Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 16

• Shattereddd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Says on user page, "I Own the website Invasions Chat (a chat website) and love to contribute to wikipedia. Especially the chat articles."
• 68.82.245.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has been spamming invasionschat.com: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
• invasionschat.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
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Shattereddd spammed invasionschat.com here, then after a spam warning, he added Invasions Chat
  instead.
• Ronz 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User removed this report, which was restored. Videmus Omnia 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twice. --

Ronz 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Four minutes apart at 17:45 & 17:49 UTC on 27 June. — Athaenara ✉ 10:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

68.82.245.213 is likely to be a compromised computer. 5 blacklists but dynamic IP so cannot block for long periods. http://spam.invasionschat.com is hosted in Boston, 68.82 is in Chicago. MER-C 07:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shattereddd just recreated

• Special:Linksearch/*.vdoogle.com
• Nickboyett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP accounts

67.182.4.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.182.36.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.182.36.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
12.44.170.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.181.201.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.182.36.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
67.182.0.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Spamming_of_http:.2F.2Fspam.vdoogle.com
→ See also: User_talk:Hu12#Complaints

• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chic Cicero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hogd120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GlassFET (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article

Shortened version requested by Administer Mer-C is listed below--Rondus 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to your rant

Sorry, but you are simply wrong.

1. I am not an agent of Cicero or HOGD, Inc. I met Cicero once. We didn't discuss any of these issues. I don't have his telephone number, email address, or snail mail address. We don't correspond or talk to one another. He most probably doesn't remember my name. I am not a member of his order, and have never joined any Golden Dawn order. Primarily because of people like you.
2. I was not even implementing any particular agenda. Frater FiatLux was reverting to a months-old version of the article, losing all the intermediate edits. This was explained to him repeated as the reason the article was being reverted, by both myself and other editors: here, here, here

In short, Frater FiatLux refused to listen to advice on proper editing etiquette. Because his edits were rude and affected more of the article than he was actually concerned with, they were reverted by myself and other editors while asking him to be more focused with his edits. He chose not to do so, and instead to edit war. This got him indefinitely blocked. He made the mistake of thinking that his concerns were more important than and trumped the concerns of other editors, and simply kept repeating himself, just as you have been.

Your misunderstanding of the situation has led you to jump to conclusions: conclusions which to me seem bizarre and paranoid. But hey, if that's how you want to come off, that's your business. Your current path, however, will get you blocked, probably sooner than later. Try having a conversation with people rather than trying to lecture them on the law. Quite frankly, your organization does not meet our

notability

requirements and will soon be deleted. That's not the fault of your competitors.

Good day. IPSOS (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the reason why “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).” was changed, is it's just so looooooong and convoluted, and no-one is going to enter that into the search bar on wikipedia. Maybe we would just have to have a HOGD disambiguation page if anyone kept the R.A+O page?Merkinsmum 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Rondus: Too long (2 whole A4 pages), didn't read. Please shrink your statement by an order of magnitude. Thanks. MER-C 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is being abused in a fifteen-year old legal dispute between two esoteric orders. One of the parties, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., is presently sending its members en masse to Wikipedia to “edit" and/or delete the other party's article in a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their order to gain an unfair business advantage, misrepresent the results of litigation, misrepresent the current status of the trademark, and to falsely portray HOGD, Inc. as the successor of the historical, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, while depriving the other party of its legal rights (and even its correct name on its article). On January 28, 2005, H.O.G.D., Inc. attempted to repudiate a November 20, 1996 trademark Agreement by filing suit against H.O.G.D./A.O for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. This litigation consisting of 169 documents filed in the public record, may be accessed by any interested party at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?609863100750398-L_835_0-1 through the Pacer system of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. On January 17, 2007, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement read into the public record by U.S. Magistrate-Judge Maria Elena James as FTR 3:44-4:07 of date 1-17-2007. Over a period of several months, user IPSOS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly (nearly 30 times) vandalized the H.O.G.D./A.O. article in an attempt to misrepresent the character of said agreement, the status of the trademarks as well as to deprive the H.O.G.D./A.O. of its legal name on its article. Evidence of the above will be provided upon request. Together with a group of equally POV biased and COI editors (or perhaps even sock puppets), user IPSOS is currently attempting to get the other party's page deleted from Wikipedia. Moreover, every time that an editor attempts to portray a more balanced POV, user IPOS subverts 3RR rules, reverting excessively, even reverting the deletion discussion to suppress relevant information, and subverts 3RR rules by claiming that the opposing editors are "sock puppets." I will provide documentation on all of the above upon request. As of last night, the COI activities of user IPSOS et al. has resulted in the cancelation of one party's page, achieving HOGD, Inc.'s goal of using Wikipedia for unfair business competition.--Rondus 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence please, with regards to on-wiki POV-pushing? MER-C 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a start. There will be more forthcoming over the weekend. Over a period of several months, editor IPSPS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly defaced the H.O.G.D./A.O. article from “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 2007 settled litigation with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.[33]”

to “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed for recordation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[33]” The defacement by Cicero associate IPSOS shows a remarkable familiarity with the above-referenced litigation by the parties. Whilst HOGD, Inc's attorney maintained that the 1996 Agreement was a “right to use” agreement in which each party accorded to the other party a “right to use” its respective mark or marks, Griffin attorney never characterized the 1996 Agreement but maintained that each party acquired a vested property interest in the mark or marks of the other party by virtue of the specific language of the Agreement. The matter was never settled in that the parties settled on January 17, 2007, two weeks before they were scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2007, and the January 17, 2007 Settlement Agreement superseded the November 20, 1996 agreement.

When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by HOGD, Inc. associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS then engaged the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its own name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” The article has now been unfairly deleted, yet that of HOGD, Inc. preserved, thus achieving their goals of using Wikipedia for unfair business advantage. It is therefore requested that either the HOGD/A+O article be restored together with its proper legal name, or that the HOGD, Inc. page as well be deleted for attemtping to manipulate Wikipedia in order to gain unfair business advantage.--Rondus 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop ranting. I've already explained I am not an associate and that I was reverting bad edits to a previous version. I was NOT THE AUTHOR of the previous version I was reverting to. IPSOS (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not big on beauracratic language,

The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn when there had been no consensus reached to do so as can be seen from the edit history. He is not an administrator and can not close an AfD, and I did NOT withdraw my nomination. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is not the place for promotion of one organization over another or for gaining a marketing advantage on search engines. Kephera975 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is getting to be too much. The AfD was closed by an administrator, User:JoshuaZ, here. I think somebody really needs to open a User conduct RfC against you. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I will not stand for any further attacks from you. IPSOS (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not intentional. I've retracted that now. Kephera975 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. MER-C 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555. MER-C 12:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now further evidence of

WP:COI occuring. Established editors have determined to delete The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and enforced the decision in deletion review: [9]. However, without consensus, user:IPSOS has now unlilaterally merged the majority of what was that article into the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and reversed a decision made by editors previous in consideration for the neutrality of Wikipedia made a year ago here: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . It seems clear to me that user:IPSOS is more interested in portraying a partisan view of the contemporary direction of the historical organization ratherthan in reaching a stance of neutrality for Wikipedia and for the main article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As it even says at the top of the article "this article is about the historical organization of the 19th century."Kephera975 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is simply not the correct venue to continue to pursue this. I've already clearly stated that I have no affiliation with any Golden Dawn order. You're beginning to sound like a broken record. IPSOS (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of you accusers has provided a shred of evidence (with respect to on-wiki behaviour) to demonstrate tendentious editing. In fact, it's probably the accusers who are the problem here. Let it rest. MER-C 02:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on non-notable series of publications all belonging to the same corporate family (Parkside Media Ltd). I have CSD'd the following for

• D-Photo Magazine
• Performance Car Magazine
• NZV8 Magazine
• New Zealand Classic Car Magazine
• Tone_Magazine

Another of their publications

jddphd (talk · contribs) 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to apply the banhammer, as it's a spam only account. MER-C 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that comment directed at me? I'm not sure I understand... jddphd (talk · contribs) 11:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, as the account has already been blocked indefinitely. (Note: see

banhammer for what I meant.) MER-C 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

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

This user has been tendentiously inserting links to OhmyNews, a Korean site that allows anyone to publish whatever they like as news. [10] [11] I've suggested that this editor start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to discuss the source. In my opinion, this is not a reliable source and it looks like 123.2.168.215 is authoring articles at OhmyNews, and then trying to cite his or her original research into Wikipedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I'm fairly certain that it's User:Blissyu2 AKA Internodeuser and coincidentally, this IP has edited Blissyu2's userpage and tried to blank the internodeuser arb pages as "user request". It's also an Australian IP which is consistent with Blissyu2. Sarah 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Sarah has blocked 123 as a disruptive sock, so this case can be closed. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and another IP Address have begun a bit of a revert war regarding a source. This user has removed it more than once (without edit summary) after me adding it again, so i have since stopped re-adding it until the issue has been resolved. Any help would be appreciated. --SteelersFan UK06 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict of interest alleged, so I'm calling this one a content dispute. I could not link the IP to the source concerned. MER-C 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing my own nomination. Nothing more to do; article looks good, and author stated "I hope I'm not breaking the rules". There don't appear to be really any peacock problems. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopherelliott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - has come to edit the article Christopher Elliott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). However, I doubt this is the same person, and I'm wondering if in fact we shouldn't just block the username unless he says they're the same person. The Evil Spartan 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also uploaded a huge number of professional-quality images claiming to be the creator/copyright holder. Videmus Omnia 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the violating pictures. Bearian 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're tagged as

possibly unfree". Videmus Omnia 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Voicefarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the photo gallery with the edit summary "this is to remove the biography details causing the tagging to occur." I don't know what this means, exactly, but I do infer some sort of tandem relationship. — Athaenara ✉ 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lish12381 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obvious SPA and COI. User says on her user page that she is the promotions director for the above radio stations, and continues to add promotional material for her stations. Huge

This may rise to the occasion of an indef block. A person who is a promotions director and adding this type of material, after previous blocks, appears to indeed warrant it. I would support an indef block, and, only if the user promises to stop, should she be allowed to continue to edit. The Evil Spartan 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contribution history of this user includes many reverts of the work of editors trying to enforce policy, for instance [12]. Since she seems to know that she's doing, and she's doing it anyway, I think a block would be justified. I thought she had stopped on 13 July, but the reverts continued on 16 July. Is it appropriate to make a posting at

WP:AN/I? Is there some kind of a final warning that should be issued first? EdJohnston 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Per your note to me, I sent her an email laying out the potential consequences if she keeps this up, and promising to call her employer to see if this network abuse is OK with them. An indefinite block leading to community ban would be the only realistic remedy next time. Daniel Case 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the promotional material from the articles be removed (which will most likely result in more reverts) or should we wait till this clears up/the user responds to the email? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro-Gravity_Records (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro-Gravity_Records|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this provides the list of articles with which Lawofone may be in conflict of interest.
• Lawofone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Left licenses on Image:Enigmatic.cover.jpg, Image:Antiform.jpg, Image:200north.jpg, Image:Watchingtheworlddie.gif, Image:Distortedpenguins.jpg, and Image:Billiamrockwell.jpg that indicate a close relationship to the subject of the deleted articles. Also left this message declaring a close connection to Western Maryland bands. He/she recently recreated the deleted article Distorted Penguins. Sancho 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles have been deleted and, according to one of the most recent talk page posts by this editor, maybe this person is getting the point. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Drum Major Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Drum Major Institute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unclear what to do. Seems to be a notable org, but tone of article is promotional. YechielMan 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems notable, but What a mess of an article: Red Link City, USA. COI and messy articles seem to go hand in hand. Bearian 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit violates NPOV, since Drum Major is a thinktank way to the left of the nonpartisan Brookings, which is characterized as "liberal."

THF 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Chelesay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - spa (and sockpuppet/meatpuppet?) for DMI, created 12 June
• THF 11:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 140.239.224.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited Drum Major Institute similarly to the above editors.

I notified the first two editors about possible coi issues, and recieved a reply from the first: [13]. I'm concerned that editor Drum Major Institute has continued editing both articles, including removing a likearesume tag, without contributing to the Talk pages of either. I'm hoping a note from another editor would be helpful. --

 Ronz  20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I was hoping to close this one, but just a few hours ago coi spa Special:Contributions/Drum Major Institute removed the {{cleanup}} tag. — Athaenara ✉ 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave the user a general note about removing the clean-up tag on his/her talk page. Sancho 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still self-editing as a SPA on July 3. --

I heard that the person who is in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation's finances is the very same person who is in charge of the for-profit Wikia, Inc.'s finances. Is that true? --Dude Manchap 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is? I certainly trust them to do a good job if they are, and I'm sure that the board (who is in charge of the person) knows about this considering the owners of Wikia are previous board members. (...and the Board isn't stupid). Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you personally trust them, Cbrown1023, but you may want to look at the IRS form 1023 (no joke -- it's the same form number as the number found in your User name -- coincidence or irony?), especially what's said about Line 5a: A "conflict of interest" arises when a person in a position of authority over an organization, such as a director, officer, or manager, may benefit personally from a decision he or she could make. Note also Appendix A, starting at Page 25, which outlines a sample Conflict of Interest policy that a non-profit organization might adopt. Do you think that, as Appendix A suggests, either Jimmy Wales or Michael E. Davis have ever left the room during a Wikimedia Foundation board meeting, so that the other board members could discuss whether a conflict of interest was present for those two, who just happen to be former business partners and are currently vested in Wikia, which benefits from many, many favorable associations within Wikipedia? Jimmy Wales tried to hire a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member onto Wikia. Wikia has many thousands of outbound links from Wikipedia, which point to pages monetized by Google AdSense ads. I guess, Cbrown1023, the question is not whether the Board "knows about this", but rather, why are they allowing such a gross appearance of conflict of interest to continue unabated? --Dude Manchap 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something wrong, by all means file a complaint with them. Otherwise, please take this discussion elsewhere. This noticeboard isn't for solving legal problems. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not currently a legal problem. Nobody said it was. It is a Conflict of Interest problem. Another administrator has called it a "Good question", so why should it be swept under the rug and be "Resolved" by a non-administrator? --Dude Manchap 14:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Dude. A few clarifications: you posted to ask whether there's a conflict of interest but haven't supplied much information. Normally requests to this board cite specific activity and evidence. And normally there's an onsite edit history to reference. If this person actually has registered and edits in a way that reflects a conflict of interest, this noticeboard might be able to accomplish something. If the conflict of interest relationship doesn't extend to actual editing activity then I have no direct power and only a little influence. Yet as the founder of Category:Eguor admins I'm particularly open to this type of request. Sure, why not investigate a Wikipedia/Wikia COI? Burden of evidence rests squarely on your shoulders. Go for it if it's particularly important to you. Just expect to shoulder most of the work yourself. I'll check it out, see if there's anything I can do about it, and possibly ask for broader input. That's as fair as I can be. Durova^Charge! 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a wiki, so the burden of evidence isn't just on me -- it's on the other users who will hopefully see this thread and have enough "wikisleuthing" in their blood to check it out some more. I appreciate your support of it staying in the open, rather than being hastily "resolved", which really would have reflected poorly on the Foundation. For starters, people may wish to look at these discussions about the Wikia/Wikipedia conflict of interest:

• Joe Szilagyi blog
• Wikia article discussion in Wikipedia
• TechCrunch article by Nik Cubrilovic, including many illuminating comments
• Court case against Michael E. Davis, Treasurer of both Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia, Inc. This one is important, as it shows that Davis has not paid $817,830 that he was judged to owe the plaintiff. We are simultaneously being asked to "trust" that Davis will do a good job with the books at both Wikimedia and Wikia, Inc..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs) 16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
• Wikimedia Form 990 (Line 80) indicates there is a financial "relationship" with Wikia, Inc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs) 16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
• Angela Beesley moved rejected Wikipedia articles to co-opt them for Wikia's benefit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs) 17:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Again, I look forward to whether anyone else will step up and investigate this further. --Dude Manchap 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(stepping over issues of whether this is the right page to talk about the subject)...indeed, board members and accountants both have fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of their organizations. By various laws and governance principles they have to recuse themselves or avoid involvement when there is a conflict. Even a perceived conflict can be corrosive to governance and is sometimes prohibited because people lose faith. Someone who is on the board of Wikimedia or does its finances and also has a financial stake in Wikia should be very careful about taking positions here on things that benefit Wikia by directing traffic there, banning things from Wikipedia so as to distinguish it from a commercial site, making Wikipedia less attractive to constituents than Wikia. Actions that seem to raise a conflict include banning commercial links, advertisements, fair use media, conflict-of-interest editors, etc., from Wikipedia so that people go to Wikia for that.Wikidemo 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Looking over those five links, two of them are specifically legal issues outside my expertise. I have no qualification to evaluate them. Joe Szlilagyi's blog is hardly a reliable source and another on-Wikipedia thread was started by someone who's expended his credibility also. The techcrunch.com article holds water, in my opinion. What exactly are you seeking? If the basic complaint regards financial relationships at that level, then the most I could do would be to ask the WMF board to review this matter, and possibly to ask someone to institute nofollow to outgoing links to Wikia. My sysop tools would be useless to address this. Or is more forthcoming? Durova^Charge! 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wiki -- there's no telling if there is "more forthcoming" or not. Another example might be the Essjay situation. Essjay was nominated by Jimmy Wales to the Arbitration Committee -- the highest level of dispute resolution below the Board itself. Only a month earlier (I may be wrong about the timeline), Wales had also hired Essjay to work for Wikia, Inc. This took place this year, well after the issue of "Conflict of Interest" has been made so noticeable on Wikipedia, thanks in part (ironically) to Wales' discussions of editing by conflicted parties. Was it appropriate for Wales to nominate one of his Wikia employees to a position on the Arbitration Committee? I believe that question was obscured by the whole firestorm over Essjay's fabricated credentials. Yes, I think the Board of Directors should look at this entire matter; but do you realize that it should be while Wales and Davis and Beesley (and any other Wikia parties I may have missed) are not present in the room? The other factor that I think is important here is that this discussion remain open for some time. Already two non-admin users have attempted to hide it from plain view, with the reason being it belongs somewhere else. This seems very weak, being that this is a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, and this is a conflict of interest issue. --Dude Manchap 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does this question have anything to do with the purpose of this page? Corvus cornix 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Philip Stanton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stanton Studio (talk · contribs)
• 83.33.179.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ←
• 83.33.177.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 83.50.145.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article was created by an editor called Stanton Studio, probably in violation of

I have confirmed the conflict of interest. There is an equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Philip Stanton, which was authored by an identical username and an identical IP address, 83.33.etc. He doesn't seem to be notable, with about 150 Google hits for "Philip Stanton" with 1962, his year of birth, to distinguish him from other people with the same name. Because he has written and illustrated many books, he is not obviously nonnotable, so I have not decided to take any action. If you wish to be enterprising, you could try listing his article for deletion on the English and Spanish wikis. YechielMan 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I agree that he's notable, so I won't tag it for deletion. However, I want to keep on the tag as a notice to readers and other editors. Bearian 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a {{uw-coi}} warning. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A

• Project Steve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 66.47.51.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has contributed to Project Steve, a project of the National Center for Science Education. The IP is registered to genie.ncseweb.org, and may in fact be the I.P. of Dr. Eugenie Scott's computer. Daisey cutter 03:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think updating the Steve count constitutes a conflict of interest. —

few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply

]

In fact, I would be grateful if the

Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity or the Discovery Institute would regularly update their counters for me. It is a huge pain in the butt to keep all these counters even sort of current, frankly. I also am highly doubtful if Dr. Scott herself would bother to log in every time the Steve Count changed. I think she has more demands on her time than that, frankly. It is interesting how someone just logs in with a new nic and all of a sudden knows a huge amount about wikilawyering however, isnt it?--Filll 06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Indeed. Full disclosure: I'm a Steve, and I have updated that counter as welll.... --Stephan Schulz 07:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been reminded of COI guidelines, and I'd expect any contributors from that I.P. to continue to take care to follow the guidance. .. dave souza, talk 08:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that such "projects" are publicity stunts of specific organizations, having members or employees of such organizations tending these gardens, even to update counters, is a COI in my opinion, but I am considering other community opinions mentioned here. Would Wikipedia want Kent Hovind or somebody using an IP associated with his organization updating the progress of failed attempts to collect his infamous $250,000 reward/publicity stunt? Daisey cutter 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<undent>I personally would have no problem with Kent Hovind updating a page on people who are attempting to get the $250,000 prize. Why would that be a conflict of interest, especially if

Okay, thnaks for the opinion. I will continue to monitor conversations here on this page. I would have a problem with Kent H. or somebody at his organization using WP to keep articles on publicity stunts current, but we disagree. Daisey cutter 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the

WP:COI policy. It does not bar editors with a conflict of interest from editing, so long as they comply with NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Your reports are a disruptive misuse of the COI/N board. THF 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please, please, please don't post a report on this noticeboard unless there is actually a problem with tendentious editing. Uncontroversial edits that improve and update our articles are not a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TenOfAllTrades, your advice sounds very wise. Daisey cutter 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please check to see if "Happy Couple" and "Daisey cutter" are posting from the same block of addresses? --Wesley R. Elsberry 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That requires checkuser permissions. It's not likely to happen. MER-C 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

498a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User 498a's name is a reference to

spamlinks reverted, spam warning given. -- THF 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Special:Linksearch/*.mobygames.com
• Flipkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Flipkin has established himself [20] as David Berk, a co-founder of the MobyGames website and has added some 900 links to the website, all still there, right up to his most recent edit [21]. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#mobygames.com [22]. There seem to be an associated farm of socks which have got the site up to over 6000 links. Some legit editors defend some of the links and any clean up would be messy. --BozMo talk 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the general problem when 'good' links are spammed. I would strongly advocate a clean up off all links added by this and sock-accounts (per

WP:SPAM; "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."; ). Established editors can then revert the edits where they can justify the links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

For something of that magnitude, I would hope the linked websites would be blacklisted. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's two templates which transclude most of the spam. I've nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9. MER-C 06:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clever. If only he had used his power for good instead of evil . . . Nice catch. Should we disable the links in the template in the meantime or leave them for reviewers at the TfD? --Butseriouslyfolks 06:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to reconsider this decision. Having glanced over the COI page, th only material that seems like it might apply to the links that have been made thus far would be under the following:

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

From this I would say that 1. doesn't apply because the links are not obscure, are relevant to many of the game pages being linked and are not commercial except in the sense that the site in question contains ads within the pages and even merchanting links generated to amazon.com and ebay. I would say that 2. doesn't apply because mobygames is a public project and not a "personal page" in any sense. In fact, all edits by flipkin can be viewed from his own page on the site, and certainly don't cover every aspect or even the majority of content. 3. may or may not apply in some cases, but since the "biographies" of various individuals (game develeopers) is dynamically updated on the Mobygames infrastructure, that means that information is constantly updating and becoming more complete. Like wikipedia, actual biographies, photos and other information must be contributed by users and in many cases, pages linked to will not be "complete" in any sense, similar to many wikipedia pages on various individuals.

Full disclosure: I am also associated with the Mobygames game project and am considered "staff" for the website. (Apologies for if I haven't used the wikipedia formatting codes properly in this comment, I don't use them often enough.) --WildKard 08:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bit you overlooked is: "How to avoid COI edits... avoid... 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);"--BozMo talk 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:External links as well. They clearly state that massive linking of this sort is not allowed on Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I did that, and right on #3 of what to link to is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Are you saying MobyGames doesn't qualify under the 'amount of detail' section, especially credits? --Trixter 06:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a COI notice board. You founded a website and you added hundreds of links to it in Wikipedia. That's a conflict of interest violation. --BozMo talk 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Trixter and Bhirt have also declared themselves as MobyGames founders in the TfD discussion. --BozMo talk 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed the part in

WP:SPAM that says: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. nadav (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at the various discussions around on this one there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that we delete the 3500 or so links added by the hard-core COI spammers, put those gentlemen all on a final warning and leave the broader community to sort out any worth adding back over time. Anyone agree/disagree? Anyone got an obvious bot to hand capable of doing this (given the links are all templated and the list of spammed articles we could put together)? --BozMo talk 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the number of links spammed is closer to 5500. Other than

WP:VG community blindly reverted all of it. I like BozMo's proposal but I don't think it is going to work. (Requestion 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

I think if we do it with an edit summary linked to an explanation page then we would have a good case for warning and sanctioning mindless reverts of links to empty pages. --BozMo talk 11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a nuclear option where persistent spammers have their links automatically banned by a bot? Sounds like a job for AN/I. --

THF 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I completely agree with BozMo. We can then leave it to regular page editors whether to add the links back. Alternatively, if new SPA's continue to spam then the site will have to be added to the blacklist. Has WikiProject Spam been consulted? nadav (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Yep! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#mobygames.com) JoeSmack ^Talk 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming shouldn't be tolerated for even a second. DurinsBane87 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total support for implementation of BozMo's proposal. — Athaenara ✉ 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And nadav's. — Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last three comments sum up my opinion entirely. Do not tolerate Spam. Nuke Spammed links and let CVG community re-add the useful ones. If they spam again blacklist the whole site. - X201 12:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with X201. After much discussion here, the Mobygames site appears to have some value as an ext link, analogous to IMDB for films. However, if we were aware that the owner of IMDB was adding links to its site by the thousand, we would never tolerate it. The links added in spam fashion have to go. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke 'em, but keep the templates. MobyGames has some great content (which means the template is still useful), but note I say some; a large number of entries are even stubbier than Wikipedia's, and yet these users have been adding links to them regardless of quality or relevance. Garrett^Talk 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is the reason for the massive spamming. It offers an umbrella to work under. Likewise, many inexperienced editors think they should add the template to any plausible article simply because it exists. Nuking the links without nuking the template would make little sense. The template is the problem. The spammign would never have occured without it. And there is no downside as valid links can be added where appropriate like every other site. Special treatment led to abuse. The real issue needs to be addressed. 2005 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds entirely reasonable for me. I guess if the template is the problem because other websites/communities are not using a template for their own linking to relevant articles, then we should not have it either. --WildKard 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 comments

I'm going to copy and paste 3 comments from the TfD, because I believe they're important for you to read:

One problem for me is the complete lack of attempt to mention the issue at either of the templates' talkpages, or to change its instructions to regulate usage to only useful Moby entries. The instructions for TfD state: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." --Quiddity 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why not be bold and do it? As for changing instructions, a much wider community worked on

WP:EL so perhaps you could just link to that. But we aren't talking about odd innocent editors. We are talking about the systematic addition of mainly shallow links to thousands of pages by a group of people who aggressively reply to queries with "its all agreed". I don't think there is any chance at all that this gang would be influence by comments on a template, even if you just posted "see WP:EL" probably it would just get deleted. Most communities on WP are a bit better at self regulation on these kind of things. That's how it should be --BozMo talk 06:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The

wp:point is, why didn't you

?

I only noticed this TfD by accident, and am dismayed and disappointed at the zealous/crusading/confrontational attitudes towards other editors (e.g.

WP:COIN#Proposal

.

As

Lendorien stated

: "Hate to say it, but someone has been going around deleting all the mobygames links from every game article, regardless of whether mobygames link has more or useful information about the game. In some cases, the mobygames link has been the ONLY SOURCE for the article.--Lendorien 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)" Is that going to happen again?

And now you are seriously, nay, eagerly, contemplating razing Wikipedia of links to an incredibly useful resource. Slash and burn should only be a last resort solution, where the vast good will outweigh any harm, and that is not even close to the case here (see the thread about featured articles, above. and that's just the featured articles...).

It reminds me of the theory about how police officers should be required to regularly spend a little time working with innocent children or animals, instead of just criminals all the time. You're all displaying a bad attitude, that is not helpful to anyone concerned in the end, and that needs to be made abundantly clear. --Quiddity 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End of copy. Uses of "You" intended in the selective/encompassing sense, not singular.

If you do anything like "nuking" the links to a useful reference, purely to chastise a handful of editors who almost certainly thought they were helping both sites (worldwideweb), you're going to be doing a lot more harm than good, and end up pissing off a lot of bystanders. Please please, take a calm and measured approach, and do not take unilateral action based on the single-minded consensus displayed above. Thank you for reading. --Quiddity 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read these comments and appreciate your good faith opinion on the matter which is at one end of the spectrum of good faith opinions I have seen expressed. I am even happy to believe that the TfD which appeared on every one of 6500 links on CVG pages you were lucky to notice by accident. As for the personal overtones you use in terms of "zealous/crusading/confrontational" I am happy to leave anyone to judge my comments and style in raising the issue with a few COI editors versus the way in which you have approached people who in good faith removed some of these links. What I am missing in the above though is your suggestion on what we should do next (apart from your parody of what you think we are proposing). --BozMo talk 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quiddity, I think your position is persuasive in the TfD discussion but not here. The question there is whether the template should be deleted because it has been used excessively to spam WP. Your position indicates that there are appropriate uses for the template, as the linked site often has value, so it should be retained.

Here, however, the question is how should we respond to a large-scale linkspamming operation conducted by an editor with a COI. These links were added indiscriminately without regard to whether the content at the linked site warranted the links. Nevertheless, even if most of them were warranted, they are still spam posted by a user with a COI problem. Useful spam links are still spam links. "Live with the COI spam because it might be useful" is not a workable position here, as it invites spammers to linkspam WP in the hopes that some users will find their links useful.

In a perfect world, we could assign several paid employees the editorial task of reviewing each of these links for propriety and deleting only the inappropriate links. However, we don't have those kinds of resources. The proper course here is to delete the links added en masse in the same manner as they were added -- indiscriminately. Warn the user but don't blacklist the site yet. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To all: I've replied to BozMo at User talk:Quiddity#Hi with some of the background thoughts and impetus I'm bringing to this issue. Just pointing there to assuage any curiosity, and to further clarify who/what I'm frustrated with.

Here, I'm really trying to make it clear that something is amiss, when the possibility of blacklisting such a site is mentioned, after so little has been done to assist the users at fault from making further mistakes.

• Examine User talk:Flipkin: He was welcomed and then encouraged/assisted with the usage of the template back in September 2005, then out of the blue he was warned 5 days ago.
• User talk:TnS, was warned by Chicken Wing in January 2007, and then when TnS offered a measured and intelligent response Chicken Wing replied "Sounds fine. ...".
• User talk:Krótki was warned for the first time 5 days ago. Welcomed in Jan 2006
• User talk:Corn Popper was warned for the first time 5 days ago. Welcomed in Jan 2005
• User talk:Ravimakkar was stomped on in January 2006, but was then told "You don't have to be sorry. ...".
• User talk:69.139.77.86 was warned twice by Flipkin not to add links unless they were definitely useful.

And that's it from the list of offenders (those who added 50+ links, excluding frecklefoot. and I'm simplifying, but you get the point). Possibly I'm missing some pertinent facts (?), but after many hours of reading and discussing, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling that there is a lot more Bite than Good going on, and I'm trying to (emphatically) point that out in the only way I can.

Thanks again for reading. I really do appreciate the work that Coin and wpspam does, I'm just trying to supply an outside perspective on this particular issue, which seems to be getting potentially way-overblown. --Quiddity 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quiddity. I'd like to remove

WP:SPA and I suspect several of them to be the same person. They mass spam, get warned, blocked, create a new account, and repeat. They are what we call serial spammers. Have you looked at the contribution logs for those accounts? The only thing we could do to assist is to help them add mobygames.com links since that's all that they care about. (Requestion 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

(Corn Popper added, but) Those IPs haven't even gotten a welcome/warning template yet... This is exactly the kind of bad faith/

bite

attitude I'm trying to point out above.

To try and explain it another way: Some people contribute without reading any more than the warnings and suggestions from just below the edit window (if that). Someone might see that a link to imdb is missing from a movie article, adds it, then goes through all their favourite movies to check that each one has it. I did that in the distant past. Others work alphabetically, because it's straightforward, and that's what they think will help. Look at

world view

to encompass what it currently does not.

[Perhaps I should've posted these comments at WPSPAM... Sigh. It's tough giving unsolicited "Working with others" feedback to multiple people. Sorry to those uninvolved, I usually try not to be this verbose. Feedback would be appreciated though...] --Quiddity 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requestion: You just now added 3 templates at once to User talk:63.212.164.226, a user that hasn't edited since January 2007, and to User talk:69.139.77.86 whom hasn't edited since August 2006, and to User talk:59.182.37.97 whom has only made 12 edits. This is very bad faith. You are gaming the warning templates.

And before you accuse me of stalking, bear in mind that researching and analysing the activities of individual users in order to come to an objective set of conclusions is part of what you are meant to be doing too, as part of investigating possible spam/coi problems. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?: "Who will watch the watchers?". Anyone who notices problems, that's who. --Quiddity 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Quiddity. You are absolutely correct and thank you for stalking. The edits of those IP addresses were in extremely bad faith. You might not be aware of this but in SPAM and COI cases it's standard practice that all socks are considered to be the same individual / entity. I also just found User:68.46.123.33 who is an extremely interesting sock. That IP address has been banned, indefinitely blocked, and somehow added 300 mobygames.com external links. The more I dig the more interesting it gets. (Requestion 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The User:68.46.123.33 case is interesting. I'm also curious as to how that happened.

However, that doesn't address why you added 3 levels of warning templates at once, to users like User:TnS. Is that standard practice too? It seems overtly hostile, and is gaming-the-system in my opinion.

Are there any admins who could weigh in please? --Quiddity 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could I guess. WP:BITE and WP:AGF are important but we also allow an appropriate treatment recognition of "obvious socks". The disagreement is because you look at a pattern of use and read it as "clearly" something different to how requestion does. I think that takes us beyond policy into subjective judgement. I would personally say that a single anon IP who you suspect to be a sock and does nothing but add a dozen links to a site with spamming issues you probably on balance get guided by WP:BITE and WP:AGF, and talk to them gently, but by the time you have multiple such accounts all similar the chances there are genuine naive users behind them becomes vanishing small. So, I am with Requestion on this one. You are welcome to ask another Admin of course. --BozMo talk 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant an uninvolved admin... However you didn't address the only question I asked: Is it standard practice to put 3 levels of warning templates at once on pages like User talk:TnS and User talk:59.182.37.97? Does that not seem excessive and rude? I understand jumping straight to a high-level template is normal, but not posting 3 at once. --Quiddity 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem Quiddity? You follow me around and throw wrenches into the Wikipedia machinery like you are trying to make a

WP:POINT about spammer sympathy. User:TnS already had a warning from Chicken Wing and Nposs. I just added a 3rd warning but those previous warnings don't even matter. Like I said, it is standard practice to inherit warnings across accounts. Also many spam fighters start at a spam4 warning in cases of mass spamming which +1600 links definitely qualifies. (Requestion 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

Well, yes I added a lot of MobyGames links alphabetically to stub video game articles. I can't say anything new, just repeat myself: "I do not work for MobyGames and I am not affiliated with them in any ways. If you noticed I have added MobyGames links mostly to game stub pages. Game stub pages are usually quite uninformative without screenshots." If you noticed I've not added a single link to MobyGames since the warning of Nposs. And thus I would like to ask the removal of the "Courtesy messages" section from my talk page because it is quite embarrassing. I did all the additions with good intentions, according to Talk:MobyGames#MobyGames template. I understand that I made a mistake because of adding too many links to low content pages on MobyGames. But that was because of the lack of rules. Someone should update the MobyGames template page and the Talk:MobyGames#MobyGames template section with the guidelines/rules of correct linking to MobyGames. The NeveR SLeePiNG 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TnS. Wow, your response was quick. I have a deal for you. I'll remove the "Courtesy messages" on your talk page if you agree to remove the 1600 mobygames.com external links / templates that you added. Seems fair. What do you think? (Requestion 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not all the 1600 links are bad, most of them contains more value than the Wikipedia article. That's why I need the guidelines/rules so I can make the removal according to them. The NeveR SLeePiNG 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TfD was closed as no consensus. I'll repeat the proposed solution I left there near the end. "The only actual concerning accounts I can determine from the list of suspects are User talk:68.46.123.33 and User talk:69.139.77.86, the edits by those two accounts could legitimately be reverted en masse.". (And any of the edits made after 4 October 2006 by User talk:Ravimakkar too). (The details behind that suggestion are scattered throughout this thread and the TfD, and the contexts are in the individuals talkpages, so I won't repeat it all here.) I don't know much about bots, but I believe mass-reverting the edits of individual editors is a fairly straightforward process? Ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests for more info, I'd imagine. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 IP's and a small fraction of Ravimakkar edits? You've got to be kidding. With all due respect Quiddity, your understanding of this situation is woefully inadequate. Please stop interfering. Please stop being a hindrance. Please stop throwing wrenches into the Wikipedia machinery. And please stop following me around. (Requestion 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please please try to assume good faith. I'll give the single example one more time, and let you examine the evidence yourself.

• User talk:Flipkin. As of September 2006 he had been welcomed, and encouraged in the use of the mobygames template. The first mention of the COI guideline/problem was (the next edit) June 8 2007, the day before the TfD.

If he didn't know he was doing something wrong, we can't punish him for it.

(and just to clarify, I was explaining to BozMo how I stumbled upon the mobygames thread, as a reply to his disbelief. I'm just trying to be honest and transparent, in action and motive. (Don't label me just because I happened to agree with anything the argumentative timeshifter said!)) Thanks. --Quiddity 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear if it was a question of "doing something to Flipkin" I could have just done it (sinister laugh). This COI seeks a consensus on some sort of bot removal of links which were put in by Flipkin, and also by a series of SPA IP accounts. Also it has brought up an issue on WP:EL since Quiddity has a view (I hope I am being fair) that we should link to every page which has any information not in the WP article. Getting clarity on that and guidelines for when to link to MG would be a good outcome. --BozMo talk 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting to the chase

Has the massive and obvious overlinking been reduced or not? — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK nothing has been done yet. I'm finishing up the the

WP:COIN#EServer.org case and then I'll get to the mobygames.com overlinking. (Requestion 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

Lest anybody continue in the belief that mobygames.com is a

reliable source

, let me offer two rebuttals:

(1.) http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,257587/

"He is originally from Quatloo, Alberta, Canada." Oh, I doubt that.

(interjected) I must concur, I do not know this gentleman and have never been to Alberta. Also, I agree that Mobygames.com is not a

WP:RS. Not because it contains errors -- everything contains errors, including reliable sources -- but for other reasons. Quatloo 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

(2.) http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,4916/

One of his projects was "wwwwolf: Armageddon". That's funny, I heard they were very picky about their content.

My conclusion from this experiment is that this site is not as useful or appropriate for linkage as we were led to believe. It's absolutely not reliable. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the content I quoted from mobygames.com is plaintext. I added the links to relevant users here so that other readers would understand the significance of the names. Also, in fairness, I should add that my attempt to add "Quiddity, Oregon" as the birthplace of another developer was rejected pending further information from me, such as a source. So at least somebody there is paying attention. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to wrap this up

I believe that the consensus here is to nuke all the links, and then let non-COI editors re-add them on a case by case basis. Do any of think we should do something else? There's this great thing called Google that people can use if they want to find more information about a subject. There's no real need for all these external links. It looks like a link campaign to me. By the way, not all Wikipedia mirrors use Nofollow, and Wikipedia links still deliver visitors. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Bozmo what to do, and he said he might try to find someone uninvolved to have a look.

I'll repeat my own perspective here, for conciseness:

1. There was a Conflict of Interest behind some of the links, but the people at fault didn't know (they hadn't been notified/warned, and in some cases were intially encouraged to use the template, eg Flipkin).
2. The site is notable, as established by the references added at
   WP:COIN#Cutting to the chase
   .
3. Many of the links that were added by a couple of accounts are not useful (the links don't provide additional or corroborative information to the articles) and so should be removed.
4. Many of the links, including those in 24 featured articles, should remain.
5. There is no current consensus on what to do.

That's the very short version, from my perspective.

The main threads are here, with recent background discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun#mobygames.com and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_9#Template:Moby_developer. I'd be happy to provide/point out the evidence again, for any specific questions regarding this perspective.

I strongly object to a "delete everything and start over" solution, as being more harmful than beneficial. Possibly the folks at

WP:CVG have alternative suggestions/solutions, I'll ask there later tonight (I've got to go now). Thanks. --Quiddity 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not involved. I think nuking is counterproductive. We have plenty of violations of

WP:EL in Wikipedia that we shouldn't be creating false negatives for the sake of a procedural misunderstanding. While it's appropriate to make case-by-case determinations to remove mobygames links, I don't see it as any worse than the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes links we provide. The link-adding was not tendentious and, in the absence of edit-warring to include the links, I don't have a problem with it, though, in the future, the links should be added by uninvolved parties. THF 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

OK. Are all the COI editors properly notified, and are we convinced that they aren't going to do any more link additions? If so, we can close this. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified Flipkin of this consensus, and asked him to abide by

WP:SCOIC. (He hasn't had a chance to respond.) Is there someone else who should get that notice? THF 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see any others listed at the top. We should avoid alphabet soup. A good first read for any business with COI is

Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The other two editors who self-identified as being associated with the site, Trixter and Bhirt, were already notified of COI rules. I'm pleased to see that Trixter has actually continued editing since then (he's been editing since 2004), so we didn't scare off all the volunteers!

I added instructions to the templates in June, eg

Template talk:Moby developer, so it shouldn't be a problem in the future. --Quiddity 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Resolved

If you look at these articles (you might have to look in the history to find the edit before mine):

• Yazoo City, Mississippi#Rail Transportation
• Hammond, Louisiana#Rail Transportation
• McComb, Mississippi#Rail Transportation
• Etc.

you'll find that each one gives the you an accurate scheduling information about different trains and then it links, through a see also tag, it to the article on the railway station of that city, someone will have to go and delete everything because it's written like an advertisement, and I reported it because it a wide range of spamming (too much for me to handle) and it might be corporate policy of the Amtrak company to do this or something. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a

WP:COI/N issue here unless members of that Wikiproject are being paid by Amtrak. Try an AFD on one of the articles if you find the Amtrak station articles inappropriate, but I imagine the consensus is going to be to keep them around. THF 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Gbooks24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KatieSimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.106.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An admitted employee of Simon & Schuster using the above registered usernames and IP is posting numerous S&S author bios using text copied from other websites, including the S&S website. I posted the info to the

I agree, highly inappropriate and violate WP:NOT. — Athaenara ✉ 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, also: I have requested a move of

Kate Brian. This is one of the articles created by User:KateSimon. Bearian 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The two registered accounts have been inactive since 8 and 11 June, but 199.106.94.136 was still actively linkspamming yesterday. — Athaenara ✉ 04:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Financial Access Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Christina Barrineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Financial access (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• '07Student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [Added by Athaenara ✉ at 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Every thing matches, but I can't tell if there's a conflict. The articles were edited by the same user, and Barrineau is a director of Financial Access Initiative. Smoke? Bearian 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First person "article" + username similar to company title = blatant spam + conflict of interest. MER-C 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the second article, seems plausibly notable. MER-C 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nasty mess of SPAs at Omaha Steaks

• Spamhaus
  .
• WP:COI
  on her talk page and invited her to talk about it on the Omaha Steaks talk page, but instead she keeps adding inaccurate info to the article.
• 208.249.105.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This IP has two edits to the Omaha Steaks article, and the IP reverse-resolves to "mailer.omahasteaks.com".
• M161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This account only has a single edit, which was to "sanitize" the Omaha Steaks page
• Dsimon12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Same as above
• 70.171.169.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Same as above. According to an IP geolocation site, this is an Omaha, Nebraska IP address
• 70.187.26.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another possible spa. Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 24.252.62.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another possible spa. Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• spa. Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oops, looking at contribs, seems to be a spa on the other side of the issue. Videmus Omnia 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the case of Os032007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is even stranger. Their older edits support Omaha Steaks, and their later edits seem to support the other side. But the later edits in support of the other side say "Undid revision X by Gkudrna", and as far as I can tell, this user is Gkudrna, as evidenced here. Their most recent contrib where they blanked the talk page here seems to support Omaha Steaks. My thinking is that "Gkudrna" realized that their username could be tied to Omaha Steaks quite easily, so they undid their own edits and changed their username to something random in an effort to hide the association. Os032008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note slightly different number) is an SPA for the other side. Power piglet 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gkudrna=Gary Kudrna, beef producer? Stranger and stranger...Videmus Omnia 05:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Along with Snakesouls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Censorship-is-evil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 24.252.34.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Beth Weiss" account and the 208.249.105.221 IP seem like blatant COI to me. Power piglet 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Weiss is the Corporate Communications Director for Omaha Steaks, see the bottom of this page. Videmus Omnia 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Dsimon12 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly associated as well - the Simon family are the founders of the company and still fill most of the corporate offices. Videmus Omnia 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Dan Simon, referenced here. Videmus Omnia 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I torched the most blatantly promotional text -- after which there isn't much left to the article. Raymond Arritt 15:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned everybody. Next time one of these single purpose accounts makes an improper edit to this article, they should be blocked as a disruptive account. None of these are here to build an encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.171.169.139 (talk · contribs) has challenged by editing again and blanking the COI warning from their talkpage. Videmus Omnia 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are these folks slow learners, unfamiliar with WP policy, or what? They've got to know this doesn't look good on top of their earlier incidents with spam. Raymond Arritt 03:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) One of the IPs, User:70.171.169.139, responded after I recreated the warning. As long as they are talking with us and no obviously trying to stall, we should just revert their edits. No blocks needed just yet. I think these are newbies who need help countering bias introduced by their competitors. We have to explain how a corp can use the article talk pages and COIN to get help when needed. Jehochman ^Talk 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.187.26.152 and 24.252.62.197 are very  Likely, same ISP as 70.171.169.139 and are in nearby Bellevue, Nebraska. MER-C 09:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Beth Weiss (talk · contribs) has resumed the editing today. Videmus Omnia 03:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SportAbility Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Knights of the North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• R. John Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all being contributed to by Angelos2812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) such that I believe said user is Hayes or knows him well. The articles he is adding to are all things Hayes is involved with personally. MSJapan 18:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta Cerebral Palsy Sports Association. MER-C 08:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article

• Tassajara Zen Mountain Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (Stub begun October 2006)

Single-purpose accounts

• Gmcwbc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - October 2006 (2 edits)
• Marathon490 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June 2007 (5 edits)
• 67.86.221.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - July 2007

• (Marathon490 and 67.86.221.27 have edited this article and
  Eli Whitney Students Program
  only)

• 64.252.4.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - July 2007
• 64.252.8.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - July 2007 +

A

67.86.221.27 removed it soon after and began adding material including detailed schedules from proprietary sfzc.org webpages and unreferenced accolades.

I {{

64.252.4.220 ("Having lived at Tassjara [sic] for several years, I can vouch for …") began similar edits yesterday, removing all references other than links to the proprietary webpages. Whatever patience I had for explaining encyclopedic neutrality policies has been exhausted - the users just ignore them. — Athaenara ✉ 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a {{uw-delete1}} warning for 64.252.4.220 (talk · contribs · count) for removal of properly-referenced content with no edit summary and no Talk discussion. From the above list, no logged-in editor has touched the article since the end of June. Since the trouble comes from two different IP accounts, semi-protection might be considered. EdJohnston 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tension now reduced, since a conversation is occurring at Talk:Tassajara Zen Mountain Center, about the use of reliable sources. EdJohnston 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Added userlinks for 64.252.8.47 above.) — Athaenara ✉ 06:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bazuin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could

Can't tell. It's a vandalism only account however, so you can block it indefinitely (if it edits negatively again) and we can close this report. MER-C 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edhegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User created page Edward Hagenkotter which was speedy deleted. User has also created Slasher's Massacre and The Night They Didn't Come Home (both nominated for deletion) listing "Edward Hagenkotter" as the director, producer and co-writer and with links to a Myspace page with the same username (http://www.myspace.com/edhegs). This page links to a Freewebs page showing the owner as "Ed Hagenkotter". Dbromage [Talk] 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted both articles, let's see if he recreates them. MaxSem 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

91.84.189.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Many edits from this account inserting unrelated spam link to article. Links repeatedly re-added on revert. No other edits. Quatloo 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a simple case of spamming. See

Ronz 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Energybase seems to be intimately connected with the organisations BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Energy Finance Directory, which I've prodded as they fail to establish any real notability. He's also very liberal with the external links and pretty keen on:

• UNEP
  - United Nations Environment Program
• CDM - Clean Development Mechanism
• CDM Gold Standard
• Global Environment Facility
• Klaus Töpfer

I've advised of

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Energy Finance Directory prodded, contested, AfD'd. Deiz talk 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eugenie Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- 66.47.51.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) linked to the NCSE, has contributed to Eugenie Scott, an article about the current head of the NCSE. (The contributions were quite a few years ago.) Daisey cutter 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? THF 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a noticeboard. The so, if any, is for the community to discuss. Daisey cutter 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per my note a couple of sections up, please read the instructions at the top of this page before posting. This noticeboard is meant to deal with ongoing problems, not potential years-old conflicts of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this issue doesn't resemble those normally handled here. Still, nothing prevents an editor from rewriting an article that has a promotional tone, or reads like a resume. If you are tempted to rewrite the Eugenie Scott article, you could ask on this noticeboard for volunteers to review your changes. EdJohnston 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI is  Likely for that IP. Same geographical area. MER-C 06:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address is the NCSE office IP address. They've been apprised as of 2007/08/17 of the WP:COI and WP:AUTO policies, and have publicly apologized for any appearance of impropriety, and have implemented an organizational policy upholding Wikipedia policies and integrity. Beyond that, if one looks at the content of the edits made from that IP, one does not find any pattern of egregious POV changes to articles.

The "Daisey cutter" user, on the other hand, has a specific agenda in trying to denigrate NCSE, and is using Wikipedia procedures to try to falsely impugn their actions and, apparently, put articles about NCSE at risk of major change or deletion. A perusal of "Daisey cutter"'s contributions shows that NCSE-related editing comes close to be the only thing on Wikipedia that user has been interested in. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin (2nd nomination)

Resolved

 – Now at AFD

An article violates COI only if it POV-pushes. These are straightforward biographies. If there is OR, address the OR by adding fact tags and deleting if not fixed within a reasonable amount of time. Antoni Dunin is marginal (and can be addressed by an AfD, which I have brought), but the other articles don't seem to be problematic. I don't see the editor claiming ownership of the page, or editing tendentiously, so this isn't really a COI/N issue. THF 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Since I've been involved in the article a lot and may cause other people to think I'm not impartial in this dispute, I'll stay away from the AfD for now although the individual is definitely not notable enough. If it survives, I'll work on implementing your advice, which is what I've been doing before (marking with an OR tag etc). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. And given the

WP:BIO violation, let me know. THF 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Nicholas_Knatchbull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A dispute over whether to use the term 'killed' or murdered' to describe someone who was killed by a personal convicted of murder. Padraig has reverted me twice, leaving no comment except the url of a village pump discussion-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&oldid=127533734#NPOV_-_Murder_vs_killing. I do not accept we have to apply what both users selectively draw from this messy discussion, which does not have a clear conclusion. I'm trying to just stick to the bare of the case. One Night in Hackney is extensively involved, see his and my talk page. He previously accepted my change from killed>murdered in the Thomas McMahon article, I do not understand therefore why the Knappbull article is any different. Deus Ex 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict of interest here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly appropriate given your involved in the dispute. Please wait until a user not involved in this discussion handles it. Deus Ex 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, not "your". Perhaps you'd be so kind to say exactly which part of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest you think I'm breaking? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a fairly normal content dispute, not a conflict of interest (based on the information presented). Take it to RFC instead? SamBC(talk) 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Teammazur, who I think is likely to be a professional public relations agent, has been adding in the last two days numerous articles [23] for career institutes and other training centers of Kaplan Higher Education, and links into the relevant articles for the communities where they are located. Some of these are degree or diploma granting programs and may be notable, some of them are trade schools. Almost none of the articles provide more than directory information. I have been nominating some for deletion via speedy as advertising articles without possible encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as a spam and probable role account. They were generating templated advertisement-style articles about schools with no assertion of notability at an incredible pace. Sandstein 20:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• World Health Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Self-reported by THF 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• See earlier discussion at
  WP:COI/N#Sicko
  , where consensus was reached that POV did not create COI.

Background. The WHO article failed to include the notable point of view that their health-rankings are biased against countries that have free-market mechanisms for delivering health services. I added a link to a

• Comment - this is the wrong forum for you and your edits. You should go to ArbCom or to an RfC:User forum. So, I will not take part in this COI. --David
  Shankbone 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Arbcom has ruled on this precise issue before, involving a Lyndon LaRouche expert who edited articles about his own organization and about Lyndon LaRouche, and I don't see the need to trouble them about application in identical circumstances when an RFC like this one is available. THF 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Really, the issue is the totality of your edits, your behavior, and your agenda on Wikipedia. That is perhaps why you find yourself in arguments every single day, often with 2, 3, 4 or 5 editors at once. So, the COI is pointless - the problem isn't this one edit. The problem is, well, you. Just my two cents. --David

Shankbone 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NPA

please. Comment on edits, not editors. Let's see some diffs of edits on the WHO article that you find objectionable, and tell us why they are objectionable. It's not that hard: I've only made two edits, and they're both linked above, and you felt you needed to canvas for objections, so I'm seeking comment, just like you said you were doing.

I don't believe in the

relevant precedent. THF 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

THF, you are the one who brought this COI, so your cries of wolf make no sense. They are in reference to a talk page question, so you can sit here in your COI and pout. My issue is with your behavior, the totality of your edits, and your constant warring with editors; with your disruptive editing. So as I've said before, I have no desire to participate. And sorry you see calling a spade a spade as a personal attack. But hey, if the shoe fits... Enjoy your COI. --David

Shankbone 00:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

So does anyone here think I have a COI on this particular edit, or can we agree that there is a consensus that my edits are compliant? THF 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you have a coi that you're managing fairly well. However, it appears that a simple discussion on the talk page, as suggested by

Ronz 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Please note that Shankbone also finds it objectionable when I engage in "simple discussion on a talk page": he has made two complaints to an admin just today that I am engaging in simple discussion on a talk page. THF 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a problem for COI/N. However, it's not an excuse for you to do otherwise either. --

Ronz 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't understand. I don't have a COI. I made an edit. An editor makes a frivolous accusation of COI, and refuses to discuss with me, and has ignored previous RFCs. Admins won't intervene to stop the harassment. Where do I go? THF 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have one thing to say on this, and I'm saying it directly and frankly both in line with my

Sam, I apologize for your understandable frustration, but this is far too premature for Arbcom. If you will assist me in an RFC/U, that will help escalate matters so that it might go to Arbcom if David refuses to relent in his harassment. In the alternative, an administrator might enforce the relevant

harassment provision against "undue focus" on an editor just because he is a "controversial expert." THF 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Hey, I didn't bring this COI, I just asked
  Shankbone 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Railpage Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Doctorjbeam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I understand that Wikipedia guidelines protect the real names of users who have not disclosed it in their user name, but I suspect this user Doctorjbeamhas intentionally volunteered disclosure of his real name in Wikipedia by claiming to be the creator of two images that appear on Wikipedia(see “evidence to support claim”).

This allows me to raise this at the COI Noticeboard with regards to his involvement in the Railpage_Australia article. However, I have refrained from mentioning his actual name, just in case it is against guidelines, instead allowing the evidence to be presented in a form for an Administrator to make an assessment to the validity of my claims.

Evidence to support claim
Case 1 Posted by user claiming copyright ownership of the image,Doctorjbeam. Please note the name of the image author. This name seems to be also confirmed by mention of that name beneath a face in the top right hand corner of the first image used as evidence. The date of the creation of the image and its posting on Wikipedia are also the same.21 May.
Case 2 Posted by user claiming copyright ownership of the image, Doctorjbeam. Please note the name of the image author, and the comments the user has made about use of the image.

This same name matches one mentioned within the article [24](see bottom of article site development staff), being mentioned as being on the Railpage/Omni Interactive Pty Ltd team. This is again confirmed by the Railpage copyright page which is hyper linked from the Wikipedia article [25] see middle of copyright page "The visual theme of Railpage and all images associated..........".

This user has long been active in editing and discussion of the article since its conception since the creation of the article. [26],[27]and in my view would have a hard case to blame ignorance to

The user has also been active in making comments in WP:AFD about the Railpage article. [29], [30]

Any opinions about a possible COI?

If in agreement, I think a request for check user is appropriate against the following IP addresses. These IP addresses originate from Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd, the owner of the Railpage forum, and have been active in editing, discussion and voting in the Railpage article.
User:203.28.90.133 [31], edit history in the Railpage article.User:203.28.90.133
User:203.28.90.135 [32], edit history in the Railpage article.User:203.28.90.135
User:203.28.90.139 [33], edit history in the Railpage article. User:203.28.90.139
Tezza1 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article on

WP:AN#Railpage article so it is possible some relevant discussion may occur there. EdJohnston 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Why the Spanish Inquisition, Tezza? Doctorjbeam 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I'm the first to say that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. User:Doctorjbeam has now announced his affiliation with Railpage Australia on his user page as I had hoped earlier. EdJohnston 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said it if I'd seen it sooner. Doctorjbeam, I can't see any COI but the best bit of advice (from

WP:COI) for avoiding it is "Be guided by the advice of other editors." Thin Arthur 06:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Does anyone object to marking this issue as 'Resolved?' If you object, please indicate what further steps we should be taking before closing it. EdJohnston 17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Gay Meadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Non-notable book, and by looking at the book author (Matthew Ashton) and the user name User:Mattsnapper of the submitter it strikes me they may be one and the same. --Blowdart 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pretty clear cut. Hopefully the prod will go through and Mr. Ashton can look forward to the day his book becomes notable and someone else recreates an appropriate article. Deiz talk 09:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sicko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Self-reported by User:THF.

With an uncivil edit summary rv editor with a WP:COI who tries wikilaywering,

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he doesn't like Moore," or "THF has a conflict of interest because he is right-wing," then I ask that COI guidelines be applied consistently and that every editor on the page who likes Moore or is left-wing (such as Raphael1) be barred from editing the page, and the page be turned over to a set of people who have no opinions about Moore whatsoever. A look at the page's edit history (and at edits I have made) show that it's not the editors of the page who don't like Moore who are POV-pushing.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he has written about Moore," then this is a misreading of the COI guideline. So long as I don't edit the mainspace article to include my writing on Moore, I am not violating COI guidelines. Any other interpretation of the COI policy would demand that people with expertise in the subject cannot edit Wikipedia simply because they have published. Perhaps that's the rule Wikipedia wants, but then it should be enforced evenly, and all of the other academics should be kicked off the project also.

If the argument is "THF's former employer was hired in 2004 by a pharmaceutical company all because the pharmaceutical company hoped that, three years later, THF, when he worked for a completely different employer, would make Wikipedia-policy-compliant edits to an article about a movie about health care, all because he performed some legal work on a completely different unrelated subject for the pharmaceutical company," I suggest that that is a self-refuting argument, and that anyone who makes it got it from an attack site that demonstrates their own COI under even application of the policy.

Can I get some guidance here? It's surely not the case that the subject of the article gets to dictate which Wikipedia editors gets to edit the article about his movie by attacking the editors he disagrees with. THF 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (minor tweak 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I see no issue with THF's edit. There do appear to be OR or SYN problems there: if Cuba's ranking was never mentioned in the movie, then trying to explain Moore's point would be an extrapolation, i.e. original research. I haven't looked at THF's other edits, but this one looks fine. ATren 13:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this is a content dispute, not COI. The way to deal with that is to discuss the problem on the article talk page first, and if that fails, visit Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. THF, I encourage you not to edit war. Revert once at most, then call for help. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I followed the strategy you advise before you advised it, even being more cautious than you advise me to me. I raised the issue on the talk page; when there was no objection, I made the edit; I was reverted; I asked for help here on COI/N; I got the help, which confirmed that I was not in the wrong; I reverted once; nevertheless, User:Ripe, who has consistently POV-pushed, reverted again without discussing on the talk page; I raised the issue on the talk page again and brought an RFC and have not edit-warred. Perhaps someone could ask User:Ripe not to edit-war and to discuss on the talk-page? I'd also appreciate any help on the RFC I raised at the talk page. It's hard to come to a consensus when no one will discuss the issue. THF 16:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While not COI, there is a strong probability of POV pushing between yourself and Michael Moore. I advise you to step away from this completely so as not to give your critics more ammunition, and to avoid turning Wikipedia into a battle ground. If your adversaries POV push, we'll take care of them. You're better off not engaging them yourself. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence of POV pushing on this article, but then I haven't looked very har either. Certainly THF is in opposition to Michael Moore, but for him to be POV pushing he would have to be making unverifiable changes to the article, right? I see a lot of people raising a ruckus about THF editing the article, but I've yet to see a single diff that indicates abuse by THF. (disclaimer: this is not to say such evidence doesn't exist - only that I haven't seen it - and I wish the people making the accusations would provide the diffs that triggered them to do so) ATren 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting who is POV pushing, but when edit wars erupt, it's very likely that at least one side is POV pushing. Whoever backs away wins, in my view. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit warring. I've asked for help in editing the page so that the page can be brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and so that I will not edit-war, even though edits that every editor on this page agree are legitimate have been reverted twice without any talk-page discussion by the people who reverted them, even though I initiated talk-page discussion before I made the edit. THF 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, without evidence of noncompliant edits on my part, I strongly ask you to reconsider your advice that I stop editing the article. If you start editing an article about me, can I force you to stop editing the article by creating an off-wiki page attacking you? If we wouldn't allow Michael Moore to POV-push by reverting every edit I make, why should we allow him to effectively bar me from editing his article, so long as I comply with Wikipedia policies in doing so? THF 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you work for an organization who's mission may include influencing public opinion against Michael Moore, I am striking my comment that there's no COI here. THF, please understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground for partisan politics. If you see a problem with Sicko please comment on the talk page and the community will deal with the problem. The quantity and tone of your edits and comments leads me to believe that you are attempting to change the spin of this article. If your arguments are valid, placing them on the talk page may produce the results you seek, without all this drama.

Neither Michael Moore, nor his employees are editing these articles as far as I can tell. If you have evidence to the contradict that, please do share it with us. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you have no way of knowing that. The fact is: anonymous editors could be anyone. I could be Michael Moore. (No, I'm not. :-)) So the fact that THF is known as a conservative critical of Moore should have no bearing on the COI question unless there is specific evidence of abuse. In fact, by virtue of his own disclosures, I tend to trust THF more than an anonymous editor - if he truly wanted to push POV, wouldn't he register here anonymously?

Wikipedia is built on the concept of anonymous editors, which means we must give all editors the benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence otherwise - and by evidence, I mean abusive edits. We should not condemn THF for revealing his biases, we should commend him for his honesty and his willingness to open himself up to this kind of critical examination of his edits here. ATren 21:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and well, but I don't think it's a good idea for the employee of a conservative think tank to edit an article about that think tank's arch-nemesis. I doubt there's anyone they dislike more than Michael Moore.

WP:COI counsels not to edit articles about competitors. If I find somebody from the RNC editing an article about the DNC, that's a problem. Likewise, if an agent of the RNC edits an article about an agent of the DNC, that's also a problem. We're starting to get very close to what's actually going on here. If you want diffs and evidence, that's like pushing snowball down the hill. You don't know how big it will get or how far it will go. The question is, will people back off, or will they challenge the community to stop them? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've seen this argument elsewhere, and I disagree with it on the grounds that the head of the RNC may already be editing anonymously on the DNC article, and we would never know it if their edits were good. We should extend the same courtesy to non-anonymous editors, and perhaps we should even extend more leeway to such users, since they are already subjected to much more stringent oversight by virtue of their self-admitted POV. Wikipedia should not be punishing editors solely for revealing their associations. ATren 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the "appearance" of COI?!?

(unindent) For the record, I appreciate THF's contributions to Wikipedia and respect him for identifying his connections. While this may not be a case of actual COI, I hope that THF will try to avoid controversial editing about subjects where he has taken a strong public position off wiki, in order to avoid the appearance of COI. I also hope that those who disagree with THF won't play the COI card every time he does something they don't like. Play nice. That's my two cents. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, the COI guideline does not extend to the appearance of COI where there is no actual COI under the COI guideline and doing so makes no sense. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia where somebody couldn't make up an attenuated story why I have an "appearance" of COI (just like Moore did about Sicko), and simply by making the accusation, poof, there it is, an "appearance of COI." That's a way to encourage abuse of editors, rather than discourage it, and contrary to the COI policy. I fail to see why my employer is relevant. They don't tell me what to think, and vice versa: I disagree with several of my colleagues, and I'm confident I can find colleagues who disagree with me. If you want people to seek out advice on COI compliance by coming to the COI/N, then you need to have a rule of thumb better than "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission, because granting permission is too hard, so we're just going to never going to grant permission and bar everything under the 'appearance' of a conflict of interest, though no such guideline exists in

WP:COI." Here, I am the editor complying with NPOV, and the editors who I am in a content dispute with (who have their own unacknowledged and undisclosed prejudices as largely anonymous editors) are POV-pushing and making bad-faith accusations: and your proposed solution effectively rewards the bad-faith accusations by calling my legitimate edits "controversial," though the controversy is entirely manufactured. Do you really want to let every political candidate know that the way to POV-push is to publicly attack the editors seeking NPOV edits and accuse them of a conflict of interest? Because that is the strategy Moore is using here. THF 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We shouldn't be naive here. Ted F. is fellow of a public policy research institute, researching the liability of pharmaceutical products and medical malpractice. They certainly have a financial stake in 'Sicko'. --Raphael1 10:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does a non-profit thinktank with independent scholars with independent opinions have a "financial stake" in the #22 documentary? By that definition you have a COI because you have financial stake in Sicko because you pay for health insurance. THF 12:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Independent? You must be kidding. The American Enterprise Institute [34][35] is multi-million dollar funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation [36][37] and the Smith Richardson Foundation [38], who certainly get what they pay for. --Raphael1 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of the Smith Richardson Foundation is until you mentioned them, and neither Foundation has ever told me what to say or think, and the donations you mention are a miniscule percentage of AEI's budget over the time the money was given. These foundations have also given money to universities. Are we going to ban every faculty member and graduate of those universities? What about recipients of Ford Foundation money? Of George Soros money? Moreover, since my employer does not pay me to edit Wikipedia, who gives them money is utterly irrelevant.

I also note the uncivil accusation of academic dishonesty ("get what they pay for"), which has no basis in fact, but I suppose it's too much to ask that

WP:CIVIL be adhered to. THF 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that I look at the Smith Richardson Foundation article, I see that they also fund the liberal Brookings and Urban thinktanks. Raphael1's position, which was extraordinarily attenuated before, is shown to be entirely irrational. THF 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's rather silly to remind me of

WP:CIVIL, but at the same time calling me lift-wing and irrational? Here's what your collegue from the American Enterprise Institute, Patricia M. Danzon, writes about the health care system: [39]--Raphael1 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Patricia Danzon works at the Wharton School, and is not my colleague, though she does fine work. And even if she did work for my employer, I'm not Patricia Danzon. She wouldn't tell me what to think, and vice versa. I've publicly disagreed with a number of my colleagues on a number of issues. It's a thinktank, not a military organization. THF 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael1, there is a distinction between POV and COI. Any editor has POV, some quite strong, and most do not reveal it (as THF has). But having a POV does not automatically disqualify an editor from editing articles related to that POV. There needs to be some evidence that the editor is pushing an article to a POV state before the question of COI arises. The evidence I've seen (very little) against THF does not seem to indicate POV pushing, even if they do reflect his ideology - e.g. questioning whether a claim in the Sicko article is original research is a valid and positive contribution even if it does happen to support his POV. I've asked repeatedly for evidence of unconstructive edits from THF, and I've seen none. All I've seen is allegations that he should not be questioning the article at all because of his self-admitted POV. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he profits financially or otherwise from his activities here, so even if there were POV pushing, the question of COI would not be open-and-shut. And I keep returning to this question: if you didn't know this editor's true identity, would his edits be controversial? I don't think so (not the ones I've seen) so let's remember to attack the edits, not the editor. ATren 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of valid content by THF, which I reverted is enough evidence for his POV pushing. He obviously wants to cencor facts about the poor US health care system.--Raphael1 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But was that indeed valid content? There is a discussion on the talk page in which THF claims that the text in the article was never presented that way in the movie. And he supports his claim with a source (NPR). If it is not in the movie as stated there, then it would seem to be OR. How is it POV pushing when there are reliable sources that contradict the wording that THF reverted? Sanjay Gupta of CNN also had concerns about this claim as stated in the movie. It's not a controversial revert, IMO. Debatable, perhaps; controversial, no. ATren 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPR language: "One thing did bother me with presenting Cuba as a paragon of health care, while showing the 9/11 workers who couldn't get care in this country: Moore didn't point out that, on that famous chart where the U.S. comes out 37th in health care, Cuba comes out 39th." THF 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is simply wrong as you can easily see from this movie still:[40]--Raphael1 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A frame-grab is not "pointing it out," so the NPR commentator is correct, and this is not the place to discuss a content dispute. THF 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR source doesn't support his claim at all. Indeed it doesn't even mention the $7000 vs. $251 comparison. Sanjay Gupta of CNN only presented his IMHO minor issue, that comparing the data of the same year, it would be $6000 vs. $251, which doesn't change the core fact, that >$5000 difference are worth only 2 ranks on the WHO ranking list.--Raphael1 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael1's statement demonstrates exactly why I was correct to call the edit a violation of

WP:SYN. But this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute. It doesn't matter whether the edit is correct (though I think it was): the critical point is that the edit was not inconsistent with good faith. Raphael1's statements on this thread demonstrate that his POV is at least as strong as mine (perhaps even stronger, as his POV has led him to make irrational statements such as the claim that Smith Richardson Foundation funding of an employer creates COI), but has not given any argument for why I have a COI qualitatively different than his COI. That he continues to push this without legitimate reference to the COI guideline is tendentious. THF 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The Smith Richardson Foundation, which is financed by Vick Chemical (today Procter & Gamble), is not only funding the AEI, but your boss Christopher DeMuth is governor of the Smith Richardson Foundation. You like your job, don't you?--Raphael1 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is the COI? THF 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that obvious, when you are on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies like Merck?--Raphael1 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on the payroll of any pharmaceutical companies, and never have been. More inaccuracies. Again, where is the COI? THF 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only case I have been involved in in the last two years is

Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, where I filed a pro bono brief on behalf of a number of economists. THF 13:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I tend to agree with THF's (on-wiki) position here, however strongly I may disagree with his off-wiki one. :) Conflict of interest means one has a financial or other concrete interest in how an article here is presented; for example, an article on a company you own or work for, or a website you operate. It doesn't just mean you have any interest. Let's face it, most of us edit in areas we have an interest in. I don't really care about Russian fauna, so I don't look to edit articles on that topic. And that interest inevitably comes with some type of personal viewpoint. Now, if THF (or anyone) is POV-pushing (and I don't know if he is or not, I'd have to look a lot more closely), that's unacceptable behavior, and must be stopped. On the other hand, if he's taking care to source his additions and not give undue weight to viewpoints which happen to coincide with his own, he's fine. But neither one is a conflict of interest. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to look too hard. Editors are trying to remove THF as a contributor because of their POV. And that's unacceptable behavior. --Tbeatty 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THF has stated he does not contribute information to the article nor prevent information from entering the article. He only removes vandalism. If this is the case, your statement does not make sense. Why would people want to remove an editor who is only removing vandalism? I think attempting to call people liars regarding their claims is a WP:AGF violation. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is trolling, as I never said any such thing, so please remove it yourself.

WP:COOL, 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC))[reply

]

You do add content? For or against the movie? Sorry this was actually suppose to be supportive of you. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that he does works on content issues, but I've not seen any evidence of abuse in those edits. If he were an anonymous editor, this COI thread would not exist and this debate would be happening at RfC where it belongs. IMO, Ted Frank is exactly the kind of editor we want here: an intellectual who has openly admitted his identity/POV, who contributes in good faith, and who understands and follows policy. The fact that such an editor actually has a POV which runs counter to many editors here is a plus in this case, because (as long as he is working productively, which he seems to be doing) he will be able to counter any unsupportable pro-Moore POV in the articles, while his admitted POV keeps others on full alert. This kind of contribution can only improve the encyclopedia, and we should resist the temptation to turn this content dispute into a COI issue. ATren 13:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up

Let's recap. Raphael1, who has demonstrated that he has an extraordinarily strong point of view far stronger than mine and less fettered by facts, has changed his story of a COI accusation three times, and has been wildly inaccurate or illogical each time. This is getting tendentious, and I would like an administrator or other editor to intervene and tell him he is wrong, and to cease misusing COI allegations to POV-push. It's a plain violation of

I've never changed my story, as I've pointed out right from the start, that working for a right-wing think-tank close to the Bush administration[41] and spinning public opinion in behalf of pharmaceutical companies, as you did numerous times on PointofLaw.com (free of charge? I don't think so.) does indeed constitute a

WP:COI, when you edit on Sicko. I can understand, that this must feel pestering to you, but I think it's in the interest of WP to point that out. --Raphael1 11:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You've demonstrated a POV, not a COI. I don't get paid by pharmaceutical companies. Many people honestly believe that the current state of pharmaceutical product liability (which is an entirely separate issue from the issue of socialized medicine) is a mess, and I'm one of them. Even if I did get paid by pharmaceutical companies, so what? Are people with medical training barred from writing on the article if they receive money from Medicare? THF 12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medical training and working for an institute paid by pharma corps to spin cases and win litigation are different issues entirely. You are creating a hyperbolic statement. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a perfect example of sanctionable pestering. Do I really have to repeat myself against inaccurate claims that I address on this very same page? Can someone please intervene? THF 12:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intervene? You are being dramatic. I am explaining what the issue people have is. Everyone gets you have a different opinion on how things look. Other do not see it that way. Do as you please in the end, people who feel you have a COI will revert your changes most likely, and you will continue to make them and drama will continue to stir. I am starting to think it is what people live for here. Of all the articles you are being asked to avoid one and instead we have paragraphs on AN/I and here because of it. There are too many dramatists on this encyclopedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. Wikipedia has a COI guideline, and your personal opinion about an editor who is not in violation of the guideline does not permit you to target the legitimate edits of the editor under the auspices of the COI guideline. See

WP:HARASS. You reoeat a false accusation about me that was explicitly addressed in this thread, and there is no good-faith basis for doing so. So I'm asking admins to intervene. Michael Moore doesn't get to veto who edits his articles any more than I do. THF 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is all getting pretty silly, but it's not THF who's being silly IMO. I share most of Michael Moore's political views, ass far as I know. I believe in socialised healthcare. I think that THF's political views and agenda (what I know of them) are, frankly, disgusting. That doesn't make him disgusting, and I'm far from convinced that he's pushed this agenda in violation of NPOV. In the article in question, Sicko, my review of the recent history looks more like my fellow left-wingers silencing criticism than others trying to give criticism undue weight. I'm frankly surprised that THF has remained as civil as he has in the face of all this. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. SamBC(talk) 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Dice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner 2
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Resistance Manifesto
• Deb4ser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MagicMemory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.54.15.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 208.54.15.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) +
• 72.192.187.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) +
• 72.89.204.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) +

This is a soapbox matter rather a straight COI but COIN is probably the best noticeboard for it. "John Conner" is a pseudonym used by Mark Dice until recently. His internet radio show and writings appear similar to

This is another one that needs to be looked at more carefully not onyl for COI, but notability. He's merely famous for stalking and for being in the news, not being or doing anything per se. I've tagged it, too. Bearian 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

208.54.15.129 is still actively COI-editing the article, adding links for videos the subject has made as (wholly not-RS) references, for example. I have referenced some of his additions, but I wouldn't waste energy on arguing against their deletion, and I'm frankly tempted to stubbify the article. As Will Beback pointed out, there's a soapbox issue here, too. — Athaenara ✉ 08:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72.192.187.241 is the most recent of this ilk. — Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

72.89.204.101 blanked the page three times so far. — Athaenara ✉ 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks to Athaenara's cleanup work, the Mark Dice article is in good shape now. Can we close this COI report? The last major promoter, 72.192.187.241 (talk · contribs), has not edited since 16 August when Athaenara gave him a COI warning. The other IP, 72.89.204.101 (talk · contribs) looks more like a vandal. Except for those two, there have been no COI edits lately. Since the recent bad edits (since 1 August) have not been frequent enough to justify blocking or semi-protection, I don't think there is anything still to do besides keep the article on our watch lists. EdJohnston 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bernard J. Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Terrell Newman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Siebahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article on playwright created by a person claiming to be the webmaster for his promotional website who is also adding promotional information about the playwright to other articles and has started an article about at least one fictional character in playwright's plays.

Here's the COI admission. I've left a warning. Block indefinitely on the next COI or spam edit. Somebody needs to go clean up this big mess. This user has been a prolific spammer. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User maintains webpage:

• bernardjtaylor.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 --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please indef block this abusive editor?

Grab your mop. Every edit from this account is self-serving COI or linkspam, hitting multiple articles. (e.g. [42][43][44]) Wikipedia is being abused for a publicity campaign. The editor has been warned up, but persists, and has been leaving obnoxious messages with any editor who opposes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block for

WP:NPA violations. Follow up with specific evidence of linkspam, etc. if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The most vitriolic personal attack is this one.

Whether or not problems resume, here are the external links that need to be checked. Many look like spam. The editor claims to be the webmaster of this site, so he obviously should not be adding all these links:

1. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
2. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com linked from User:Siebahn - This one is OK
3. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/ linked from Bernard J. Taylor - Also OK
4. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/BOOKINDEX.html linked from Image:Bernard J. Taylor.jpg -OK
5. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Books.html linked from Detective fiction - SPAM
6. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/Heights.html linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
7. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/Heights.html linked from Lesley Garrett - SPAM
8. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/htsbronte.html linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
9. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Htspages/Heights.html linked from
   Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/w
   - No issue
10. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Liberty/Liberty.html linked from List of musicals: A to L - SPAM
11. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Liberty/Liberty.html linked from Battle of the Alamo - SPAM
12. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Muchado/Mado.html linked from Much Ado About Nothing - SPAM
13. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Nosferatu/nosmoore.html linked from Much Ado About Nothing - SPAM
14. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/PridePrejudice/pp.html linked from Pride and Prejudice - SPAM
15. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/PridePrejudice/ppintro.html linked from Pride and Prejudice - SPAM

I hope the editor will agree to stop spamming, clean up the above mess, refrain from further COI edits, and agree not to make further insults. Jehochman ^Talk 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this at a 48-hour block for now. If problems resume the duration will escalate rapidly. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up the linkspam listed above. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 69.218.220.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for blockevation. Agathoclea 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block on the sockmaster extended to one week. Report additional problems here and I'll respond appropriately. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder even about the notability. I don't know about the US venues, but the UK ones - Tonbridge ... Eastbourne ... Rotherham - have a rather small-town flavour, and these productions may even be amdram. And his books track to iUniverse (ie self-published). AFD? Gordonofcartoon 02:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by SP edits, two more likely socks, the latter getting uppity about being expected to provide published sources for biographical data: Gordonofcartoon 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24.93.115.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Artwinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Update: just noticed more advertising at

• JRoss09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Special:Linksearch/*.westgateresorts.com
• Westgate Resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• David A. Siegel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was told this might be the right place to ask. Westgate Resorts looks like a huge advertisement to me. Am I right? It may be a notable company, but I don't think all of those resort links need to be there. --blm07 15:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a public relations campaign to me. Editor JRoss09 has only edited articles about Westgate Resorts, its founder, shareholders, affiliates, and places where he can add links. I'll warn him about COI editing, and see what he has to say. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix the main article for formatting and erasing junk from it. Bearian 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some more cleanup, but it still needs work. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 64.210.199.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stephenb214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John_Travolta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Michael_Eisner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Becky_Quick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• (various other NBC employee BLP's)

IP whois shows this user(s) is at NBC Universal itself. Editing includes (in addition to a "Fxxx Y**" edit) a history of "this xNBC show coming on at date/time" adverts in Travolta, Eisner and NBC employee BLP articles. I'd suggest that an IT administrator that presides over that IP range at NBC be contacted by Wikipedia that Wikipedia should not be used to spam upcoming NBC shows and to post in a manner that I'm sure NBC would not want to be associated with. Piperdown 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another possible NBC SPA-COI account (Stephenb214) to the list. Jehochman ^Talk 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected

Becky Quick for two weeks. The account and IP address don't show any recent activity. If this is an ongoing problem, please post the relevant account or IP. I take this very seriously and I agree: this is the type of situation where it's important to act quickly and with discretion. I don't know whether this is good faith action by a new user, whether it's coming on orders from management or some well-meaning low level employee acting alone, but it's the kind of thing that could really cause negative press backlash for a firm. Durova^Charge! 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Still spamming: [45]. The Evil Spartan 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd expect this coming from a small, non notable business, but NBC?!?! James Luftan ^contribs 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Universal (again)

Brought this up before [46], and it's happening again. NBC Universal IP address editing the BLP's of an NBC employee [47]. Piperdown 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Theatre Under The Stars (Houston) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Veronabritj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (formerly User:Theatre under the stars)

Created by, and extensively edited by, a new editor with exactly the same name. I tagged it for COI2. Bearian 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[WP:PROD|Proposed for deletion]. YechielMan 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits were reverted 3 times or more in a matter of days, and the page was blanked once, by the same user. Does this violate the rule on 3r's? Bearian 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• MFauntroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Michael K. Fauntroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - autobiography
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  ) - uncles's biography

Wrote his own biography and significantly contributed to father's biography, as well as self-promotional editing in other articles. Videmus Omnia 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also removing negative information concerning his uncle. Videmus Omnia 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned the user. If he continues making COI edits, please let us know. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• COI2}} from WEF article. I added maintenance / improvement tags when I restored it. — Athaenara ✉ 06:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Katrina Swett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:UAA. Flamgirlant 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Username-blocked. Videmus Omnia 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 24.62.159.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - suspected mockpuppet, COncord, New Hampshire IP.
• Donatello08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User's only contribs are to the article and its talk page.
• Lyracat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another possible spa.

→ See also: Special:Linksearch/*.collegeprowler.com

• Branding brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Collegeprowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SPA
  .

I have tagged the article for: conflict of interest, reads like an advertisement (peacock language, photos and interests of the principals, etc.), red links, lacking third-party sources, and unverified sources. This is an article for PR firm by a PR firm.

The conflict is that the former employer of three principals and the creating editor have a suspiciously similar name. The creator of the article has most recently only been creating or editing articles about persons or entities that are clients and principals of that PR firm. Also, the editor has made lots of edits, but has not even bothered to make a user page or a user talk page.

I have not suggested to delete it entirely, as it may be notable, or just my error.

Also, there's possible copy-vio of pictures? Bearian 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah!

• Joey Rahimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• United Nations International School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Joey Rahimi = Collegeprowler = College Prowler = Branding brand = Branding Brand = Alumni of United Nations International School [[48]]!

From Joey Rahimi: "Joey Rahimi (born April 20, 1979) is an American entrepreneur and co-founder of College Prowler, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based publishing company of college guidebooks and collegeprowler.com, one of the fastest growing websites in its industry. The company was established in 2002 as a project in an entrepreneurship class at CMU's Tepper School of Business.[1] He attended the United Nations International School and graduated with an International Baccalaureate. Upon being accepted into Washington University in St. Louis, Emory University, New York University, and Carnegie Mellon University, Joey decided to attend Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [2]"

Also, note the Usertalk on Collegeprowler has several copyright violation notices! Bearian 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images have been tagged as no source/license. Videmus Omnia 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The portraits in the article are copyvio from company website here. Videmus Omnia 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• College Prowler. Videmus Omnia 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I unclosed this as there are three more articles that the concerned user has been editing where COI is applicable. MER-C 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edits to Joey Rahimi by Hotsaucetogo (talk · contribs) continue, including removal of COI and maintenance tags. Videmus Omnia 01:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Patriot (AfD closed with Redirect to David Steinman on 24 April 2007).

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ) Now indef blocked as a role account
• David Steinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Freedom Press (U.S.) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

See the above user's user page for self-proclaimed COI. Videmus Omnia 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah. This might be grounds for

deletion, but I'm not sure. YechielMan 10:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. Looks to me that

Freedom Press (U.S.) could be merged into David Steinman. For some reason, articles that small publishers submit about themselves are usually dreadful and don't talk about anything notable. The references should be put into citation templates. In their copious spare time, other editors could search for some reviews of his books to help develop third-party sourcing. If this were done, the 'COI' tag might be removed. EdJohnston 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked on 13 July as a role account, and there is no indication that the editor has noticed, or has tried to create a new account. I sent him some Wikipedia email so he is at least aware of this discussion. EdJohnston 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I replaced the article

Freedom Press (U.S.) with a redirect to David Steinman. The history is still visible under the redirect. EdJohnston 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I'd be happy to add additional references for David Steinman. I have created a new account but I'm not sure how to relate it to my former username, freedompress. I don't fully understand why Freedom Press (U.S.) was removed when there is an article about the publishing company Freedom Press in the U.K. Thank you for your help.NY12345 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Military logistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hubbardaie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BillGosset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm looking for unbiased opinions on recent edits of Military logistics by Hubbardaie. Although sourced, his edits focus on his own Applied Information Economics model, work he has done for the Navy all referenced to his recently published book. In my opinion this borders on self-promotion and assigns undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. Ehrentitle 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I can see excluding my point for an article that short. I could see it as a subsection or a separate article. The military logistics article should be much longer. I compared it to the length of the artillery page and infantry page. I think it should be at least as long as those.Hubbardaie 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Douglas Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Applied Information Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hubbard Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hubbard family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coi Spa Hubbardaie ("aie" presumably for "applied information economics") has created at least four additional articles, listed above. — Athaenara ✉ 04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your name-calling. Perhaps I'm automatically COI for no other reason than my publications but the SPA label is out of line. I've edited lots of articles for a long time with absolutely no reference to me. Stop the labels or I'll just refer to you as Racist Athaenara or Child Molester Athaenara (you can pick).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubbardaie (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2007.

by the way, one of the "Hubbard family" articles is redundant. I'm not sure how that happened. One simply has "family" capitalized in the title and the other does not.Hubbardaie 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears someone just redirected the duplicateHubbardaie 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not a SPA, it should be no trouble to point to say a dozen edits from the last month that are not about "Applied Information Economics", or "Hubbard", or disputes and discussions relating to same. Looking over your contributions log, I have trouble identifying those. Could you please provide such links? Facts are a better defense than name-calling. –Henning Makholm 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of HubbardAIE, he didn't say "dozens". He said "lots", whatever that means. Again, facts first.BillGosset 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I did not say "dozen", Henning Makholm pulled that rule out of thin air. Care is always needed about the facts. In fact, I found in short order three edits I made that had absolutely no reference to me: Anti-globalization, Nobel prize in Economics, and Vulcanization. I believe one would suffice to refute the "single" purpose position. Technically, I would need a dozen if I were accused of being a "sub-duodecad purpose". But, fortunately, I was only accused of being single purpose, so three is more than enough.Hubbardaie 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed he didn't actually create the article reference for his name but he did fill in some bio information after someone else created it. The sources on these other articles are mostly other information, not his book. We used this guy's methods in my firm a few years ago and he would know best. I've also edited some of these articles and added a couple of references. Other than listing himself as a "prominent Hubbard", the sources on the "Hubbard Family" article appear to be independent genealogical resources.BillGosset 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It sure looks like he created the article himself. OR did you mean this or this? –Henning Makholm 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only created the article because someone else made it a link on the AIE article which I did write but linked to nowhere. Feel free to remove it or nominate it for deletion. Seriously, I don't care. I kept it short and factual because I figured someone would protest. You will notice that the hubbard family article uses two independent references.Hubbardaie 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]