Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:40, 10 April 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →[] {{coi-links|Preston Council election 2007}}← Previous edit Revision as of 05:07, 10 April 2007 edit undo70.23.199.239 (talk) →{{userlinks|70.23.199.239}}: Of Projection Artists and Kangaroo CourtsNext edit →
Line 201: Line 201:
:::::Good to know. I simply wanted to address the possibility. ] 07:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC) :::::Good to know. I simply wanted to address the possibility. ] 07:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Durova that this IP hasn't edited since 4 April, and has asked to be notified if problems resume. ] 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC) :::Durova that this IP hasn't edited since 4 April, and has asked to be notified if problems resume. ] 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

==Of Projection Artists and Kangaroo Courts==
“<B>Harassment</B> is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.”

For five months now, I’ve been fighting back against a campaign of organized harassment and personal attacks begun by ], a projection artist who has engaged in countless violations of <I>Antipedia</I> rules, including but not limited to ], ], ], and oh, approximately one million billion other of your phony rules, in which he has been joined by the Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster, Wnjnr, John Broughton, Will Beback, et al. (For Lquilter to charge anyone in the world with “serial incivility” requires mega chutzpah.)

The rules are phony, because they exist only for commissars like yourselves to use to beat up on anti-communists (or anti-racial socialists, if you will) like yours truly, while you flagrantly violate them. Such rules are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, which guaranteed freedom and equality and a raft of other rights to all Soviet citizens, rights which in fact were enjoyed only by Party members. In fact, every time I so much as open my mouth to protest your abuses, you lie again, and invent yet another phony violation on my part. Which, of course, was the point of your stalking, harassment, and censorship, in the first place.

(Speaking of communism, censorship, and thuggery, I see that in the ] hagiography, ] has censored a reference to a communist leader and lawyer, and attacked Yakuman (even after the latter pointed out that he hadn’t inserted the fact), only because Doldrums was convinced that Yakuman had inserted that fact!)

Speaking of which, ], not only are your criticisms of me tendentious, but you brag of having a college degree in anti-white studies! Thus has your tendentiousness been certified. Clearly, you do not suffer from a chutzpah deficiency, either.

I challenge any of you to produce a single example of a “tendentious” edit by me. Here at <I>Antipedia</I>, “tendentious” (ditto for “disruptive”) means someone who tells the truth, and refuses to either lie or censor facts that don’t fit into the anti-white, anti-American, anti-Western political views of the cadres dominating the place, or be intimidated out of posting said facts by said cadres. Meaning you.

This all began with the Nadine Gordimer page. I found that an editor, ], had politically censored the fact, which a previous editor had added to the entry, that Gordimer had been robbed and assaulted by four black men. Before I had said word one to DianaW or Lquilter, both accused me of racism for restoring those facts, and promptly initiated an edit war. How does that make for a “behavior issue” or “disruption” <I>by me</I>? And while both made it clear that nothing I said would ever change their minds, they continued to insist without end (DianaW intermittently, but Lquilter continuously to this day) that I justify my every edit, while refusing ever to justify their own. Lquilter has in recent months trolled at administrators’ talk pages (John Broughton and Will Beback, and God only knows how many others), asking them to, in effect, beat up on me on his behalf. And the administrators have responded affirmatively. And the rest of you have now joined in the mob attack, because ... that is what you do.

Don’t you dare pull that “extremely polite language” crap with me, EdJohnston!

What Yakuman said to Lquilter applies to all of you: “You are on an ideological crusade and refuse to accept that you are not allowed to censor facts you dislike.” In other words, you are tendentious.

Now that other editors have defended me, Lquilter has ignored at least one (]), while making the same accusations against the other, ] (“tendentious,” “gaslighting”), that he made against me, and seeks also to have him blocked and eventually banned. Meanwhile ] has responded by providing muscle on Lquilter's behalf, in blocking me, and making a thinly veiled threat to block, and down the road ban Yakuman, if the latter does not cease and desist from defending me. Thus is Durova also guilty of at least two counts of ]. Ignoring and intimidating anyone who defends me is supposed to maintain the fiction that I am an isolated crank, a wikicensor stratagem you have no doubt used in the past and have already begun employing against teratormis and Yakuman. Someone here has a “behavior issue,” alright – you!

], that renowned expert in early 20th Century American racial history – I know you’d be upset if I forgot you, Andy – has taken the lone crank/sockpuppetmaster cover story to the extreme of suggesting that I am also Yakuman. No, such luck, Andy; that grassy knoll is crawling with snipers!

And regarding “gaslighting,” how is it that I have the powers of a Charles Boyer character (with poor, beleaguered Lquilter played by Ingrid Bergman in drag), whereas it is Lquilter who has been organizing people against me here, seeking to manufacture an alternate reality, damning my defenders as also Charles Boyer-like “gaslighters” and as “tendentious” and organizing people against them, and with someone (I know not who, since I have no access to wikimail and do not have unlimited time to devote to this experiment in sociopathic group dynamics) organizing a group hate on my user talk page in mid-March, which brought together people who had not attacked me in months?

With the unlimited time Lquilter has on his hands, can't he at least be bothered to fabricate different stories against people he seeks to have banned? Well, as the saying goes, criminals are creatures of habit.

I do not go around organizing group hates. How is it that people who engage in such thuggery get their manners complimented, and get to call me “tendentious,” "disruptive," and "uncivil"? Answer: Because it is the thugs who are complimenting each other!

The notion that vindictive administrators engaging in transparently politically motivated stalking, harassment, censorship of my every edit, and intimidation have used “extremely polite language” is ludicrous. In case EdJohnston is referring to someone saying that he “requests” that I refrain from doing such-and-thus, in the English language, one is not obliged to accede to any request. One always has the right of refusal. The problem is people’s dishonest language here. They don’t really mean “request”; they mean, “I am hereby <B>ordering you</B> to cease and desist from x, y, and z.” But if you are issuing orders, then you must say so, instead of playing word games.

You remind me of a newspaper “crime blotter” entry that confused me back in 1995. It reported that a man was wanted for robbery, yet said that he had “requested” that his victim hand over the latter’s money. “But then it wasn’t a mugging!,” says I. But of course, it was. Eventually, I realized that the mugger hadn’t “requested” that his victim hand over his money, anymore than any of you ever “requested” anything of me. The newspaper writer or his editor had simply abused the English language, in order to deceive innocent readers about what had really happened.

I hope I’m not being too subtle for some of the present and future tenured professors reading this.

Another word game: Using a phony “polite” tone to request “discussion,” as Lquilter did, AFTER he had introduced himself to me by calling me a “racist” (as had ]), and making it clear that he was not interested in any “discussion,” save for my unconditional surrender. Since Lquilter and DianaW made it clear from the get-go, that as far as they are concerned, only a subhuman “racist” would include any facts about black people behaving badly towards whites, why is it that the rest of you are not accusing them of “behavioral issues”?

Also regarding “politesse,” Lquilter has repeatedly insisted that I am a man, yet he continuously refers to me as “she.” Is that some deep meta-level of <I>Antipedia</I> etiquette, to which I am not privy?

For the first few months of the stalking/harassment/censorship, I wondered, “What gives?” Then I read other sites that exposed you guys as being continuously guilty of such stalking, etc. You're a gang of persistent felony offenders.

It has been clear to me for several months that you planned on banning me. What remains unclear is how you think that continuously threatening to block and then to ban someone whom you have already been mercilessly stalking and censoring, and had under a de facto block for months will intimidate him. Apparently, you folks never tire of publicly embarrassing yourselves.

Is remaining in the company of totalitarian <I>Antipedians</I> supposed to be so precious to me, that I will engage in self-abnegation at the drop of a threat, and cease inserting essential facts into entries or links to the most important articles written on certain subjects?

“Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming …”

]

Those were transparent lies regarding your censoring and stalking of me, as well as of the notion that I am “spamming” <I>Antipedia</I>, Will Beback.

For instance, regarding the so-called Zebra Murders, I linked to the most important journalism article ever written on the subject (ditto for the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal>Duke Rape Hoax</a> and the ] Hoax). You have no basis in calling it “spam,” Will Beback. All you have is your hatred of non-leftists.

(In recognition of the importance of some of the articles I had posted by the author you presently most love to hate, several other editors have repeatedly undone your censorship and vandalism. Apparently, a small army of “lone cranks” is in the field!)

In fact, EVERY important article I have linked to, by Heather MacDonald, the <I>Sunday Times</I>, <I>Front Page Magazine</I>, Ilana Mercer, et al., has been censored. So much for the specious claim that I only link to articles by one person. But that’s just another of your cover stories.

A censor’s work is never done.

Thus, you insist on maintaining cartoonishly propagandistic articles on subjects close to your heart, and accuse me of “disruptive editing” for attempting to provide those articles with the tiniest semblance of balance. My God, you won’t even permit any note of genocide, if the killers are black, and the victims white!

Besides, the stalking/harassment/censorship began in November; the wikisophistry claims that I was spamming, had a conflict of interest, was a sockpuppetmaster, etc., were a set of very recent, after-the-fact cover stories pathetically conjured up to try and make a virtue of your viciousness.

You have even had the temerity to put down and ruthlessly censor articles from <I>Front Page Magazine</I>, which are vastly superior to those posted here on the same subjects. But then, you also have an ongoing campaign against references to David Horowitz, or anything related to him. How many such campaigns have you so far waged? Too many, to be sure, for fingers and toes.

I’ve never had a problem with the concept of loving or hating particular individuals (though I might take issue with loving or hating this or that individual), but have never – in my adult life, at any rate – understood the concept of loving or hating entire races. I’ve asked this question here before, and I’ll ask it again: Why do you love blacks, and hate whites? More precisely, why do you hate anyone telling the truth about any negative behavior of blacks, and love anyone willing to lie about or censor said truths?

No, no, no. Better put an ice pack on the knee you just jerked into your pc desk. To say that “only a racist would (say the facts in question or complain about them being censored)” is to engage in circular logic. You have to show that the truth itself is racist.

By the by, it was particularly cowardly, albeit in character of you, to start a process against me without notifying me.
] 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


==] {{coi-links|Archimedes Plutonium}}== ==] {{coi-links|Archimedes Plutonium}}==

Revision as of 05:07, 10 April 2007

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

    Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2025-01-02 20:26 (UTC)

    Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

    Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Lennie Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a South African artist, is openly autobiographical. I have run into it accidentally while doing disambiguation and do not have the time right now to check it for notability and verifiability. Sam Blacketer 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

    Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    I {{prod}}ed this article on March 30. One of the so far nearly twenty COI SPAs (see Talk:Lennie Lee#COI SPA edits) removed the prod tag on April 5. — Athænara ✉ 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

    I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used , but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 , I feel I'm in over my head.

    Possible coi because:

    • poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
    • poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
    • bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
    • experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin

    I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid:

    External links to bestpricecomputers:

    External links to experienced-people:

    I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

    You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.
    I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Misplaced Pages article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.
    I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.
    I've edited probably thousands of articles in Misplaced Pages ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to WIKIPEDIA and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.118.211 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    See my comments above. The issue here is COI. --Ronz 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Poweroid seems not to have added his links normally to be avoided to articles in the past month—am I missing something? — Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Just the one that he admits to above. . He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    Posted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.

    In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.

    Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Additionally, he's added links to:

    • poweroid-video-editing.co.uk (18 October 2004)
    • bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006)

    --Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/Business_performance_management on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, but you said yourself that you didn't think you made a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. It turns out you did in August and December of last year. Also, you've linked to a site that has your username in it, something you should have brought up when this COI was started. --Ronz 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

    Update: Poweroid admits to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

    Restatement of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest policy as it applies here.

    "A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products… Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest. Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

    1. These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Misplaced Pages article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." (emphasis added.)

    From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

    Ronz, my username issue has already been discussed. It's already on record as associated with a particular company and their sites. And you/Athaenara subjected it to an RFCN which failed.
    Athaenara, I'm glad you bought up the neutral encyclopedia issue as you'll find that that's exactly what my edits are - including the ones you claim as CoI. Your special concerns of organization conflicts of interest and editors paid to edit Wikipeidia are irrelevant unless you are making an allegation that I've been paid to edit Wiki articles.
    Please provide examples of the selective citing and mis-characterisation of other editors' attempts you accuse me of as I don't believe there have been any at all.
    Re my user name: You will note that I do not have to change it. I was not compelled to change it. I was not requested to do it. I was not even asked to consider it. My name is 100% OK. I did however volunteer to change my name. So I'll do it when I want. That I haven't had the time to do it within the last week is nobody's business and, with the greatest of respect, isn't yours either. That I haven't put on top most priority something I volunteered to do is, you argue, grounds to dismiss presumption of my good faith? What was that about misrepresentation and mischaracterisation again?
    Is this really about a CoI anymore? Poweroid 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    Just because the RfCN failed, doesnt mean that we should ignore other evidence relevant to your COI here when it concerns your name. --Ronz 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    I have looked over this page and the talk page of User:Poweroid and some of his contributions.By his own admission, he has worked for the company (www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk and related sites) which holds the trademark on Poweroid (his current user name), so it seems clear there is a conflict of interest on his adding links to at least those company websites.
    The debate about his username, and whether a list of his clients should be provided and how, do not take away from the fact that this editor has added links to (see above) and images from company websites with which he has a professional relationship in clear violation of WP:COI. This is not passing judgment on the links and images in question either, but it is a conflict of interest for Poweroid to add them to Misplaced Pages.
    If he feels these are valid links and images he should suggest them for inclusion on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question for other, more neutral editors to decide. He is also, I believe, obligated to remove such edits he has made in the past until they can be decided on by other editors. The problem may be larger than this (the client list issue) but that in no way should obscure the fact that there is already a substantial COI problem here. This is no single purpose account for purposes of linkspam. However, he seems to be doing little to resolve and much to obscure and perhaps obstruct the solution of his COI problem. Hope this helps and apologize if I got the gender wrong, Ruhrfisch 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Update: As of today, searches for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk returns 17 matches. This is after both Tearlach and myself have removed many others. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 60 articles, mostly around December 2006. Additionally, I've requested Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to techbooksforfree.com and dogtraininghq.com. --Ronz 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Three of those left (one to an image, two on talk pages)—I removed fourteen of them. — Athænara ✉ 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I found a US Government PD image and put it in the Voice over IP article as it was clearer in thumbnail than the COI image here (which is now orphaned), so we are down to only two COI links on talk pages for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk. Ruhrfisch 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Awesome, better quality and public domain. That obsoletes the COI image, now listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 2. — Æ. ✉ 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    Update: I think all the questionable links have been removed from articles at this point. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 80 articles, mostly around December 2006. I've also asked Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to pregnancyetc.com and bringingupbaby.com. I'm estimating that between November'06 and January'07 Poweroid added over 50 links to 50 different articles, all links where there's a clear coi, and most in violation of WP:ATT as well. --Ronz 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    Essay: I recommend the excellent Misplaced Pages:Search engine optimization essay to all editors and particularly to users with conflict of interest issues who are tempted, like the subject of this report, to linkspam the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ah, this is still going on and hasn't resulted in a ban/closure?
    I notice that Athaenara makes no comments on the issue of his misrepresentation of the username issue to suggest lack of good faith on my part. He could have at least apologised for maligning me. :(
    When digging out who made what links in 2004 please at least be diligent enough to check what the policy was at that time and whether I violated it. In fact, from what I can see there wasn't even a CoI page at that time, just a vanity page.
    I maintain there is a lot of FUD, embarrasment at "losing" the RfCN, and a campaign to smear me here. I've no doubt now who is going to pour over exact versions of the CoI page on every day I made an edit. Like other pages in a wiki, the CoI page changes over time. Unlike some here I have better things to do than to keep track of every minutae in the small print and how it changes on a daily basis. Ignorantia juris non excusat? Get a life, guys, this is a Wiki, not the Supreme Court but who would think it from the way some of you make a full time profession of mastering the small print rules? I did not come here to spam, I made hundreds/thousands of useful contributions, I added links where I thought they would be useful to readers, and, bar the odd exception, most of my edits didn't even involve adding links. I've made numerous efforts to cooperate but that doesn't seem to be (refactored personal attack) enough.
    Does it usually take so long for discussions on CoI claims? Or just ones that aren't clearcut? Poweroid 18:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    For neutral point of view editors: please see also "Refusal to cooperate" section of this noticeboard's talk page. — Athænara ✉ 01:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

    See also a discussion of Poweroid at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Poweroid, including a list of 19 IP addresses that are also believed to be him. Fortunately I didn't notice any uses of IP addresses after January 07. Has anyone carefully determined the date of the last spam link he added, or if he has stopped? This editor's frankness should be commended, but others who have been notified of similar problems have voluntarily gone back and removed the inappropriate links, while this editor still seems to believe they are appropriate. EdJohnston 15:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    It looks like he stopped. The last spam edit he made was the one that started this report, his edit on March 6, , where he twice added an experienced-people.co.uk link as a reference. He did not indicate he added any links in his edit summary, and made two successive edits afterward to the same article - a pattern that he usually uses when adding external links.
    Note that he's never responded to the concern that the links he's added as references do not meet WP:SOURCE.
    Finally, because he's never provided a list of the 30-50 websited that he's said he's done work for, we have no way of knowing for sure that there aren't more than have been found so far, nor when they were last added. --Ronz 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

    This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:

    His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix. Stix is an "internet columnist" who has occasionally mentioned Wikipeia in his blogs. Except for that first edit he hasn't identified himself as Stix even while fighting over links to his : websites. Despite using variable IPs he has attacked another anon with a variable IP as the "Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster". He's promoted himself, including a long entry to a list of "notable journalists". He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted. For the time being I've asked him to stop adding content about or by himself. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

    The serial incivility extends to multiple other interactions; see Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 and the user's talk pages for numerous examples. --lquilter 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement. He also claims:

    a.) His accusers misrepresent Misplaced Pages rules to criticize or redact his edits.
    b.) His accusers misrepresent print publications as "blogs."
    c.) His accusers stalk and censor him and anyone who supports him.

    2.) His connections come from Verizon, so he may have dialup or another setup without static IP addresses.

    3.) His accusers claim he is "self promoting," that he is apparently Nicholas Stix, a veteran freelance writer. They haven't demonstrated that his material, at least some of it, is improper.

    4.) FYI, I have no ties to Stix, nor do I endorse his writing, but some of the accusations laid against him may not mesh with reality. I encourage anyone who wishes to examine this situation to look carefully. Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    At what are we to look carefully? The editor has identified himself as this person. His edits are chiefly promoting links to his self-published materials and websites. It's a COI to link to one's own website, and this editor has done so dozens of times. Furthermore he's engaged in scores of reversions adding the links back. Failing to acknowledge the relationship between subject and writer is not a good faith action.
    Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming links across Misplaced Pages is not a useful or acceptable activity. All I've asked is that this editor stop adding content about or by himself. Is that unreasonable? I'd also ask that he be more collegial and less confrontational. Civility is a core policy of Misplaced Pages. -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

    Comment: Readers of this board who want to study this case, and may not want to read all the diffs above, might content themselves with a quick scan of User_talk:70.23.199.239 to get the flavor of this editor's communications. This is really, really Nicholas Stix and there's no sock-puppeting issue, this is just his attitude to the world, at least to the other editors on Misplaced Pages. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at . Unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:DE. The actions already taken by administrators were not excessive. This COI noticeboard is most effective when there is still a chance to persuade people and to remove misunderstandings. That does not appear to be the case here. The question of whether some of Stix's own articles deserve to be linked in Misplaced Pages is dwarfed by the behavior issues. Stix should by now be concerned about the number of administrators who have independently posted to his User talk with extremely polite language. Does anyone have another idea for how to resolve this? EdJohnston 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

    More than conflict of interest is involved—this is an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor. How about Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct? — Athænara ✉ 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    I had been trying to figure out the next steps both with respect to this editor's edits on the Nadine Gordimer article and the editor himself, but I was derailed for the last several weeks by personal stuff. I don't know the process but would be happy to start it or support it. --lquilter 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I left a Talk message for User:Will Beback, the nominator of this COI, but haven't heard back. EdJohnston 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    So for the lag; I've been travelling. I've only been concerned with the COI matter because it appears fairly cut-and-dry. However the disruptiveness, tendentiousness, and lack of civility are more serious issues. I'd support efforts to get this editor to respect collegiality. -Will Beback · † · 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Again, I am not him, do not know him and do not speak for him. I guess I'm at a loss. I still believe that this is a bit of a misunderstanding. While I think he may not have said the right thing at times, I believe he is an established writer and not the utter nuisance he is made out to be. His edits on Gordimer are valid and I have spoken up for them and some other contributions, although not all. Much of this does seem to have a political bent. To be honest, I've seen some admins (not Will) behave worse. Also, it seems every edit of his, good or bad, is quickly reverted, regardless of article. That really isn't fair. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    I quite disagree with Yakuman's characterization, but editors can review the relevant pages for themselves: particularly Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2; see also Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 3; User talk:70.23.199.239; and User talk:70.23.177.216. --lquilter 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    I see a clear pattern there, despite the claims of not being him. 151.151.73.169 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Durova issued a 48-hour block of 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 4 April for personal attacks. Scan his contribution history to appreciate the nasty edit summaries. In this edit Stix re-inserted a link to his own blog into an article, and declared himself to be reverting vandalism by Will Beback! Provocation just to get a reaction, or is that the definition of WP:POINT?
    It seems that the the incivility, if it continues, might justify a series of escalating blocks, without having to do deep analysis of the COI issue. The repeated re-insertion of links, after they are removed by regular editors, often leads to a quick verdict of spam, which is simpler to reason about than COI. EdJohnston 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have noticed that the less 70.23.* posts, the more Yakuman posts. It is possible that the two are totally unrelated, but Yakuman seems singular in his unswerving support for 70.23.*, and has championed his cause, and taken up his quest to spread the word of Stix, like no others have. Yakuman seems slightly more civil, but I'm not convinced they are not indeed the same editor. Andyparkerson 06:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    EJ makes a good point. Incivility is simpler to deal with than COI and doesn't require delving into identity. On AP's matter, I doubt for several reasons that Yakuman is the same editor. -Will Beback · † · 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Good to know. I simply wanted to address the possibility. Andyparkerson 07:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Durova points out that this IP hasn't edited since 4 April, and has asked to be notified if problems resume. EdJohnston 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    Of Projection Artists and Kangaroo Courts

    “Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely.”

    For five months now, I’ve been fighting back against a campaign of organized harassment and personal attacks begun by User:Lquilter, a projection artist who has engaged in countless violations of Antipedia rules, including but not limited to WP:Stalking, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and oh, approximately one million billion other of your phony rules, in which he has been joined by the Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster, Wnjnr, John Broughton, Will Beback, et al. (For Lquilter to charge anyone in the world with “serial incivility” requires mega chutzpah.)

    The rules are phony, because they exist only for commissars like yourselves to use to beat up on anti-communists (or anti-racial socialists, if you will) like yours truly, while you flagrantly violate them. Such rules are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, which guaranteed freedom and equality and a raft of other rights to all Soviet citizens, rights which in fact were enjoyed only by Party members. In fact, every time I so much as open my mouth to protest your abuses, you lie again, and invent yet another phony violation on my part. Which, of course, was the point of your stalking, harassment, and censorship, in the first place.

    (Speaking of communism, censorship, and thuggery, I see that in the Nadine Gordimer hagiography, User:Doldrums has censored a reference to a communist leader and lawyer, and attacked Yakuman (even after the latter pointed out that he hadn’t inserted the fact), only because Doldrums was convinced that Yakuman had inserted that fact!)

    Speaking of which, User:Athaenara, not only are your criticisms of me tendentious, but you brag of having a college degree in anti-white studies! Thus has your tendentiousness been certified. Clearly, you do not suffer from a chutzpah deficiency, either.

    I challenge any of you to produce a single example of a “tendentious” edit by me. Here at Antipedia, “tendentious” (ditto for “disruptive”) means someone who tells the truth, and refuses to either lie or censor facts that don’t fit into the anti-white, anti-American, anti-Western political views of the cadres dominating the place, or be intimidated out of posting said facts by said cadres. Meaning you.

    This all began with the Nadine Gordimer page. I found that an editor, User:DianaW, had politically censored the fact, which a previous editor had added to the entry, that Gordimer had been robbed and assaulted by four black men. Before I had said word one to DianaW or Lquilter, both accused me of racism for restoring those facts, and promptly initiated an edit war. How does that make for a “behavior issue” or “disruption” by me? And while both made it clear that nothing I said would ever change their minds, they continued to insist without end (DianaW intermittently, but Lquilter continuously to this day) that I justify my every edit, while refusing ever to justify their own. Lquilter has in recent months trolled at administrators’ talk pages (John Broughton and Will Beback, and God only knows how many others), asking them to, in effect, beat up on me on his behalf. And the administrators have responded affirmatively. And the rest of you have now joined in the mob attack, because ... that is what you do.

    Don’t you dare pull that “extremely polite language” crap with me, EdJohnston!

    What Yakuman said to Lquilter applies to all of you: “You are on an ideological crusade and refuse to accept that you are not allowed to censor facts you dislike.” In other words, you are tendentious.

    Now that other editors have defended me, Lquilter has ignored at least one (User:teratormis), while making the same accusations against the other, User:Yakuman (“tendentious,” “gaslighting”), that he made against me, and seeks also to have him blocked and eventually banned. Meanwhile User: Durova has responded by providing muscle on Lquilter's behalf, in blocking me, and making a thinly veiled threat to block, and down the road ban Yakuman, if the latter does not cease and desist from defending me. Thus is Durova also guilty of at least two counts of WP:Stalking. Ignoring and intimidating anyone who defends me is supposed to maintain the fiction that I am an isolated crank, a wikicensor stratagem you have no doubt used in the past and have already begun employing against teratormis and Yakuman. Someone here has a “behavior issue,” alright – you!

    User:Andyparkerson, that renowned expert in early 20th Century American racial history – I know you’d be upset if I forgot you, Andy – has taken the lone crank/sockpuppetmaster cover story to the extreme of suggesting that I am also Yakuman. No, such luck, Andy; that grassy knoll is crawling with snipers!

    And regarding “gaslighting,” how is it that I have the powers of a Charles Boyer character (with poor, beleaguered Lquilter played by Ingrid Bergman in drag), whereas it is Lquilter who has been organizing people against me here, seeking to manufacture an alternate reality, damning my defenders as also Charles Boyer-like “gaslighters” and as “tendentious” and organizing people against them, and with someone (I know not who, since I have no access to wikimail and do not have unlimited time to devote to this experiment in sociopathic group dynamics) organizing a group hate on my user talk page in mid-March, which brought together people who had not attacked me in months?

    With the unlimited time Lquilter has on his hands, can't he at least be bothered to fabricate different stories against people he seeks to have banned? Well, as the saying goes, criminals are creatures of habit.

    I do not go around organizing group hates. How is it that people who engage in such thuggery get their manners complimented, and get to call me “tendentious,” "disruptive," and "uncivil"? Answer: Because it is the thugs who are complimenting each other!

    The notion that vindictive administrators engaging in transparently politically motivated stalking, harassment, censorship of my every edit, and intimidation have used “extremely polite language” is ludicrous. In case EdJohnston is referring to someone saying that he “requests” that I refrain from doing such-and-thus, in the English language, one is not obliged to accede to any request. One always has the right of refusal. The problem is people’s dishonest language here. They don’t really mean “request”; they mean, “I am hereby ordering you to cease and desist from x, y, and z.” But if you are issuing orders, then you must say so, instead of playing word games.

    You remind me of a newspaper “crime blotter” entry that confused me back in 1995. It reported that a man was wanted for robbery, yet said that he had “requested” that his victim hand over the latter’s money. “But then it wasn’t a mugging!,” says I. But of course, it was. Eventually, I realized that the mugger hadn’t “requested” that his victim hand over his money, anymore than any of you ever “requested” anything of me. The newspaper writer or his editor had simply abused the English language, in order to deceive innocent readers about what had really happened.

    I hope I’m not being too subtle for some of the present and future tenured professors reading this.

    Another word game: Using a phony “polite” tone to request “discussion,” as Lquilter did, AFTER he had introduced himself to me by calling me a “racist” (as had User:DianaW), and making it clear that he was not interested in any “discussion,” save for my unconditional surrender. Since Lquilter and DianaW made it clear from the get-go, that as far as they are concerned, only a subhuman “racist” would include any facts about black people behaving badly towards whites, why is it that the rest of you are not accusing them of “behavioral issues”?

    Also regarding “politesse,” Lquilter has repeatedly insisted that I am a man, yet he continuously refers to me as “she.” Is that some deep meta-level of Antipedia etiquette, to which I am not privy?

    For the first few months of the stalking/harassment/censorship, I wondered, “What gives?” Then I read other sites that exposed you guys as being continuously guilty of such stalking, etc. You're a gang of persistent felony offenders.

    It has been clear to me for several months that you planned on banning me. What remains unclear is how you think that continuously threatening to block and then to ban someone whom you have already been mercilessly stalking and censoring, and had under a de facto block for months will intimidate him. Apparently, you folks never tire of publicly embarrassing yourselves.

    Is remaining in the company of totalitarian Antipedians supposed to be so precious to me, that I will engage in self-abnegation at the drop of a threat, and cease inserting essential facts into entries or links to the most important articles written on certain subjects?

    “Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming …”

    User:Will Beback

    Those were transparent lies regarding your censoring and stalking of me, as well as of the notion that I am “spamming” Antipedia, Will Beback.

    For instance, regarding the so-called Zebra Murders, I linked to the most important journalism article ever written on the subject (ditto for the <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/2006_Duke_University_lacrosse_team_scandal>Duke Rape Hoax</a> and the Sally Hemings Hoax). You have no basis in calling it “spam,” Will Beback. All you have is your hatred of non-leftists.

    (In recognition of the importance of some of the articles I had posted by the author you presently most love to hate, several other editors have repeatedly undone your censorship and vandalism. Apparently, a small army of “lone cranks” is in the field!)

    In fact, EVERY important article I have linked to, by Heather MacDonald, the Sunday Times, Front Page Magazine, Ilana Mercer, et al., has been censored. So much for the specious claim that I only link to articles by one person. But that’s just another of your cover stories.

    A censor’s work is never done.

    Thus, you insist on maintaining cartoonishly propagandistic articles on subjects close to your heart, and accuse me of “disruptive editing” for attempting to provide those articles with the tiniest semblance of balance. My God, you won’t even permit any note of genocide, if the killers are black, and the victims white!

    Besides, the stalking/harassment/censorship began in November; the wikisophistry claims that I was spamming, had a conflict of interest, was a sockpuppetmaster, etc., were a set of very recent, after-the-fact cover stories pathetically conjured up to try and make a virtue of your viciousness.

    You have even had the temerity to put down and ruthlessly censor articles from Front Page Magazine, which are vastly superior to those posted here on the same subjects. But then, you also have an ongoing campaign against references to David Horowitz, or anything related to him. How many such campaigns have you so far waged? Too many, to be sure, for fingers and toes.

    I’ve never had a problem with the concept of loving or hating particular individuals (though I might take issue with loving or hating this or that individual), but have never – in my adult life, at any rate – understood the concept of loving or hating entire races. I’ve asked this question here before, and I’ll ask it again: Why do you love blacks, and hate whites? More precisely, why do you hate anyone telling the truth about any negative behavior of blacks, and love anyone willing to lie about or censor said truths?

    No, no, no. Better put an ice pack on the knee you just jerked into your pc desk. To say that “only a racist would (say the facts in question or complain about them being censored)” is to engage in circular logic. You have to show that the truth itself is racist.

    By the by, it was particularly cowardly, albeit in character of you, to start a process against me without notifying me. 70.23.199.239 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

    Archimedes Plutonium (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Misplaced Pages article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Misplaced Pages gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/- Warren 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewonder 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    Both Afds (one, two) resulted in keep. — Athænara ✉ 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, that's fine ... but User:Superdeterminism participated in a highly COI way during the second AFD. I see that Jehochman put a warning on SD's talk page. Keesiewonder 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    Tom Terry (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Are his edits problematic? Do they conflict with WP:COI if he is the author? Vassyana 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, and yes. The book pages needed work: they neded removal of promotional links, and all the categories were referred to the author rather than the books. There's also a deal of subjective stuff: "The stories presented in the collection often take sharp, disturbing turns not normally found in modern religious fiction". Sez who? The Tom Terry article itself completely lacks third-party sources. Tearlach 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    No activity since 25 March. This editor may have gotten the message. Follow up if problems resume. Durova 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Faisal Gill (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The revision was made without discussion, none of the information is factually disputed, and I have indeed responded. Instead, after being warned of a COI and being told not to edit the page by Dar-Ape he again edited it without proposing changes and allowing for discussion.Gletiecq 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

    No activity since 21 March. Contributions look problematic so fix the article as appropriate and follow up if necessary. Durova 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    I think the concerns here have been resolved in spite of the concealment of user Gletiecq's coi in the initial report. There have been no edits from that account since March 29. — Athænara ✉ 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

    Marie Killick (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Cynthia killick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the daughter of the subject, Marie Killick (and there are many other problems with the format). But this looks a notable and interesting topic - Killick vs Pye - that could be salvaged with a bit of tact, as she'd be uniquely able to advise. Tearlach 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    No activity from this account since a post to her user talk page on 29 March. Follow up if any problems resume, but this looks like a good faith attempt to contribute. I suspect this editor would be willing to restrict contribution to talk pages on this subject if asked nicely. Durova 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    It is a good topic - just a case of finding independent sources. Tearlach 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Studios Architecture (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Good catch, obvious COI. No problems since the report was filed so I've semiprotected the page for a month. Follow up if necessary. Durova 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Roberto Valente (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    A new user, Sygun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has recently created an article on an artist called Roberto Valente. He has also started an article on the Sygun Museum in Wales. There's an ebay seller called museumofwales selling a lot of work by Valente as surplus items from Sygun. I'm concerned there may be a COI here. Another artist mentioned in the Sygun article (Miney Todd) was added to the Viyella article but has now been removed. --HJMG 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Links added to your post. I'm surprised they've got anything much left in the museum; the chief Google hit (5000+) for "Sygun Museum of Wales" is eBay! I've tidied and tried to source the Sygun articles, and asked User:Sygun what's going on . Tearlach 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    This one has gone cold. No reply or further edits from User:Sygun, just the talk page blanked and message "not connected, just visited a few times" from an IP. I've sourced Sygun Copper Mine and proposed Roberto Valente for deletion for lack of RS. Tearlach 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Long Way Round (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Long Way Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MDennett (talk · contribs) is extremely keen to include an unsourced reference to "International SOS", a commercial organisation he claims was paid a fee for involvement with the Long Way Round project. MDennet first added this in early November 2006, revisited it later that month, and has returned now. MDennet has asserted that he was involved in said deal , and that the lack of any sources to verify this fact is not a problem, as we can just ring him or his friends up and ask. Neither the 388 page book nor 10 episode TV / DVD series make any mention of this organisation. He came perilously close to 3RR this evening, and continues to argue the point on his talk page. The account is single purpose, with the only edit other than on this issue being creation of a speedily deleted auto-bio in mainspace. His latest rebuttal of my attempt to enforce policy is that as Ewan McGregor and I are both Scottish, perhaps I (and presumably the 4,999,999 other Scots) have the conflict of interest?? // Deiz talk 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    are both Scottish
    So am I, partially, so it's a clear conspiracy. But no, whether there's a COI or not, WP:NOR makes "we can just ring him or his friends up and ask" completely unacceptable as a source. Only a third-party published source will do. Tearlach 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    I agree that if MDennett (talk · contribs) was involved in the deal then he has a conflict of interest. You might want to leave a note about this issue on the Talk page of the article itself. You might also ask MDennett to clarify further his role in the Long Way Round project. I did not find his name on the longwayround.com web site. EdJohnston 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Out of interest, there is a Martin Dennett , Business Development Director for Energy, Mining and Infrastructure at International SOS. Tearlach 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I hope he feels great about this edit then. Deiz talk 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've left a uw-coi warning on User talk:MDennett. Hopefully he will get the message. Jehochman (/Contrib) 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Anchor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Badmonkey is likely a representative of an anchor manufacturer (Ronca Anchors), is attempting to include favorable biased information of his anchor in article and reporting removal attemps of biased information as vandalism. Russeasby 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Defense: Refer to incident report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Misplaced Pages's right to anonymity. Badmonkey 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Nm.: Russeasby has been blocked for 3RR violation. Badmonkey 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)
    No. See the description of this noticeboard's purpose at the top of this page.
    After several days of disruptive and tendentious editing, much of it by single purpose account user Badmonkey, the article has been protected. — Athænara ✉ 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Optical Carrier (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Optical Carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited by Cyberdyneinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the content of which has been reverted twice (first time by Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the second time by myself (NigelJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))), upon the second revert, I kindly posted a message on Cyber's talk page asking him/her to:

    • Ensure a NPOV
    • To avoid a Conflict of Interest
    • To properly cite their additions

    Sadly, Cyber has added the section again (which I can't actually verify via Google), the wording has changed a little bit, but I believe a COI still exists. //NigelJ 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Now the user has also removed the subsequently added "citation needed" templates from the article without an edit summary (diff). I have reverted his edit and posted a {{uw-maintenance1}} on his talk page; the user has not yet responded. -- intgr 11:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Simon Treves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Simon treves (talk · contribs) Is the author of some serious autobiographical vanispamcruftisement and other COI stuff, including:

    Although the user/subject be notable himself, this is less clearcut with respect to his works. MER-C 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Changed the above header to use the 'coiwatch' template. EdJohnston 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

    StartCom (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/StartCom

    see also WikiProject Spam case--Hu12 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    The above articles have been nominated for speedy deletion already. Why has User:Startcom been nominated for speedy? Is that a normal thing to do? Jehochman (/Contrib) 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    CSD G11 is a general criterion that applies to spam in the any namespace. It is useful for and is occassionally applied to user spaces, particularly if the user has no other edits and especially if the user has been registered for a long period of time. --Iamunknown 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Appears User:Startcom has removed the tags on the articles --Hu12 05:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion discussion here. Don't you just hate corporate vanity? MER-C 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    User:Norcomm – Inactive – 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it.

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

    This account has been active since January. The first action was to create the article Norris-Whitney Communications and all edits since seem to be associated with products, publications, people and events associated with this particular company. I could make a list but it would be lengthy and it's probably easier just to look at the user contribs. In addition to the articles shown in the contribs, it appears there may also have been several other articles speedily deleted as either non-notable or spam - at least I saw some nominated while I was typing this. RJASE1 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    I left him a uw-coi warning, and db-spam tagged the article you mentioned. Jehochman (/Contrib) 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    User concerned has not edited since mid February. I'd call this one inactive. MER-C 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

    The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it.


    Marko Kitti (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Marko Kitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a (seemingly) very minor Finnish author that I removed a couple of POV sentences from shortly after its creation. It was created, and almost exclusively edited, by Mustepullo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to whom I also dropped a line about encyclopedic language etc. Notice that this is a single-purpose account.

    I recently checked back to see if this article had been improved and found that Mustepullo had added quite a few interwiki links to it. I checked a few of the other articles to see if they contained any more information that could possibly be translated to make the article less stubbish. It seems that every single one of them, nine non-English languages in all, were created by the same username, Mustepullo. I think we have a case of long-term, cross-language COI abuse. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

    Well, darn me. A remarkable coincidence that in all the world, in all the online listings of Finnish websites, here at Fennica.net Mustepullo Graphics and Marko Kitti are adjacent. Tearlach 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Shocker! What are we going to do about this? Issue a cross-language warning? Recruit from Misplaced Pages:Translation? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Call him with a saucer of milk? Tearlach 23:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

    Shadowyze (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • Lojah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this user is an associate of the article subject, and despite showing him a failure to meet WP:N and WP:MUSIC (which he accused me of making up!), keeps asserting notability with trivial coverage, and thinks he can decide which policies apply to him and his article and which don't. Since AfD voting has dropped off all over the AfD pages, this article will probably be kept as no consensus, which is why it needs to be looked at. MSJapan 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
    Additionally, he won't even let a heading correction per policy stand. MSJapan 03:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    If it gets hardly any votes because of the holiday, you can always relist.
    There's a clear COI. Lojah's bio on people.tribe.net says "Lojah's professional debut was writing and performing with Shadowyze on his 2001 SOAR release, Spirit Warrior ... Lojah is currently performing with Shadowyze in the southern circuit".
    And Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shadowyze and User talk:MSJapan#Shadowyze shows a lot wrong in his general editing conduct: Original research and failure to abide by WP:COI ("Misplaced Pages does recognize first-hand resources such as witnesses to an event, which I am also ... There really is no conflict of interest ... simply because I happen to have been fortunate to work with Shadowyze - that’s what makes me a primary resource"); personal attacks; evident belief in article ownership, and canvassing (see edit history Apr 3 20:00 onward) against the Shadowyze AFD.
    Check out Tom Bee too. Tearlach 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Check out Curvedtalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - listed as a suspected sockpuppet here. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    --I have no sockpuppets. This is circumstantial at best and I believe it is slanderous. Lojah 23:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sitution needs watching. AFD closed with "keep and rewrite to avoid COi" as consensus, but Lojah appears to be taking a closing assessment - that there is no specific ban on his editing - as permission to edit. Tearlach 00:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Please watch the situation. The FACT that there is no specific ban on my freedom to edit this article is proof of my 'permission,' as you put it to edit the article. Until there is a clear RULE that says I absolutely can not edit the article then I am perfectly within my rights. Lojah 04:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Also note this statement, left on my talk page as well as his: I also believe that User:Curvedtalk is a sock puppet of you, created to incriminate me. I now return you to your regularly scheduled 'trolling' on Misplaced Pages. Lojah 00:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    I think we can throw AGF out the window at this point. This situation needs to be nipped in the bud. MSJapan 04:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Looking at the latest at User_talk:MSJapan#Shadowyze. I think he's sooner or later going to fall foul of a lot of policies. I think a warning is already due for WP:NPA. Of course it's all our racist bias against against Native American activists - not bias against people who come into a collaborative communirty and think none of its conventions apply to them, and write great screeds arguing the toss about it. Tearlach 16:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
    Rethink. I'm coming round to thinking this may be down to misunderstanding (newcomer meets bite-the-newbie). I did some cleanup on the Shadowyze article, and had some perfectly civil discussion with User:Lojah about it. I'd say see how it goes. Tearlach 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    Considering Lojah commenced the personal attacks (and the types of statements he has made here), "misunderstanding" is a pretty interesting statement. Willful ignorance of policy is not an excuse to PA. The article was in terrible shape, had nothing meeting NN, and sat for a week with no edits when I AfDed it. There was no "bite-the-newbie" involved - Lojah made the initial post on my talkpage telling me I didn't "know the facts about Shadowyze" and that there were "a lot of resources even if I was ignorant of the subject". He also accused me of trolling, more stuff re: ignorance on my part, and told me I created a sock to discredit him when someone else SSPed one of the AfD voters. I always stayed within the bounds of policy; Lojah didn't. The reason you had a civil discussion is because, as he saw it, you implicitly supported his POV. Prod one of his articles and see how civil he remains. MSJapan 17:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    OK. I guess I'm probably being a bit too laid-back, not having been on the receiving end of all that. A softly-softly approach just seems to have calmed down that particular situation. If he turns nasty again, I'm happy to help throw the book at him. Tearlach 00:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

    Michael Jonzun (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Dean Radin (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)