Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 12

• Metropolis and Japan Today, owned by a Mark Devlin
  . If this is true, it is problematic because Sparkzilla:

1) created two articles directly related to the company in which (s)he linked to the company/magazine [1][2]. (S)he inserted links and references to Metropolis/Japan Today/Mark Devlin in several other articles as well:[3][4][5]Puts Crisscross news above Kyodo(!!)[6][7][8]

2) Has been removing "negative" material from these and other articles related to either Metropolis, Crisscross or Mark Devlin. Removal of poorly sourced/unsourced "negative" claims: [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Removal of unsourced "negative" material, which probably should have been fact-tagged: [15][16]. Removal of "negative" well-sourced material: [17][18][19].

3) Repeatedly drew attention to how allegedly large/important said companies/products are, in listed articles: [20][21][22][23][24] (see also point 1)

4) Removed "notability", "advertisement", "primary sources", "importance", "unreferenced", "fact" and "merger" (prior to any discussion) tags from said articles: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. In no more than 2-3 of these reverts did (s)he actually post on the talk page. Also closed a merger proposition after only 4 days of silence [38], instead of 10, as

WP:MERGE

specifies.

5) Voraciously defended the Metropolis article from deletion: VfD/Metropolis

6) Has written extensively on the

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article, despite that Mark Devlin is seriously involved in the whole situation, and referred to Mark Devlin several times. (reverted somebody with the rationale "Unlike you, Devlin is a leading, published critic of the case")[[39]] [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]: [51][52][53]

7) Edit warred extensively on listed articles(see most of above links), but especially on Nick Baker (too much to list every single instance, see [54], it stretches back to December 2005). Showed, and continues to show serious

WP:OWN

issues.

(links in bold shows where (s)he reverted my own edits (bolded text is for emphasis only). The above link diff's are only a sample (!) of all the editing/rv-ing/edit warring Sparkzilla has done on listed articles)

• Evidence that Sparkzilla is Mark Devlin (or closely associated to him):

1) Nature of edits are very similar to 219.123.156.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - an IPwhois traces this IP to "Crisscross KK", which at the very least shows there IS somebody at Crisscross who is prepared to ignore his/her own bias and position when it comes to these articles. Sparkzilla might be using a proxy now, but a checkuser might show that he too comes from "Crisscross KK"

2) Mark Devlin's e-mail is "[email protected]" [55]

3) Mark Devlin refers to the Wikipedia Nick Baker article on his personal blog [56], and in another post, openly stated "We are happy to make corrections to our Wikipedia page" [57]

4) ((very circumstantial but worth mentioning)) Forum postings on Fuckedgaijin (discussion board for expatriates in Japan). [58][59][60] (site is currently down but google cache exists (NOTE: might take a few minutes to load): [61][62][63]). By a poster called "Sparkzilla", relating to the whole Nick Baker situation, suggests he has been very much involved in the case (dates back to 2005). Also, Tribe profile "Sparkzilla". "Name: Mark. Country: Japan. Age:40". Dates back to 2004 [64] (changed since this CoI was posted, but see google cache [65]).

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

Phew! did you get all that? It is clear from the obsessive report above and from the user's history that Heatedissuepuppet (an SPA sockpuppet that was recently blocked for disruption [66] is not interested in improving Wikipedia articles, but is simply interested in attacking and exposing a particular user to influence content disputes. Heatedissuepuppet has made no constructive edits to any of the articles mentioned and is upset that poorly sourced defamatory information has been removed [67] Let my history of constructive edits, the notability of the articles, and the quality of the sources speak for themselves...

• Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) survived AFD by 8-1[68]. Even so, Heatedissuepuppet insisted on adding notability tags multiple times to all Metropolis related pages, and continuied to do so after being told to discuss the issue on the article talk page. [69]
  The article has six external sources.

Note also that Metropolis is a leading source of information about Japanese culture, arts and living. It has an archive of hundreds of features and commentaries about Japan going back 13 years. It is not unreasonable that relevant links to Metropolis articles should be included in some WP articles. If the magazine wanted to spam WP they could spam hundreds of articles rather than adding links to the handful of articles noted here. The intent here is obvious -- this editor dislikes Metropolis and wants no mention of it in Wikipedia.

• Crisscross survived a merge discussion with Metropolis by 3-1. Editwarring over the closing of this discussion casued Heatedissuepuppet to be blocked. The editor nmisrepresents the time the discussion was open. It was closed after 5 days as policy dictates. Check here Talk:Crisscross. The article has six external sources [70]. Feel free to nominate it for deletion on notability.
• The disputed section of
  Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) was the subject of a recent RFD (which I initiated) [71]. I have done many, many constructive edits to this page, including two major rewrites and finding/confirming almost all the sources for the page. I created an RFC for disputed text about the case [72] that only appears in a round-up article in Metropolis. The disputed text is curently not in the article. The current criticism of Baker's campaign by Devlin and Baker's MP [73] has two sources for each claim, and has been rewritten to take undue weight concerns into account. Mr Devlin, as the publisher of Metropolis [74], the No 1 English magazine in Japan, and Japan Today [75]
  , the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world, has clear notability when making claims about a support group's attempt to mislead Japan's foreign community, and the media, about a Japan-related issue.

• Japantodaysucks.com. [76]. Obvious attempt to include defamatory domain. This site does not exist, it is not in Google, or on the Internet archive.
• Japan Traveler: [77] Article does not exist on japantraveler.com website, Google, or Internet archive.
• Tokyo Weekender [78]. Article that Heatedissuepuppet claimed backs up Japan Traveler claims actually proves Japan Traveler's unreliability. Comprehensive rebuttal with some 20 points why this source is not acceptable at the bottom of this page:
  Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)
• Bogus claims and vandalism [79] [80][81] No editor would let any of these stand.

I will accept, and have accepted, properly sourced information on any of these pages, but even if I was intimately involved with Metropolis, I would still be allowed to remove poorly sourced, libelous, defamatory claims. This is what the policy says:

An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved.

I do not think I should be penalised for upholding Wikipedia content policies.

I am happy to give further details to interested editors on request, but please note that I will not respond to Heatedissuepuppet or David Lyons (a non-constructive Nick Baker supporter's SPA) here. I will not feed these trolls further. Thank you for your consideration. Sparkzilla 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, here's my take on the points raised by Heatedissuepuppet. First, I do think the evidence that Sparkzilla is either Mark Devlin or closely associated with him is very convincing. That said, point by point from Heatedissuepuppet's complaint:

1. I don't think it's that bad a thing to have created the articles on Crisscross or Metropolis, and whatever happened earlier aside, they are relatively neutral and fair now. However, Metropolis' take on all sorts of other issues is promotion and inappropriate. I especially disapprove of edits like the creation of
   WP:COI discourages edits like this: see "Citing yourself." Similarly, the edit to japan
   is not appropriate.
2. I don't blame Sparkzilla for any of these removals, I find those passages suspicious as well. Even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important. But this is part of the evidence that convinces me there's a connection between Sparkzilla and Devlin/Crisscross.
3. I definitely have a problem with this. It is not on point to be promoting Metropolis in other articles by boosting its apparent importance, and given the conflict of interest, it is not appropriate. Again, see "Citing yourself" at
   WP:COI
   .
4. I encourage Sparkzilla to try to address the complaints behind dispute tags like these via communication. However, several of these were justified removals. For instance, he removed the "Unreferenced" tag while adding 5 sources. He removed the "Advertising" tag when the article was definitely neutral in tone. Still, it's good to remind that these dispute tags are sometimes put up as a middle-ground compromise between editors who disagree, and for that reason it's important to be more responsive. As for the notability tag, I really don't think that's in the same category: that's sort of like a pre-deletion tag and doesn't truly call for any kind of change to the article... and when an AfD has already been run and has not resulted in deletion, it is no longer needed. As for the Merge request, I can't help but feel that the whole 4 days vs. 10 days point is pretty irrelevant, and a call for process for process' sake, but it shouldn't be edit warred over.. but then, I think this is a problem for both editors involved here.
5. This happens all the time. I consider this good evidence that Sparkzilla is connected to the topic, but not problematic behavior in itself, I don't see any of the behavior there as disruptive.
6. Apparently it is not part of the dispute whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant. So, I don't fault Sparkzilla for contributing on that topic, but...
7. However, this is problematic. Sparkzilla, as a connected party, should appreciate that his perspective is too close to the events to make good editorial judgements, and back off, and remember that he doesn't
   WP:OWN
   the article on Nick Baker. Sparkzilla has eventually, seemingly, submitted to some outside input, but had been pressing an extensive amount of material from Metropolis / Devlin into the article. Sparkzilla should back off.

Overall, I feel that it's clear there's a strong connection between Sparkzilla and Mark Devlin, Crisscross, and Metropolis, just from the edits, with additional points reinforced by Heatedissuepuppet's further evidence. Sparkzilla, you need to come clean about it: you do not need to acknowledge that you are any specific individual, but acknowledge that you are connected with these topics in real life. If you don't, you should just stop editing that relates to Metropolis or Devlin in any way. Second, Sparkzilla, you also must stop inappropriately promoting Devlin and Metropolis. It's one thing to edit the articles on Metropolis and Crisscross in line with policy (and I do think you've done okay in these areas, but should be communicative), but it's quite another to add external links or favorable wording to unconnected articles, and it's inappropriate to cite yourself in situations where the Metropolis coverage is not clearly noteworthy. It's an issue of

WP:UNDUE weight on the coverage in your own publication. I am particularly concerned about this because Metropolis, despite being prominent in its small niche, is obviously a pretty low-level publication as things go in Japan, AND it's hard for most editors here on the English Wikipedia to understand the Japanese coverage (or even search in it!) which means that many mentions of Metropolis are probably inappropriate, and even more so when they're included by someone with a conflict of interest. If the Metropolis coverage is worth mentioning, let someone else be the one to include it: even then, I would imagine it's likely they're making a mistake by not being able to read the Japanese sources, but at least it won't look like a malicious choice. I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way. Consider this a wake-up call: you have made some valuable contributions but you have also been editing inappropriately and it needs to stop. Mangojuice^talk

19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MangoJuice, I do respect your assesment and your constant level-headedness, but I can't help but think you are far too lenient on Sparkzilla. If you go one page up (

WP:COI), some of the very first sentences which greet you are: "... if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam

)". Can you see any evidence of "great caution" being exercised on Sparkzilla's behalf? I think a more approriate description of his behaviour would be "bulldozer-ish", if you excuse the colourful language.

I do however largely agree with your comments, with the following reservations:

1) See above quote, no evidence of any "great caution" being exercised.

2) I agree that many of those reverts were completely legitimate, and I would have done them myself had I spotted them. But some of them were not... You say "even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important", that might be true too (for the whole Japan Traveller thing), but do you really think Sparkzilla, who has an apparent COI, should call the shots whether it should be included or not? If another editor had removed them, I wouldn't have had a problem with it (Note, I was not the first person to include them).

4) I agree to what you say to some extent, but is removing a Merger-tag an hour after it was initially put there OK? The whole merger-closure thing (which got me blocked indef for "abusing multiple accounts"), personally I'm really tired of talking about it because I think it's far from the worst thing Sparkzilla has done, but the point in question is that there was no way of telling in which way the discussion would have went when only 4 people (one with a CoI, another one saying "perhaps not necessary") had expressed their opinions. I was also waiting for responses from other editors, and I did/do think there was a clear case for merger. Should Sparkzilla, with his apparent COI, be the one who closes it prematurely? Again, if somebody else had done it, my reaction would have been different.

5) See the above quote. Do you think Sparkzilla exercised any caution whatsoever?

6) It was a part of the dispute "whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant", but my mistake, I didn't include these link diff's [82][83][84][85].

Also, I'm not sure if it's just me but I'm uncertain exactly what you meant with this sentence, "I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way", are you telling Sparkzilla to not make any edits whatsoever related to any of these articles, or are you telling him he can make edits to the Metropolis and Crisscross articles, as long as he doesn't make references to CC/Metro/Devlin in other articles? Heatedissuepuppet 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying the last bit: editing on the central articles is okay if done carefully. Editing on other articles in edits that have no connection to CC/Metropolis/Devlin is also okay. It's the edits in other articles I have a bigger problem with. Mangojuice^talk 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mangojuice, I disagree with your conclusions and I hope that another editor will give their view of this problem as well. I do not think Sparkzilla's edits to Metropolis/Crisscross etc have been ok. Heatedissuepuppet 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Guy, it's called "evidence", and your last sentence doesn't even make sense.

And yeah, the evidence is extensive and pretty clear. Devlin's inserting of himself and his company into Omotesando Hills is particularly shameless. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but ignoring "Please limit all statements to 200 words or less. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long, drawn-out speeches" reduces the chances of anyone bothering with the issue. Tearlach 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tearlach, thanks for your concern, but it it will be apparent to anybody reading this report that it indeed is "violating" that statement, even without reading your comments. The apology I made in the first post should also have made it clear that even I was aware of it.Heatedissuepuppet 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, interesting edit made to the Tribe profile I posted above: There is no longer any mention of the name "Mark" in the profile, [86] which I can swear on my grandmother's grave there was before I posted this CoI report. Interesting to note that it was "last updated 05/18/07", and that the name "Mark" is still there in the Google cached version of the page. [87]. Not that I think any amount of covering-up is going to change the outcome of this report, it just strikes me as interesting. Heatedissuepuppet 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the articles and issues in question, would consider pretty well conclusive the evidence that Wiki's Sparkzilla is Crisscross' Sparky (Devlin), and that there has been COI editing happening since 2005. IMO the Wiki assumption of good faith has been repeatedly abused, suggest administrators would be acting in the best interests of the project to take action. RomaC 02:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• David Lyons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

What is the policy when two of the major editors of an article have an undisclosed COI?

It is clear from his long history of edits on the article that David Lyons is an

As an example, please note that the recently edited section "Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events. I have pointed out these out on the article talk page, [88]. Given his undisclosed COI I do not think it is fair for David Lyons to be able to edit the article directly while I can only respond on the talk page.

I would like to propose that either...

1. Even though we both have undeclared COIs, that we are both allowed to participate in this article directly OR
2. David Lyons is also prevented from directly editing the article and that his edits are confined to the article talk page as mine currently are. Changes that are then agreed upon on the talk page can then be added to the article.

Either of these options would restore balance of power to the editing process of the article, and stop the page from once again becoming a promotional tool for Baker's campaign. Thank you for your time. Sparkzilla 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal take: this isn't a conflict of interest. What you are concerned with here is POV-pushing which is different. Put simply, David Lyons may have a certain viewpoint and is editing with that viewpoint, but you haven't mentioned why it should be profiting him to do so or anything like that. That said, POV pushing is bad. Are there any neutral editors at the article? Mangojuice^talk 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no neutral editors. The history shows a balance of power between myself and David Lyons: he generally adds POV material and I correct it. Through this conflict a relatively neutral article has been created -- until now. As a member of Justice for Nick Baker it profits David Lyons by "getting the word out" and presenting Baker's case more sympathetically than it actually is. Baker's story was always suspect at best, and new evidence uncovered by Metropolis shows that the support group had actively misled the public about the facts of the case. COI policy notes this conflict of interest category:

Campaigning

Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest.

and

Accounts of public controversies, if backed by reliable sources, form an integral part of Wikipedia's coverage. Slanting the balance of articles as a form of defence of some figure, group, institution, or product is bad for the encyclopedia.

When David Lyons first brought up the idea of reporting me for COI, I told him that he also had a COI and that he should note this part of the policy...

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

Rather than be accused of COI himself, he let User:heatedissuepuppet, a meatpuppet account, bring a COI against me. See the last paragraph here: [89].

It is clear now that David Lyons is using the COI against me to get the upper hand to push the support group's POV. He should edit with respect to his COI. I look forward to a solution to this situation. Sparkzilla 23:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite his obvious COI, I have been trying to incorporate Sparkzilla's input into the article, and would direct interested editors here. Why Sparkzilla wants to confront the article combatively, talking about "getting the upperhand" is beyond me. For the record I have no connection with Heatedissuepuppet's account and at no point was (S)he ever shown to be a meatpuppet. Thanks David Lyons 07:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it be posssble for some more editors used to dealing with COI issues to add their comments here? Thank you for your assistance. Sparkzilla 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have declared my COI as a published critic on the Nick Baker case. However User:DavidLyons, who is clearly an undeclared member of Baker's support group, is trying to use my postion as an expert on this case as a way to stop me correcting POV edits he has made that insinuate Baker' claims are facts. He is using COI as an excuse to get the upper hand in a content dispute - an abuse of COI policy. It would be very helpful if I could have some assistance to stop this POV pushing and restore balance to the article. Sparkzilla 14:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I'm a neutral editor involved with the Nick Baker article. I have no connection to Metropolis (other than the fact that I read it sometimes) or to Nick Baker's cause. My comments on the matter are included in the RfC on the article's talk page. I believe as of right now the article is more or less balanced, giving both (Baker's and Metropolis) sides of the issue. I don't have any comment on the question as to whether there is a COI problem with either Sparkzilla or Lyons. Cla68 01:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not been involved in editing the Baker article but jump in here to say it is a good thing that Sparkzilla has admitted his COI, unfortunately he continues to edit the article in the same way as before. An individual's original research and personal opinion do not automatically constitute "the other side" of an article. Sometimes editors simply have an axe to grind and that's what I fear is happening here. RomaC 04:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a published critic doesn't necessarily mean and editor has a COI. In theory, Sparkzilla might be POV pushing, but that's something else. Sparkzilla, are you hired by one side or the other, or are you just speaking your mind? Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking my mind FWIW. My direct COI issue (where I cite my own source) has been dealt with through RFC and by the subsequent addition of three other reliable sources that mention my findings [90]. On other parts of the article I have an interest, not a conflict. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Roma: What Sparkzilla did is disclosure, not an admission - a very important distinction in this sort of case. Furthermore, it doesn't appear to be a conflict of interest but rather a declaration of possible bias, which is a very healthy thing for collaboration. Your assertion that he is editing "in the same way" as before is too vague to evaluate. I would say the most important principle to keep in mind is to focus on edits rather than editors. (Note that I have not followed the edit history in any detail. But if there is a case for COI, I believe it needs to be articulated more clearly.) -Pete 02:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to say that this COI report was about User:David Lyons who was using the article as a soapbox for Baker's campaign. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting me straight, your comments make sense. No time to look into this further right now but I'll try to come back later tonight. -Pete 02:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sparkz, are you contesting the block that prevents you from editing that page? If not, are there specific edits by David L. to which you object? Or are there edits you would like to have made, but David L. and others have been uncooperative? I'm having trouble deciphering the nature of your request. To my way of thinking, blocks are a "last resort," and should be as short as reasonably possible; blocking another editor would seem to be a bad approach, if a better one can be found. -Pete 09:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not blocked from editing the article, but I have been told to discuss any proposed edits on the talk page first. I don't see why David Lyons doesn't have the same restriction.-- Sparkzilla talk! 09:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I can't speak to that specific "instruction," but I think that generally that such instructions are intended (and most effective) as temporary measures - to get the arguing parties to engage in discussion. You are all clearly engaged in discussion. I think the appropriate measure would be to ask whoever imposed the restriction upon you (and I can't find it) to lift it, with the understanding that you will exercise judgment, and voluntarily discuss contentious matters before editing. This is what all WP editors are expected to do. I generally think that COI is not relevant to this case, except in the matter of you 30-page document; since you have disclosed your authorship and appear to be proceeding in good faith, I think this should be removed from COI/N, and if further disputes arise, they should be dealt with on their own merits. (This is option #1 of your initial request, yes? I don't have any authority to "approve" it, but I heartily endorse it.)

You and David Lyons and other editors all appear quite capable of rational and civil discourse and dispute resolution; the best thing would be if you can resolve this amongst yourselves. From what I've seen I have faith that you can. Arbitrary restrictions, like a ban on editing without discussion, are unlikely to help you reach that goal. -Pete 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

One final request: If you need to request intervention in the future, please be diligent about stating your case concisely, and providing links to significant pieces of editing history. Wading through extensive arguments is time-consuming and unpleasant, and anything you can do to minimize that task would be appreciated. -Pete 20:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

COIBot saw this link addition today. The overlap in names makes me think that Jhoffman6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Jhoffman6) is Jordan Hoffman (as his site describes: "He is a filmmaker and a licensed New York City tour guide, and blogs about various mundane aspects of his life (oftentimes working in Mr. Spock.)"). He apparently once created a page Jordan Hoffman, which has been deleted(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Jordan_Hoffman).

• jordanhoffman.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Jordan Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Link additions reverted, monitored by COIBot and user notified. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

→ See also: Sid Haig section in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive11

• Sid Haig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spirot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.82.3.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (semi-anonymous user Spirot)

It has come to my attention that the Sid Haig article was written entirely by Sid Haig's publicist [91]. The entire article is unsourced, and likely, much of it cannot be sourced, since it all is pasted in from the biography written by Haig's publicist. Two individuals are actively subverting attempts to prune the article down such that it can be restarted using independent sources. Quatloo 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see the possibility that a single purpose account that is violating

WP:OWN. It seems that all of User:Spirot mainspace edits are to this article, and all the rest of the edits are related to defending Spirot's version of the article. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔

22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What Quatloo doesn't mention is that A.) the article has been released under GFDL and B.) that Spirot worked with admins to get the article to NPOV and has been rated as B-Class. I've seen articles by celebrities trying to pimp out their work; just look at the history for Nick Palumbo. With the possible exception of one or two sentences the article is mostly NPOV. And I don't see why his official site can't be used a source. Wouldn't an official source be more notable than an unofficial one?--CyberGhostface 22:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but I'd like to know if Spirot is Sid Haig's publicist. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she is.--CyberGhostface 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The GFDL issue is not relevant here, CyberGhostface raises that as a red herring. I am not questioning the right to use the text in the article. I just question whether we should be using as a Wikipedia article a biography written by Haig's publicist, which has no independent verification. Quatloo 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I found an interview with Sid Haig that confirms some facts from the article. I'll go look for some others. And as I said before, I don't see why an official source isn't relevant for the article. Is there something about Sid Haig's site that makes the information possibly false in your eyes?--CyberGhostface 22:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And here's another link that verifies information from the article.--CyberGhostface 22:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And another.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not an independent source, and as a primary source should in general not be cited by Wikipedia article. I want to prune the article down, then you can add facts from independent sources. Since you seem to have produced independent sources, this should be possible. Quatloo 22:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the same information presented on the biography is verifiable from external sources, whats the purpose in dismantling and starting from scratch? The article should only be started over if the sources are contradictory with the article or if the article is a copyvio, which it isn't. What I will agree to do is perhaps have someone look over the article and give it a workover to make it more encyclopediac. But there's no reason to remove all the information because any new article would probably be very close to the old one.--CyberGhostface 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it comes with a strong bias by virtue of having been written by Sid Haig's publicist. The article is unencyclopedic, and covers things that should not be in an encyclopedia. It's written from a very rosy point of view and borders on hagiography. Furthermore the people who edited it likely have a business relationship or other confict-of-interest connection to Sid Haig. When I originally came across it I was somewhat disgusted that an article like that had made its way into Wikipedia. Frankly, I don't think it should be salvaged. If there are sources abundant, it should be easy for good editors to create something better rather quickly. Quatloo 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The only lines that sound POV are "After forty years of playing gun-toting tough guys, his hopes of being recognized as a more than competent actor were fading" and "As of the end of 2006, Haig has several projects in various stages of production, and continues to enjoy his renewed success as an actor". None of those are stating an opinion, though, but they do seem a bit unencyclopediac. The rest of the article just basically reads like an biography. Its not like there is any whitewashing or coverups. Saying that "the article is unencyclopedic, and covers things that should not be in an encyclopedia" is bias on your part, and there's nothing that "borders on hagiography". I've just read it five times over and nothing comes off like that. Which points strike you as biased, if I might ask?--CyberGhostface 23:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary break

CyberGhostface, the article has no independent references. Of course we are concerned about it for that reason. Instead of arguing, why don't you start looking for references, and please, don't remove the maintenance tags until the problems with the article are fixed. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 00:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you, or did you not, see the links to the interviews that I added? --CyberGhostface 01:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about everyone just calms down? I already told the Admin who protected the page that I would gladly edit it to be more NPOV. I have now posted not only web sources for the information contained therein, but PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF. If this photographic evidence is not enough for the witch hunt, then I give up. If this continues, any and all licensing will be removed from our site, and a press release sent out assuring the media that the information on this article is not to be trusted, as certain editors have made a target out of this article for some reason. I have absolutely had it with this foolishness, over and over and over again!

Don't you people look at anything but Sid's page when you're here??? Spirot 00:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a 24 or 48 hour block on Special:Contributions/Spirot to give NPOV editors a bit of a breather from dealing with his/her disruptive editing. — Athaenara ✉ 00:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara, these people are NOT making edits, they are DELETING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. When I tried that once, I got pounced on by Admins. Why is it now ok? Has policy changed? How exactly is wiping out an entire article "NPOV editing". I would very much like to know, please. Maybe you can also explain to me how exactly posting source links to an article is disruptive? Thank you.

Spirot 00:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Tar pit Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 01:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

All of you seriously need to calm it down. So I made two edits and forgot to sign in before I did. So what? I am working on making the article NPOV, so I really do NOT see the reason for this continuing harassment and witch-hunting. KINDLY STOP. I don't even want to know what this "tar pit" thing is... *edit - Ah, ok. I see we're pretty much saying the same thing. Calm down, folks. Simple copyediting was all that was ever necessary here. It has been done, and sources galore have been cited, including a photo of the subject himself stating the accuracy of the article's content. I suggest we ALL leave the article alone until an Admin has had a chance to look at all of this. Spirot 01:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Spirot 01:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion of a one or two day block on the subject's publicist is serious. Spirot wasn't able even to leave a {{

I don't recall molesting anything, and I removed it with a reason, which was posted in the edit summary. Why put it there if you clearly have not one, not two, not even three, but TEN sources, including a photograph of the article's subject stating the accuracy of the article? Said photo is also documented on the article's talk page, as you say in your summary I did not do.

Once again, I suggest we ALL leave it alone until an Admin has a chance to see what has been going on here. I will not be removing your tag again, because frankly, right now I feel like every effort I make to have a decent, accurate article is going to be undone by one of you. So if you feel the need to keep this harassment up, have your fun alone. I'm done for the night. Spirot 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Civility is policy here. Uncivil edit summaries such as

" HAD ENOUGH! "

" WHAT?!?!?!? "

" shall i get the hammer and nails and you get the cross? "

" …after all this nonsense… "

" Enjoy your war, people. I'll be relaxing in Switzerland. "

by the subject's publicist don't aid the encyclopedic process. — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources are needed. This means sources that are not connected to Sid Haig. Most importantly, this means sources other than Sid himself or his official website. The fact that you have gotten Sid Haig to pose behind a prop is irrelevant tomfoolery. Quatloo 03:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully support Quatloo. One's own site should not be considered a credible source per seand should NOT be used as the primary source. The latest addition of a mugshot of the article's subject "confirming" the content is so original but ridiculous and pathetic that a) it should go on the jokes board (I'll look into it), b) it proves Spirot is still clueless about WP's policy, and stubborn in that she doesn't want to follow it, and c) on a more personal opinion, she is being harmful to her client's reputation. --maf (talk-cont) 11:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• The subject's publicist had removed a {{
  primarysources}} tag justifying her action by posting "not one, not two, not even three, but TEN sources" regarding her subject [92], attached to a inappropriate pejorative message directed at myself. An anti-spam-bot considered them spammy enough to remove them automatically [93], so I have addressed the sources individually [94]. Bottom line, these ten sources reduce to one single independent primary source (the PhillyBurbs interview) and one brief tertiary source (the AllMovie Guide entry on Sid Haig). It is not certain that an article of the length desired by the publicist can be sustained by one single primary source. Quatloo
  11:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Spirot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in four [ 1 2 3 4 ] edits today deleted most of the article. — Athaenara ✉ 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do is to prune the article down to a stub (as

User:Burntsauce did a couple of weeks ago), and let it grow organically. This is an rather minor actor, he probably does not require more than a couple of paragraphs. Most of the information in it presently can never be properly sourced, and is generally unimportant minutiae. Quatloo

04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Massive tantrum deletions by the subject's publicist aren't the way to go, though. — Athaenara ✉ 04:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolved.

→ See also: Similar issues in BLP/N Archive 17

• Smee
  04:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

• Do you have any evidence to present of Jossi violating NPOV? According to his disclosure, it seems like he's doing the right thing. COI does not wholesale prohibit people from editing articles they are close to. It encourages them to avoid it, or to use extreme caution. It is actually possible for someone to edit neutrally about a subject they are connected to. Unless you have some evidence that his new job is to edit Wikipedia (doubtful, since he pledges to reduce his editing of those articles), what is there to look into or discuss? - Crockspot 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I declared a potential COI, on October last year, (See

Sacred Journeys (book), and after failing to address the concerns I expressed about her edits, this user choses to post a claim of COI, a most unbecoming attitude, as a means to derail the editing process. The user has not read the book in question, has not read any of the sources he/she presented, demonstrating poor scholarship and poor care for accuracy and neutrality. The user continues using editwarring as a way to assert his/her viewpoints in this and may other articles as you can see from that article's history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

05:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI

(my highlight) and not play the innocent party:

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

Please read the comments in which this was discussed.: Talk:Prem_Rawat#Jossi.27s_Conflict_of_Interest.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• A NOTE: - I am actually curious about what the broader community thinks of this troubling potential
  Smee
  05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Curious my foot, Smee. Just a sudden interest? Minutes after being taken to account for editwaring, citing sources that you have not read, poor scholarship, and not before? You are missing the fact, Smee, that your actions always speak louder than your words. We all make mistakes, Smee, but some basic honesty is expected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have been curious about this issue for a long, long time. Your editing of virtually all articles related to Mr.
  Smee
  05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

When you place a user conduct notice, be certain that you will attract scrutinity about yours. That is the way it works, Smee. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• • A simple perusal of Jossi's editing patterns from wannabe kate shows where he concentrates the majority of his edits, and that they are virtually all related to Prem Rawat in one way shape or form...
    Smee
    05:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

That was prior to my potential COI, Smee. I have been editing Wikipedia for three years. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• We have no way of knowing what is exactly prior to what, but the edit patterns speaks for itself.
  Smee
  05:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Smee, I have close to 43,000 edits in en.Wiki, and my article namespace edits to related articles, is but a very small percentage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like other editors and the community to take a look at this, and see what they think. Others have asked you for more clarity on this "disclosure". You apparently refused. I am not going to make that request here, but it certainly is very ambiguous.

Smee

06:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

Sure, Smee. I would also invite the community to look at your editing behavior in the article we are currently editing Sacred Journeys and the timing of you posting this notice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Though that is a distraction and not related to a Conflict of Interest Issue, that would be fine with me.

Smee

06:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I would like to hear comments from other editors on this issue and the Conflict of Interest involved. However, if others really think there is some sort of "timing" thing going on here, I can re-file this issue at a later point in time.

Smee

06:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

• I think if other editors review the Contribs history at the Prem Rawat article, you'll see Jossi is still among one of the common contributors. As an interesting note, it is also interesting to note that two different Web sites on Guru Maharaj Ji, Maharaji's Divinity Claims: Spurious Academic Denials and Wikipedia, and Prem Rawat AKA Maharaji, both point to Wikipedia as examples of bias towards this individual and whitewashing of the past. I find it fascinating that both of these 2 sites took the time to devote to writing about the treatment of this individual's past and the bias towards it on Wikipedia.
  Smee
  06:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

My edits in that article are either minor edits, adding references, making agreed upon edits, and even restoring criticism (diff). I think that you are moving away from a COI notice and into off-wiki polemics with your other comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I would like to hear comments from other editors, admins and the community on this one aside from the user with the

Smee

07:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm with Crockspot on this one, "what is there to look into or discuss?Momento 07:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Donald E. Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sampearson10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There are many uncited assertions and I think there is the possibility that the editor is too closely linked to the subject to be neutral. --Rifleman 82 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a warning and did a bit of cleanup. The article doesn't seem terribly fawning, and the subject is deceased. This could be a distant relative, in which case COI is a possibility, but not an automatic problem, depending on the writer's ability to remain neutral. The assertion of notability is thin. This needs more editors to review, and could be a candidate for AfD. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some cleanup, but a lot more is needed. He seems notable, if the facts can be verified and sources checked. Those are common problems with COI articles. Bearian 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Cut this down to a stub. Bearian 01:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vanderbilt University established the Donald E. Pearson Award in his honor in 1980. I've referenced that. NPOV improvement continues. Sampearson10 has not edited it since the 23rd. — Athaenara ✉ 08:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Special:Linksearch/*.vhupo-tours.com
• 41.243.73.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding external links for the Vhupo Tours Company, with descriptions such as "take a day trip to [location] with an accredited Tour Operator," to various articles. The user had added seven such external links within seven minutes when I saw it, so I'm posting it here for attention. — Athaenara ✉ 10:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I've left a {{uw-spam1}} warning and removed the links added thus far. -SpuriousQ (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This article takes a very promotional tone toward the festival, particularly in the section entitled "Performances at ChickenStock 2007." It completely departs from formal style and looks a lot like a press release. It also links to a myspace page. --Steven J. Anderson 13:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Stock Festival. MER-C 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bryantmuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Promotional and conflicted article. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul W. Bryant Museum. MER-C 10:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a well referenced and neutral encyclopedia article. See no reason why this should be kept open. MER-C 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

• AUParty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The principle contributions of this user seem to be creating American Unicorn Party and re-creating it following deletion per AfD. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Where and how was this resolved? — Athaenara ✉ 12:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

These articles were deleted. Bearian 22:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Plainsartmuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plains Art Museum
Article created and edited by above user. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

→ See also:

• Victoria and Albert Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• vam.ac.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Another one with similarity to the library links, this time a museum. VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Webteam of the Victoria and Albert Museum is adding external links to wikipedia to a website where they are affiliated with.

User has been notified of

I am going ahead and remove the linkadditions by

references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

14:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I came to this little discussion because I noticed and was surprised by a deletion of the link from Don McCullin. From my PoV, the article is mildly enhanced by the presence of the link. I then looked at a couple more of the relevant articles; again, I thought that the articles benefited from the links.

VAwebteam may indeed have a "CoI" here; but it seems to me that it's a compatibility of interest: What draws attention to the V&A also helps WP readers. (You may of course disagree.)

We read above: User has been notified of

WP:SPAM. This too isn't helpful, referring the reader back to COI and also to WP:LINK

. The V&A links don't seem to fall within those classes best avoided.

→ See also:

• Victoria and Albert Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• vam.ac.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

… Another one with similarity to the library links, this time a museum … --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert Museum (2) discussion tangent

GOSH! I hadn't realised putting what I thought would be helpful links would cause such a fantastic debate. When I embarked on looking at Wikipedia pages my intention was to add links to established articles to point visitors to other helpful information. I didn't feel it was right to rewrite articles people had carefully set up, even adding a little further information I felt could upset the balance of the article. The V&A's pages I linked to held pages of information and images that might overload a page in wikipedia if reproduced there but might enhance a reader's knowledge or interest if they visited them. I put the links in 'External links' as I thought it would misleading to put them in as a 'Reference' as I had not written any of the content on the wikipedia page and just thought an 'External link' could be added if a visitor to wikipedia thought it might be useful.

The content on the V&A's site is written by specialist curators who write with an unbiased point of view so I thought it was safe to link to it. Also, the V&A is not a commercial organisation so again thought it was ok to link to it. When I looked through many of the related topics on wikipedia users had already linked to the V&A, eg. Art Deco but I see this link has been removed. I'm wondering if something in the workings of wikipedia has been a little overzealous in removing everything to do with the V&A now we have been highlighted!!

Obviously it looks like I need a bit of hand holding to get used to contributing to wikipedia and would like to take up offers of help. Already, the information provided on this page and mytalk page have been very useful. So, just to clarify... - if I go to a talk page of a related article and ask to add a link it's ok? - if I add content and then put a related link, books in as a reference that's ok? - if I add images and say where I got them from that's ok? I'm not fluent in wikispeak so am deciphering slowly... Hopefully this has not prevented me from contributing to wikipedia as it would be a shame not be able to share the V&A's information and images. Thank you for all your help and interest. VAwebteam 09:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I think what you describe is indeed the way forward. Hope that you can help us enhance the wikipedia (I am sure you can), and if you have questions, remarks etc. don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

VAwebteam ... I think that a better approach than leaving messages on each individual talk page is to collect a list of articles and proposed links on your own sandbox page (I'll show you how to make one) and review them with Some Other Editor ... I'm in a rush at the moment, but now that you've resumed contact, let's close this COI/N discussion, and move further dialog to the VAwebteam talk page ... look for my message there, and we'll star your lessons ... everyone kewl with that? —68.239.79.82 10:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be ok by me. Johnbod 12:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, a few of us have been discussing an idea to create another noticeboard where responsible COI editors could propose content for review. Those who leave cases would be encouraged to help resolve another case where they have no COI. For example VAM could evaluate material proposed by MoMA staff. Would anyone else be interested in this? Talk pages sometimes don't get much traffic, and the user page route doesn't provide a ready source of neutral 3rd parties. A noticeboard would consolidate a lot of activity in one place so it could be monitored. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why not this noticeboard? If invitation postings get to be a problem, the problem will be dealt with at that time. (SEWilco 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

The noticeboard is typically over 100 kilobytes long. Assigning it this task as well could very easily double, triple, or quadruple it or worse. That's why not. — Athaenara ✉ 09:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly acceptable for COI-affected editors to post their proposed articles at Wikipedia:Articles for creation. They should mention their COI in the posting, and then perform the steps that unregistered users would normally follow. EdJohnston 16:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My plan to help them gain wisdom/experience re: POV/COI issues is to use the 40 or so reverted additions as "proposed content for review" … that way we don't have to rely on the dubious and untimely response of Some Other Editor to a proposal on a talk page … I'm collecting them at User:VAwebteam/To do list for anyone who wishes to contribute their tuppence … and I've encapsulated this thread in a collapsible Navbox to help reduce the clutter on the Noticeboard. —72.75.100.232 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

(Removed navbox markup: the length of the noticeboard page remains the same, and page loading time remains the same, while the markup impedes active discussion.) — Athaenara ✉ 23:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thnx for archiving the first part of this thread, Athaenara … my sincere apologies for the Navbox snafu … like a kid with a new toy (knowledge acquired just last week), I played with it until I abused it … Lesson Learned; they may be OK to use for archiving dead threads on Talk pages, but never on Noticeboards or other active threads, because they're counterproductive to one of the very goals I sought to achieve. :-) —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, it was easy to fix. — Athaenara ✉ 07:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

The article is a bit stubbish now but in better condition. The user has not edited since mid-May. — Athaenara ✉ 10:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Special:Linksearch/*.mitpress.mit.edu
• Bookuser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - 184 edits since 8 Aug 2006, almost all adding mitpress.mit.edu

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mitpress.mit.edu - Bookuser.

I first thought this was a SPA spamming mitpress.mit.edu links. Bookuser has recently taken action to clean up some of these links [95], so I thought the problem was resolved. However, I just found that Bookuser used to be MITPress. [96], so I think it's important that other editors look at the situation from a COI angle. --

Just to clarify, I'm concerned that spam links are being addeded to mitpress.mit.edu, that Bookuser has a relationship with MIT Press, and that Bookuser is adding MIT Press books to articles to promote these books. Adding books to References sections without any indication that they've actually been used as references [97] [98] [99] is especially troubling. --

• Ronz
  23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bookuser has done a commendable job of going through all past edits and removing urls. Thanks! --

 Ronz 

20:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-> Thanks. After reading (and thinking) more about Conflict Of Interest, I will try to avoid any further editing that involves COI topics. If I do feel the need to edit something, probably the best route for me is to make a suggestion on the article's talk page rather than editing directly. Bookuser 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• ST10, St10, Stm32, and UPSD. The user also updated STMicroelectronics to point to some, but not all, of these product pages. Finally, each page contains a link to product pages at http://www.st.com/, the STMicroelectronics web site. Is this an appropriate CoI topic, or should I just db-spam each of the pages in question? FeralDruid
  19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a {{uw-coi1}} on this editor's Talk page. I think it's fine to put db-spam on all the pages listed above, except for the main company page at STMicroelectronics. EdJohnston 21:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

STMicroelectronics is one of those articles which duplicates company website content, almost all of which should be cleared out of any encyclopedia article. — Athaenara ✉ 06:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

All of Stmicro's edits have been reverted, including creation of the new pages and the edits to STMicroelectronics linking to the new pages. Only thing I can't figure out is how to undo the reference page from ST6 to Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.  :) --FeralDruid 07:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They've created more, and re-created deleted articles;

^Talk

12:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This editor just created List of STMicroelectronics microcontrollers‎, on which I placed a notability tag. He removed most warnings from his Talk page, but kept a small amount of discussion. It is a concern that he won't respond, or adjust his strategy. EdJohnston 15:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed. I've just reverted your prior comments about

WP:COI back onto his talk page, and added an additional comment questioning his relationship with the company. -FeralDruid

15:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the List as copyvio...it was direct cut and paste. I've also left a note on the creator's talk page, and cautioned that if this behavior continues, a block might follow. AKRadecki 15:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, I hadn't even checked for copyvios. It does seem, more and more, as if Stmicro works for the company. -FeralDruid 16:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A report to show the deleted edits as well:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Stmicro
• st.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

(link is now monitored on COIBot) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The

STR9 page have been created again. The user has updated his talk page to say that he wants to create encyclopedic articles for these microcontrollers, but still hasn't addressed the potential conflict of interest. -FeralDruid

19:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed that this is a single purpose COI account who's only purpose is to abuse Wikipedia as a free advertising media. The user has been warned, yet persists in making COI edits, and has recreated deleted articles. Any admin, please block this user until they agree to abide by Wikipedia's COI guideline (i.e. indef block). Jehochman Talk 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. I deleted his articles originally, so I'll clear up after him again. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 21:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)