara, not only are your criticisms of me tendentious, but you brag of having a college degree in anti-white studies! Thus has your tendentiousness been certified. Clearly, you do not suffer from a chutzpah deficiency, either.
I challenge any of you to produce a single example of a “tendentious” edit by me. Here at Antipedia, “tendentious” (ditto for “disruptive”) means someone who tells the truth, and refuses to either lie or censor or be intimidated out of posting facts that don’t fit into the anti-white, anti-American, anti-Western political views of the cadres dominating the place. Meaning you. (110 words.)
This all began with the Nadine Gordimer page. I found that an editor, User:DianaW, had politically censored the fact, which a previous editor had added to the entry, that Gordimer had been robbed and assaulted by four black men. Before I had said word one to DianaW or Lquilter, both accused me of racism for restoring those facts, and promptly initiated an edit war. How does that make for a “behavior issue” or “disruption” or "incivility" by me? And while both made it clear that nothing I said would ever change their minds, they continued to insist without end (DianaW intermittently, but Lquilter continuously to this day) that I justify my every edit, while refusing ever to justify their own. Lquilter has in recent months trolled at administrators’ talk pages (John Broughton and Will Beback, and God only knows how many others), asking them to, in effect, beat up on me on his behalf. And the administrators have responded affirmatively. And the rest of you have now joined in the mob attack, because ... that is what you do.
Don’t you dare pull that “extremely polite language” crap with me, EdJohnston! (197 words.)
User:Andyparkerson, that renowned expert in early 20th Century American racial history – I knew you’d be upset if I forgot you, Andy – has taken the lone crank/sockpuppetmaster cover story to the extreme of suggesting that I am also Yakuman. No such luck, Andy; that grassy knoll is crawling with snipers!
And regarding “gaslighting,” how is it that I have the powers of a Charles Boyer character (with poor, beleaguered Lquilter played by Ingrid Bergman in drag), whereas it is Lquilter who has been organizing people against me here, seeking to manufacture an alternate reality, damning my defenders as also Charles Boyer-like “gaslighters” and as “tendentious” and organizing people against them, and with someone (I know not who, since I have no access to wikimail and do not have unlimited time to devote to this experiment in sociopathic group dynamics) organizing a group hate on my user talk page in mid-March, which brought together people who had not attacked me in months?
With the unlimited time Lquilter has on his hands, can't he at least bother fabricating different stories against people he seeks to have banned? Well, as the saying goes, criminals are creatures of habit. (199 words.)
I do not go around organizing group hates. How is it that people who engage in such thuggery get their manners complimented, and get to call me “tendentious,” "disruptive," and "uncivil"? Answer: Because it is the thugs who are complimenting each other!
The notion that vindictive administrators engaging in transparently politically motivated stalking, harassment, censorship of my every edit, and intimidation have used “extremely polite language” is ludicrous. In case EdJohnston is referring to someone saying that he “requests” that I refrain from doing such-and-thus, in the English language, one is not obliged to accede to any request. One always has the right of refusal. The problem is people’s dishonest language here. They don’t really mean “request”; they mean, “I am hereby ordering you to cease and desist from x, y, and z.” But if you are issuing orders, then you must say so, instead of playing word games. (154 words.)
Superdeterminism(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Wikipedia article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewondertalk02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Wikipedia gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/-Warren03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewondertalk10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and yes. The book pages needed work: they neded removal of promotional links, and all the categories were referred to the author rather than the books. There's also a deal of subjective stuff: "The stories presented in the collection often take sharp, disturbing turns not normally found in modern religious fiction". Sez who? The Tom Terry article itself completely lacks third-party sources. Tearlach21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The revision was made without discussion, none of the information is factually disputed, and I have indeed responded. Instead, after being warned of a COI and being told not to edit the page by Dar-Ape he again edited it without proposing changes and allowing for discussion.Gletiecq13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gletiecq(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) seems to be the defendant in a suit filed by one of the clients of Faisal Gill's law firm. Gletiecq wanted a section about that client's 2006 campaign, allegedly derailed in part by Gletiecq's blog, in the article. Alleging COI (while neglecting to disclose his own COI) he reported the user who removed it.
No activity from this account since a post to her user talk page on 29 March. Follow up if any problems resume, but this looks like a good faith attempt to contribute. I suspect this editor would be willing to restrict contribution to talk pages on this subject if asked nicely. DurovaCharge!15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, obvious COI. No problems since the report was filed so I've semiprotected the page for a month. Follow up if necessary. DurovaCharge!15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Links added to your post. I'm surprised they've got anything much left in the museum; the chief Google hit (5000+) for "Sygun Museum of Wales" is eBay! I've tidied and tried to source the Sygun articles, and asked User:Sygun what's going on [20]. Tearlach17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long Way Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MDennett (talk·contribs) is extremely keen to include an unsourced reference to "International SOS", a commercial organisation [21] he claims was paid a fee for involvement with the Long Way Round project. MDennet first added this in early November 2006, revisited it later that month, and has returned now. MDennet has asserted that he was involved in said deal [22] , and that the lack of any sources to verify this fact is not a problem, as we can just ring him or his friends up and ask. Neither the 388 page book nor 10 episode TV / DVD series make any mention of this organisation. He came perilously close to 3RR this evening, and continues to argue the point on his talk page. The account is single purpose, with the only edit other than on this issue being creation of a speedily deleted auto-bio in mainspace. His latest rebuttal of my attempt to enforce policy is that as Ewan McGregor and I are both Scottish, perhaps I (and presumably the 4,999,999 other Scots) have the conflict of interest?? // Deiztalk13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
are both Scottish
So am I, partially, so it's a clear conspiracy. But no, whether there's a COI or not, WP:NOR makes "we can just ring him or his friends up and ask" completely unacceptable as a source. Only a third-party published source will do. Tearlach15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if MDennett (talk·contribs) was involved in the deal then he has a conflict of interest. You might want to leave a note about this issue on the Talk page of the article itself. You might also ask MDennett to clarify further his role in the Long Way Round project. I did not find his name on the longwayround.com web site. EdJohnston21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, there is a Martin Dennett [23], Business Development Director for Energy, Mining and Infrastructure at International SOS. Tearlach12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defense: Refer to incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Wikipedia's right to anonymity. Badmonkey14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, Cyber has added the section again (which I can't actually verify via Google), the wording has changed a little bit, but I believe a COI still exists. //NigelJtalk03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now the user has also removed the subsequently added "citation needed" templates from the article without an edit summary (diff). I have reverted his edit and posted a {{uw-maintenance1}} on his talk page; the user has not yet responded. -- intgr11:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above articles have been nominated for speedy deletion already. Why has User:Startcom been nominated for speedy? Is that a normal thing to do? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G11 is a general criterion that applies to spam in the any namespace. It is useful for and is occassionally applied to user spaces, particularly if the user has no other edits and especially if the user has been registered for a long period of time. --Iamunknown17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been active since January. The first action was to create the article Norris-Whitney Communications and all edits since seem to be associated with products, publications, people and events associated with this particular company. I could make a list but it would be lengthy and it's probably easier just to look at the user contribs. In addition to the articles shown in the contribs, it appears there may also have been several other articles speedily deleted as either non-notable or spam - at least I saw some nominated while I was typing this. RJASE1Talk16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently checked back to see if this article had been improved and found that Mustepullo had added quite a few interwiki links to it. I checked a few of the other articles to see if they contained any more information that could possibly be translated to make the article less stubbish. It seems that every single one of them, nine non-English languages in all, were created by the same username, Mustepullo. I think we have a case of long-term, cross-language COI abuse. LeaHazel : talk : contribs01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, darn me. A remarkable coincidence that in all the world, in all the online listings of Finnish websites, here at Fennica.net Mustepullo Graphics and Marko Kitti are adjacent. Tearlach02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lojah(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - this user is an associate of the article subject, and despite showing him a failure to meet WP:N and WP:MUSIC (which he accused me of making up!), keeps asserting notability with trivial coverage, and thinks he can decide which policies apply to him and his article and which don't. Since AfD voting has dropped off all over the AfD pages, this article will probably be kept as no consensus, which is why it needs to be looked at. MSJapan21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets hardly any votes because of the holiday, you can always relist.
There's a clear COI. Lojah's bio on people.tribe.net says "Lojah's professional debut was writing and performing with Shadowyze on his 2001 SOAR release, Spirit Warrior ... Lojah is currently performing with Shadowyze in the southern circuit".
And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadowyze and User talk:MSJapan#Shadowyze shows a lot wrong in his general editing conduct: Original research and failure to abide by WP:COI ("Wikipedia does recognize first-hand resources such as witnesses to an event, which I am also ... There really is no conflict of interest ... simply because I happen to have been fortunate to work with Shadowyze - that’s what makes me a primary resource"); personal attacks; evident belief in article ownership, and canvassing (see edit history Apr 3 20:00 onward) against the Shadowyze AFD.
Sitution needs watching. AFD closed with "keep and rewrite to avoid COi" as consensus, but Lojah appears to be taking a closing assessment - that there is no specific ban on his editing [24] - as permission to edit. Tearlach00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch the situation. The FACT that there is no specific ban on my freedom to edit this article is proof of my 'permission,' as you put it to edit the article. Until there is a clear RULE that says I absolutely can not edit the article then I am perfectly within my rights. Lojah04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note this statement, left on my talk page as well as his: I also believe that User:Curvedtalk is a sock puppet of you, created to incriminate me. I now return you to your regularly scheduled 'trolling' on Wikipedia. Lojah 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the latest at User_talk:MSJapan#Shadowyze. I think he's sooner or later going to fall foul of a lot of policies. I think a warning is already due for WP:NPA. Of course it's all our racist bias against against Native American activists - not bias against people who come into a collaborative communirty and think none of its conventions apply to them, and write great screeds arguing the toss about it. Tearlach16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rethink. I'm coming round to thinking this may be down to misunderstanding (newcomer meets bite-the-newbie). I did some cleanup on the Shadowyze article, and had some perfectly civil discussion with User:Lojah about it. I'd say see how it goes. Tearlach06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Lojah commenced the personal attacks (and the types of statements he has made here), "misunderstanding" is a pretty interesting statement. Willful ignorance of policy is not an excuse to PA. The article was in terrible shape, had nothing meeting NN, and sat for a week with no edits when I AfDed it. There was no "bite-the-newbie" involved - Lojah made the initial post on my talkpage telling me I didn't "know the facts about Shadowyze" and that there were "a lot of resources even if I was ignorant of the subject". He also accused me of trolling, more stuff re: ignorance on my part, and told me I created a sock to discredit him when someone else SSPed one of the AfD voters. I always stayed within the bounds of policy; Lojah didn't. The reason you had a civil discussion is because, as he saw it, you implicitly supported his POV. Prod one of his articles and see how civil he remains. MSJapan17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I guess I'm probably being a bit too laid-back, not having been on the receiving end of all that. A softly-softly approach just seems to have calmed down that particular situation. If he turns nasty again, I'm happy to help throw the book at him. Tearlach00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aldrich has a malformed article title and this article is the only hit on either the structure or the person. The museum is a private group without its own domain. AfDed as NN and failing BIO. MSJapan18:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Partch article is pretty neutral, all things considered. The info matches the externals without being copyvio, and notability is established. It probably only needs some cleanup to remove hyperbole. MSJapan18:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm familiar with Partch's music (I have a copy of Partch's book Genesis of a Music). The article is in reasonable shape though it could use some polishing and even some expansion in places, e.g., his emphasis on rational scales. Raymond Arritt20:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This editor, according to his userpage, is the science fiction author William Shunn. The user is the primary editor of the article about himself, and has created pages on his own works:
I've left warning messages and suggested that he go to WP:RFC to get the article reviewed. He has been nominated for a few major awards, so I think he would qualify as notable, and as far as autobiographies go, this is far from the worst I've seen. However, the article lacks references, so I tagged it as such. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 19:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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. RJASE1Talk19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. It's going to be a difficult one: controversial figure. IP editor 201.9.208.247 (talk·contribs) (tracking to Rio de Janeiro) also seems pretty focused on reverting to the Mercio Gomes version. On balance, it is the more factual version, but completely whitewashes out the criticisms. Tearlach22:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above user's edits are all to either his own article or to projects with which he is associated (except for wikilinking those articles in other places). The user states here that he is aware of the conflict of interest, but the articles all seem promotional in nature to me. RJASE1Talk23:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the feedback guys, what i would prefer to use is a 'box' as such re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Coles_HQ 'young british artists' rather than what you term as a 'link farm' soory for any offense. I am learning ettiquette as i attempt to engage with wikipedia...Do you think you could help me making such a 'Box' ? In reference to the nature of the article it is all in reference to our applied status as Charity..which is the only way such artist run spaces can exist in the middle of the metropolis. Arguabbly our space is a 'networked', practice: without the people (like wikipedia) it would cease to grow and exist even so this element of the article is essential..(please excuse any typos its 6am) Dimitrilaunder(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log)
I have tried to rewrite the articles to remove any possible vanity or self promotion -it is difficult when a director starts their own articles!!! but As a seasoned editor of WP Films I do beleive these articles are worthy on wikipedia the articles now stick to fact rather than a promotional effort. If any body else had started the articles and uploaded the posters no one would have blinked an eyelid. I hope you'll see my efforts here to rmeove any notion of self promtion and turn it into encyclopedic fact ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs02:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst, you've done a great job in mentoring here - I'm just trying to figure out why the 'unreferenced' tags are being removed and no reliable sources are being provided. You have to admit this seems to be tainted by vanity. RJASE1Talk02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see what you mean!! But you can't discourage new articles which are valid just because they seem propelled by vanity!! Although I completely see how it might violate the pollicy of NOT writing about yourself!! If someone else had started them no one would have blinked an eyelid!! If you feel the need to add the reference tag thats fine as long as the articles aren't deleted. I have a check again now see if their are any self promotional comments but from what I saw they are encylcopedic. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs14:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I completely see how it might violate the pollicy of NOT writing about yourself!!
It's not a policy, but yes, writing about yourself does, funnily enough, violate the guideline about not writing about yourself. As well as the clear instructions against doing so on the intro page whenever you create a new article. Tearlach19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some comments to her talk page that might help. Hopefully this can be settled easily if she'll only take some time to communicate with other editors about what's going on. --Ronz20:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article probably won't get deleted because the company appears to be notable. Serious concerns to exist on the basis of multiple policies. I've semiprotected it for a month and blocked a single purpose account for a month. Edit ruthlessly to remove the PRese and follow up with additional requests if necessary. DurovaCharge!21:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the company is notable - walk down the electrical isle at Home Depot. I have a whole house structured wiring system by them. I dunno how to clean the article tho. — RevRagnarokTalkContrib22:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Put the advert and/or cleanup tags on it, delete unsourced information that reads like a PR brochure, reword other stuff to be more neutral and less promotional. DurovaCharge!00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
