Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:17, 7 June 2007

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
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-wpwikipedia.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 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Randy Fine Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pinger Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:QOR360 Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Snowflake (software) Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Peninsula Hotels Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (2) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

→ See also: Metropolis, Crisscross, Nick Baker (1) section in COI/N Archive 12

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
David Lyons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sparkzilla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

It is clear from his long history of edits on the article that David Lyons is an WP:SPA created by a member of the Justice for Nick Baker support group. His edits either remove negative information about Baker and/or push POV that Baker is innocent and that his cause is well-supported. His only other edits attack articles that reference Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), which was highly critical of Baker's campaign. Frankly, no-one other than a strong supporter or possible family member could be bothered supporting Baker/attacking Metropolis to the extent shown by David Lyons in this article.

As an example, please note that the recently edited section "Before arrest" makes it appear as though Baker's actions before his arrest are facts, when in fact they are Baker's version of events. I have pointed out these out on the article talk page, [1]. Given his undisclosed COI I do not think it is fair for David Lyons to be able to edit the article directly while I can only respond on the talk page.

I would like to propose that either...

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

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

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

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

Campaigning

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

and

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

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

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

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

Rather than be accused of COI himself, he let User:heatedissuepuppet, a meatpuppet account, bring a COI against me. See the last paragraph here: [2].

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

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

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

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

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

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

EServer.org `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

→ See also: Special:Linksearch/*.eserver.org

EServer.org (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about an electronic publishing cooperative
Geoffrey Sauer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - director of EServer.org
Geoffsauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Appears to be Geoffrey Sauer - SPA adding eserver.org links and editing the above articles - active December 2004 - January 2007

Similar SPAs:

12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006
129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006
129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active June 2006 - May 2007
12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007

The individual links appear to be customized to the specific article. However the fact there are already 322 links is alarming. I think we should insist that User:Geoffsauer stop adding the links until he gets a consensus that they are appropriate. EdJohnston 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Customized for many specific articles. It's a massive campaign. — Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a campaign. This is a high quality web resource that naturally attracts a lot of links. It would be classified as link bait. I don't think this is spamming. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 06:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this is a classic COI spam campaign. User:Geoffsauer, some SPA's, and some IP's from Iowa create both the EServer.org and Geoffrey Sauer articles, edit them heavily, and add a bunch of eserver.org external links. It doesn't get much more straightforward than this. (Requestion 17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Let's put away the torches and pitchforks. This appears to be an electronic library that makes literature available for free to the public. It's sort of like Project Gutenberg. I checked a few of the articles that contain these links, and I did not see an intentional linking campaign. Is see a large number of independent users citing this database from various articles and discussions. Example: [3] An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: [4] Enforcing COI is very important, but I think we need to be more careful to investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions.

→ (Interjected.) The links which Ronz supplied in his initial report here, to specific WT:WPSPAM and WT:EL discussion sections, were intended to support that "investigate these things fully before jumping to conclusions" process. — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Geoffsauer needs a friendly warning. I predict he will behave impeccably once he is informed. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 06:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 [5], and hasn't made a single COI edit since. He did do a few little fixes to clear up image licensing problems, but I don't see any problems with those edits. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 07:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion might be just a bit premature considering all the SPA's and IP's from Iowa. (Requestion 20:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You could be right. Do you think you have enough of a case to ask for a checkuser? I don't see how to pursue this other than to look at each edit on the merits. (adding) I just checked all the edits after the December 13, 2006 warning for the reported SPA accounts: 12.216.62.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 129.186.156.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active December 2006 , 129.186.66.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There were no link drops that I could see. The users did correct a few links, possibly to fix broken links. There were some other gnomish edits. I still don't see anything sinister here. Can anyone provide a diff after Dec 13 to show there's a continuing problem? Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that a checkuser request will be denied because spam and COI violations are not severe enough reasons to bypass the privacy policy. I'll know more in a couple days after all 322 external link additions are tracked down. (Requestion 19:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've tracked down some more socks and the current count is 249 external eserver.org link spams. The complete list is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I have found a couple more socks. The current count is 278 external eserver.org link spams. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 [6]. I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here [7] on Jan 18 2007. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I started going down the list of 322 links found by this linksearch. As User:Jehochman has correctly observed, some of these links are to individual digitized books in the style of Project Gutenberg. I have no objection to these so long as they are appropriate to the article and are added with local consensus. Other links, such as the one that User:Geoffsauer added to our Technical communication article on in this edit on 28 March 2005, present a directory of links in a style reminiscent of DMOZ. I personally think that Sauer's Eserver link to http://tc.eserver.org should be removed from the Technical communication article, since Wikipedia is not a directory. In fairness, that article probably has more external links than it needs. If anyone has time, I suggest they randomly look at some other items found by the same linksearch and see what they think.

This editor doesn't seem to be a bad guy, but the profusion of DMOZ-style directories raises a warning flag. EdJohnston 16:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to directories are not prohibited. Links to DMOZ are not prohibited. Links to categories in online libraries are not prohibited. Please see: Wikipedia talk:External links. Too many external links on a wikipedia page is what is discouraged. --Timeshifter 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some rules to COIBot (blacklisted/monitor). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by this IP are troublesome: 12.216.41.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - active May 8 & 18 2007 Shall we send Geoffrey Sauer a friendly email and ask him to look at this thread and explain? If he is using anonymous IP's in a sneaky way to add links, that's a real problem. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fair. Also you might find out why he doesn't use his logged-in account when he adds links to Eserver or edits his own article. If he must do this, at least do it openly. EdJohnston 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately he hasn't enabled email. We seem to have a complex situation. Possible linkspamming and sock puppets, but the resource is somewhat worthy and has attracted some valid links. We probably shouldn't delete them all. We probably need to give fresh warnings before blocking because the old one is almost six months old. We also can't be sure that the sockpuppets are abusive. Maybe it's another person at the organization who's on dial up and doesn't have a Wikipedia account. How about we place {{uw-coi}} on all the fresh socks, and ask them to come here to comment? Maybe the user will help us solve this mystery. If not, we can start blocking. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The web page 'eserver.org' lists an email address for Geoff Sauer. EdJohnston 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message sent. I've asked him to comment here. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I shrunk down the original set of 322 links to a more modest 14 links to be studied:

These 14 links provide 'web directories with commentary'. So they may run into the rule that Wikipedia is Not a Directory unless they are really notable enough to deserve articles in their own right. Having articles would require reliable third-parties to have commented on their value. (A couple of the above links are not directories, but actual web periodicals, like http://bad.eserver.org, which is an online journal called 'Bad Subjects'.)

I am not sure we should be accepting the above 14 as external links, unless they are notable enough to have their own articles created. Especially we shouldn't keep them if Geoff Sauer is not willing to discuss the situation, because we'd like the Eserver people to acknowledge our policies and agree to cooperate with them. Your comments are welcome. EdJohnston 15:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first resource on your list has Google PageRank of 6, and has attracted links from more than 1,000 different web pages, including many official university pages. This isn't run of the mill linkspam. See [8] for a list of who's linking to item #1. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it takes extraordinary effort to get a PR6. It's interesting that you mentioned the antislavery.eserver.org link. Today, I just found User:Jlockard, a university literature professor, who spent the majority of his edits adding or fixing 63 antislavery.eserver.org links. At first I wasn't sure if this was a spamming but the more I looked at the diffs the more I was convinced. Very little value was added to Wikipedia, mainly just a bunch of eserver.org external links. There was even a run-in with a spam fighter back in May 2006 but the spamming continued. This is a tricky situation. (Requestion 06:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I read this discussion with interest, though I'm not a skilled Wikipedia user and don't feel qualified to contribute to the policy debate here about external linking. I'll respect your collective judgment about when external links are appropriate, and won't add any more without a clear policy decision that would encourage me to continue. In my judgment I have never added off-topic or poor-quality links to a Wikipedia entry, and would not do so. But I won't post here again, now that I see how my past contributions might be seen as self-serving. To clarify my past intent adding links to entries, as a professor of English with a speciality in technical communication I have edited entries and added links to online resources which I considered appropriate, as I understood it from my research, my reading of Wikipedia guidelines and existing entries. I don't know about an Iowa bias in posts about the EServer, though I do teach as many as 150 students per semester, all of whom use the site, and it may be that my students have posted some EServer-related entries. But I have never meant to injure Wikipedia's neutrality or credibility, and am concerned that anyone might consider my edits to have done so. I'll do my best, however, to answer any questions I can to clarify the reasoning behind any particular edits I have made.Geoffsauer 06:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that explanation. It is very helpful. For the future, I suggest you refrain from linking to your resources from articles. Instead, if you want to suggest a link, place a comment on the article talk page and let somebody else make the decision whether to add it to the article. I am not sure what you can do to restrain eager young students from adding these links. Maybe others can advise. Also, we have a project called Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination that might be very useful to you. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 06:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still working my way down the numbered list of 14 links, from above, benefitting from the Special:linksearch URLs that were added to each one. So far, looking at items 1-4, I see nothing inappropriate. On the whole this is good information. I fixed the citation format a couple of times, and I noticed at least one fluffy and over-linked article, (Praxis intervention), but that's not a problem related to Eserver. EdJohnston 04:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many of the edits of the eserver.org external links are good and valuable. Many though were spammed. Many were also to low quality linkfarms. If you want to see the COI aspects it might be easier to go the the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org page and manually go through all the contribution diffs for all of the socks listed there. The COI picture should become clearer when you focus on the contribution diffs. (Requestion 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Gerson therapy `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Gerson therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Howard Straus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article on controversial therapy being edited by Gerson's grandson, biographer and promoter. Tearlach 21:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global Panel Foundation `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Global Panel Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
Prague Society for International Cooperation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) AND
Marc S. Ellenbogen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the latter is a résumé for an individual who presides to the other two institutions; long but slow warn-and-revert war between inside editors and COI patrollers. Lately an inside editor has resorted to verbal aggressiveness, hence this report. --maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praguesociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - started all three articles; a week later promoted all of them to FA status (example)!
The following users are all insiders of the organizations and have tried to restore cleaned-up or unsourced deleted content on all three articles - interestingly, as one user leaves, a new one takes his place:
- Nbenker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (seems like his secretary: "moved Prof. Dr. Marc S. Ellenbogen to Marc S. Ellenbogen: Mr. Ellenbogen does't want to use his title in Wiki.")
- Badenbaden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Profellenbogen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BanikPico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - (his idea of verifiability: "verified and accurate"); seemed in good faith at first (see) but right after tried to cram all content back in (see)
- Verticaldemocracy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - latest active user, verbally aggressive in his defense of the articles
- 64.204.217.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 89.56.164.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 89.56.133.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 203.234.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Zrahl7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [added by Athaenara ✉ 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]

--maf (talk-cont) 00:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP lookup results:

64.204.217.21 - Possible - same geographical area (New York), but too populated.
89.56.164.199 and 89.56.133.222 - wrong side of the country. Unlikely.
203.234.169.3 - Unrelated - South Korea.

Be careful of 3RR. MER-C 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mullan `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Robert Roskamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michael Mullan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Horntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - having created
Roskamp Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has gone to post what looks like his resume/CV Philip Trueman 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has now added Robert Roskamp. Philip Trueman 09:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been cleaning up these articles a bit (ok, drastically) during the past week, and Horntz (judging from this message) may have mended his or her ways. — Athaenara ✉ 09:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Across Five Aprils (band) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Across Five Aprils (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Themoonisdown09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - band member (+single purpose account) who doesn't want references included.

Would appreciate input from other editors on how to proceed - currently the article isn't sourced. Addhoc 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added some rules to COIBot. IP 70.90.144.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (70.90.144.0/22; Comcast Business Communications, Inc) also removed the reference. Added a {{unreferenced}} and {{coi2}} on the page, and a {{uw-coi1}} on the userpage. I think the subject of the article is fine, but it needs some independent references. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, on my talk page (see history) the IP signed his name as Themoonisdown09, so I presume they are the same editor. Addhoc 09:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page was also edited by Across Five Aprils (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This account also created/edited some pages about albums by the band.

Collapse (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tragedy In Progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trax FM `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

→ See also: Trax FM (section 18) in COI/N Archive 9

217.33.92.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I reported this IP to the noticeboard before about edits made to Lincs FM Group articles (the owner of Trax FM) who is deleting verifiable information from the article. The same anon editor has also now deleted information about a rival station from the Worksop article as well. The anon user's IP address is registered to the Lincs FM Group (source). Because of the editors deletion of verifiable information with no explaination or attempt at conflict resolution, and due to what I believed is a continuing conflict of interest, I am resubmitting this to the noticeboard. --tgheretford (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86.151.176.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed some of the same information. The article has semi-protection until 11 June. — Athaenara ✉ 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bennett Reeves `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?] and Gabrielle Reeves `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Christopher Bennett Reeves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gabrielle Reeves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
LostSentiment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both of these articles were created by LostSentiment who also uploaded Image:Chrisreeves.jpg claiming to have created it himself. The image page contains a non-working link to an image hosting site. Neither bio looks anywhere near notable to me. Inexplicably, an administrator has removed the speedy delete tag from the "Gabrielle" article saying that it satisfies notability. Please note that both Christopher Reeves and Christopher reeves now redirect to Christopher Bennett Reeves and should redirect to Christopher Reeve, the actor who played Superman, as a misspelling if these bios are deleted.

I've moved redirects back to the original, although a DAB page may make more sense. I suggest you AfD the pages if you have any concern. However, if the claim that CBR has Emmy's is correct then he is by any reasonable defintion notable. JoshuaZ 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Cause `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

→ See also: Two Common Cause sections in COI/N Archive 8 & one on COI/N talk page.

208.201.146.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Common Cause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anonymous IP address 208.201.146.137, which is assigned to Common Cause, has continued to edit the article Common Cause, despite being warned to stop previously. Are the administrators ever going to take action to stop this, or are they all on vacation? XINOPH | TALK 11:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

XINOPH, how about sending an email to Common Cause and inviting them to look at this page, as well as the talk page for that IP showing all the warnings. It's possible that there are multiple clueless users involved. Maybe we can get the attention of their IT department and convince them to circulate a memo.

In addition to that, I support a short block for this edit.[9] IANAA. Jehochman ^Talk 14:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is IANAA? — Athaenara ✉ 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL is netspeak for "I am not a lawyer." So, IANAA is "I am not an administrator." XINOPH left a message on my talk page requesting a block of Common Cause. Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans. I added it to the Glossary. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Catanich (2)

→ See also: Catanich (section #20) in COI/N Archive 8

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

This user was previously indef-blocked for writing promotional articles as a business, with an indef-block notice on the user page. Received the following comment:

This foolish user has wrecked his reputation. If you Google for "Catanich Internet Marketing," the name of his business, a very ugly result shows up from his Wikipedia user page. It would be a good deed to delete or rename his user page (with permission, of course). Your block will prevent the user from damaging Wikipedia further, but we should not vindictively destroy his business. Do you understand the problem here? For the record, I've never communicated with this person. I don't know him at all. Jehochman ^Talk 04:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did a quick Google search on "Catanich Internet Marketing" and notice that there are various other references to our action. I am amenable to restoring the status quo ante on this one if possible/appropriate (so long as the outfit doesn't provide paid services involving Wikipedia) but would appreciate input on how to proceed here. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catanich has complained that Wikipedia is wrecking his business. We should listen to this complaint because it is seriously affecting him in real life. I suggest:

Get a statement from Catanich that there will be no more abuse of Wikipedia. He now knows the consequences.
Unblock Catanich so he can change his user name to something else. This will most likely prevent his user page from showing up in Google searches for his name.
I volunteer to monitor this user to make sure there is no more trouble. As a professional SEO, one of the main contributors to the COI guideline, and a frequent contributor to this board, I don't think he will get away with anything while I am watching.

Thank you for considering this. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrecking his business"? All that's happened is that the search results in Google accurately reflect the fact that he has been using Wikipedia for promotional services. The user was warned repeatedly, and WP:COI mentions the possibility of unintended consequences. Right to vanish doesn't apply to users not in good standing. nadav (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings Catanich actually saw were for copyvio. Catanich didn't make any edits between this COI warning,[10] and his block.[11], so he makes a fair point when he says "Your 'articles on behalf of clients' policy was unknown to me and I will abide to this in the future".[12] If Catanich demonstrates that he understands our content policies, and unequivocally agrees to follow them, he should be unblocked so he can exercise the right to vanish. This would be a great kindness by us. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. nadav (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: references to the company (full name) in talk pages discussing the incident would also come up in various internet searches, although only until the various talk pages are archived. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The User and User talk pages are his main problem. The keyword, his name, appears in the title of those page, which is the main factor that will drive them to the top of the search rankings. Jehochman ^Talk 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah woah woah! I have no objection to letting the guy cover his tracks, but you should all be aware that he received a warning for using WP for promotional and advertising purposes a mere 14 minutes after creating his account! It was over a month later that he set about posting / editing about a dozen articles to add references to his paying clients, which elicited to my copyvio tags, which led to his assertion / admission that he had permission to use the copied text because the subjects were clients of his firm. This was not a good faith / novice error, as contended by the editor. Be that as it may, I don't think he'll try it again, and hopefully this will deter others similarly situated from doing the same, so there's no reason to make the guy suffer further. Let's allow him to vanish, not because he's innocent, but because we're reasonable and forgiving people. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note offering this option in User talk:Catanich#Your request to unblock --Shirahadasha 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As things currently stand the user has left a message on User Talk:Catanich requesting to vanish, but has not agreed to the statement I've asked him to agree to as a condition for unblocking, so I haven't unblocked. User:Jehochman has left a note reminding the user that agreeing to the condition is needed to proceed further. It might be worth having an outside admin review the statement I've requested this user to make in order to unblock to ensure that this whole approach, and the particular wording, is appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Fiszman

Marcfiszman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introduced in the beginning a couple of links to nearthwort.com:

nearthwort.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

Some time later the links were changed to an mp3-file somewhere else on that server. In his latest edits, the links were changed from nearthwort.com to marcfiszman.com.

marcfiszman.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

I removed all the links added by Marcfiszman, and gave the user a welcome message and a coi1-warning, as it seems that the editor is involved in the website. He responded on my talkpage with a question, and I explained the situation. Apparently Marcfiszman thinks my removal is overzealous, and he started to reinsert the link to marcfizman again. Link addition is reverted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria and Albert Museum (2)

→ See also: The European Library section in COI/N Archive 11

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

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

Victoria and Albert Museum (2) discussion tangent

→ See COI/N Archive 12 for the resolved "Victoria and Albert Museum (1)" portion of this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Douglas Carswell

Douglas Carswell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Douglas Carswell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Possible autobiographical editing by a British MP. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this is as clear a case of WP:VSCA as I've ever seen ... his only contributions to Wikipedia have been the edits to the article about himself ... but, he's not the original author of the article (it was created over six months before he first touched it), which certainly takes at least half the weight off of the COI issue ... and, since he's a MP of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, then his WP:Notability is pretty much established de facto, regardless of the lack of WP:Attribution.

I say, "Either revert his edits and tell him not to do it again, or else take it to AfD" ... but be prepared for arguments that his WP:N sufficiently trumps any failure of WP:BIO oder WP:A as a reason for deletion, because we're not talking about a "first year, assistant basketball coach at some NN junior college" who has made beau coup edits to an article about himself that was created by one of his students ... that one would probably be closed as Löschen within 48 hours. —68.239.79.82 08:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is there for this noticeboard to do? As a member of a national legislature, he is automatically notable. The only way to make further progress on this article would be with the aid of detailed research. I'd be in favor of closing this issue, unless someone can go through the history and find that the subject actually removed critical material. It would be good to see the Publications section expanded so that the individual references are more complete. EdJohnston 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to WP:RFCN, I don't know what other forum would be appropriate. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username has been blocked pending verification of identity to the Foundation. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Chen

Tania Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tania Chen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - author
Bge20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - removed maintenance tags

Apparent autobiographical editing. RJASE1 ^Talk 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this as autobiographical, someone removed it, and the same person(s) keep removing tags. Bad! Bearian 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raritan Computer

Raritan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - November 2006 to present
72.236.162.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June/October 2006, January 2007
72.236.162.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - June/September 2006
72.236.162.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - December 2006
Vsevolod4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Wrote first version June 2006

Raritan Computer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I recently gave a 3O on this article related to 'advertising'. It was written by the company VP and is being edited by a company employee and at least one outside (neutral) editor. The article is almost 1 year old and there are no external/verifiable sources provided in the article. It was suggested that I post this here to obtain additional eyes-on. Lsi john 23:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

various BBC-owned IP addresses

The BBC-owned IP addresses:

132.185.144.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
132.185.144.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
132.185.240.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
132.185.240.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
132.185.240.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
132.185.240.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bbcsomerset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [added by Athaenara ✉ 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)][reply]

all have a history of editing BBC-related articles. Some of these edits were flagged as CoI, others not, but appear to be so on reflection (e.g the removal of deletion nomination from an article about BBC radio presenter). I wonder whether someone shouldn't contact the BBC, and ask them to run an article on Wikipeida's CoI policy, in their staff magazine, or on their intranet? Andy Mabbett 09:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits from these addresses are also fairly juvenile vandalism that doesn't reflect well on the BBC ([13][14][15]). If these came from BBC employees, I'm sure their employment contracts say something about actions disreputable to their employer. 86.140.181.239 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again: [16]. Andy Mabbett 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Higgins

Dr Hadwen Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wendyhiggins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - media director of Dr Hadwen Trust

User:Wendyhiggins has created a self-promotional userpage and has edited several articles related to her animal rights activism. Among these is the Dr Hadwen Trust. Since the edits may be legitimate, I have decided not to revert them, and instead to seek a second opinion here. Yechiel Man 13:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've reverted some of the edits, warned the user and tagged Dr Hadwen Trust. This needs attention from a careful editor to restore or confirm neutral point of view. Once that's done, remove the {{COI}} tag. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leanne Pooley (New Zealand Filmmaker) `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Leanne Pooley (New Zealand Filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article created by SpacificFilms (talk · contribs), which is the above person's production company. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hilbe `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

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

Jhilbe (talk · contribs) and Joehilbe (talk · contribs) (probably the same person) creator and primary article editor. The only contributions of these users is to this article. RJASE1 ^Talk 04:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks muuch improved; subject is notable if facts can be verified. Bearian 22:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Lerach `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?] and related articles

William Lerach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PRFellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Every edit by this suspiciously-named user has been to add a press release to William-Lerach-related articles. THF 10:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some rules to COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nrobbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - created initial Lerach stub (note: Robbins is the name of one of the law firm partners)
216.140.110.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - first to add massive content directly from law firm website
216.140.110.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - another COI SPA

Nearly all of the content of the Lerach article had been copied wholesale from the subject's law firm website. I removed that. What's left is a {{lawyer-stub}}. — Athaenara ✉ 18:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Returning this section to the noticeboard from COI/N Archive 11 because PRFellow and 216.140.110.148, who don't seem to understand what Wikipedia is not, have again added non-NPOV promotional content from the subject's law firm website.

This stub ~~needs expansion~~ may be expanded with content supported by reliable sources, not the replacement of the only (so far) news media citation with padding by law firm employees. — Athaenara ✉ 22:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PRFellow is now simply edit-warring. Plenty of recent media coverage about Lerach's resignation from his firm (on the eve of a multi-billion dollar Supreme Court case) and speculating that Lerach is about to be indicted.[17] [18] [19] (Disclosure: I just had a WSJ op-ed criticizing Lerach.[20]) THF 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael khoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - user making identical sanitizing edits to Lerach article as "PRFellow." NB this link that identifies Michael Khoo as working for Fenton Communications, with Lerach as a client. THF 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Khoo's specialties include online marketing.) — Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous Fenton Communications account, 216.140.110.148, mentioned above, is continuing to attempt to sanitize the page. THF 15:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Verrechia `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Dylan Verrechia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tijuana Makes Me Happy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tijuana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dylanverrechia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Jameslefkowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The majority of edits of this article are done by an editor with the name User:Dylanverrechia. Most of the editors edits in Dylan Verrechia, Tijuana, and Tijuana Makes Me Happy seem more like advertising for his movie than anything else. XinJeisan 22:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure if the Dylan Verrechia is notable or not, so I put on the notability tag, however the editor User:Dylanverrechia removed the tag. I don't have anything against this person, and his movie seems to be quite good and important, but he shouldn't be using Wikipedia for advertising for himself. XinJeisan 17:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits for style, adding tags and stub-sorting as well. He appears to be notable, but the article may need a re-write. Bearian 01:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jameslefkowitz, who has a user name which is the same as the one listed as a producer for Mr. Verrechia, has deleted the COI and notability templates on Dylan Verrechia without comment.XinJeisan 17:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nehr `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

Peter Nehr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anitanehr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Anitanehr, the article's main author, is the subject's wife. She says that she was "assigned to establish the Wikipedia listing for my husband" (see User talk:Anitanehr). This raises an obvious WP:COI issue, as well as issues under WP:BLP. No WP:RS is cited, which implicates WP:NOR. Further, there is no indication that this first-term Florida legislator is WP:NOTE, although the fact that he is an elected state legislator may be sufficient to justify a WP article about him (it would not get him into Encyclopedias Britannica or Americana). Finell (Talk) 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Palumbo `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

204.62.68.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
S noone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both users (who I believe to be the same person due to the consistency and similarity of their edits) are using an article with no sources that reads more like a fluff piece than anything else that clearly violates WP:BLP. An example of this article can be found here.

Here are some examples of the prose found in the article...

This was as gentle as a droplet of rain compared to the maelstrom to come with his next slasher film.

... and the life long film purist would enjoy every minute working with the same material his idol Stanley Kubrick had worked with during his illustrious career.

However this time, going to Hell would not be easy, and the hard part would be ever leaving.

Palumbo was ready for the accolades from the horror craving fans of modern cinema blood thirsty for even greater cinematic depravities

It seemed everyone involved with the film were ashamed with their involvement and hoped that it would simply go away. Everyone that is except for Nick Palumbo. This was his dream, and he was not going to let it go down without a fight.

And so on...and so forth...either the person writing this article is Palumbo himself, one of his shills or a hugely biased fan. Other editors and I have managed to trim the article down to a stub but the users in question often revert to their previous edits.--CyberGhostface 00:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FBB recordings

I noticed this one because of the many COIBot alerts this account apparently already collected (. The producer goes by the name Dean Woodward AKA 'Big Dean', 'Grizzly B', or 'Care Bear'

FFB Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FFB Recordings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am not sure if they are related, but the accounts Deanwoodward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Carebear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Bigdean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) do exist, though they do not have any (visible) edits in their contribution lists (suggesting the articles they created/edited have already been removed). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

College of Micronesia-FSM `(`history`|`Watchlist this article`|`unwatch`)` [watchlist?]

College of Micronesia-FSM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

College of Micronesia-FSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User with same name as the article has created a rather biased article about a school. I have reverted the removal of my tagging and removing of external links in the text etc. User has also uploaded clearly copyvios claiming GFDL. --Rette tast 12:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed {{db-advert}} on there. If the article is deleted, and the editor recreates it, then the editor can be blocked indefinitely as a single purpose abuse account. Jehochman ^Talk 17:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been cleaned up and may no longer be a problem. — Athaenara ✉ 09:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Broderick

Michael J. Broderick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michaeljbroderick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the creator and main editor of this article. The only contributions of the editor are to this article, which I have marked with {{autobiography}}. Have alerted the user about WP:COI and WP:AUTOBIO. Riana ⁂ 08:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Broderick. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar Records

Avatar Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avatar2k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user is the author and primary editor. Something strange going on also with insertion and removal of criticism, and legal issues. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

76.80.217.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted on Avatar2k's talk page (they may be the same person) admitting to a conflict of interest. However, he says that he is battling 164.47.92.126 (talk · contribs)'s posting of "untrue, unverified, slanderous, libelous material" in the article. nadav (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see also my talk page for more information on this. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it needs to be wikified, so I put a tag on it for that. Bearian 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Murray

William J. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wjmurray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Autobiographical editing and self-promotion. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orient Thai Airlines

Orient Thai Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One-Two-GO Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (a subsidiary)
Orient-thai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Apparent PR editing by company rep. RJASE1 ^Talk 13:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All spam reverted. MER-C 03:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, indefinitely, along with Fly12go (talk · contribs). May return, so leaving this open for a while. MER-C 12:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Fernando

Don Fernando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Donfernando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Autobiographical editing by article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 14:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Parnell Habersham

Richard Parnell Habersham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rhabersham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article created, edited by article subject. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cogswell College

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

A few anonymous editors (and even an editor who don't sign in) seem to be making the article into a PR page. I have added a POV-check stamp on the page.

I'm assuming they are not signing in, so they won't be identified, if they are part of the college.--Joel Lindley 03:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which IPs? It's better if they're anonymous, because we can whois and RDNS them. MER-C 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the IP appears to be from a law firm in Chicago while the college is in California. Second of all, it is you Joel Lindley that has the conflict of interest in this it appears. From this link that you keep adding to the article, you'll find this opinion authored by "joel1975" who identifies himself as Joel Kirk. Eerily similar to your user page, Joel Lindley, where you identify yourself as Joel Kirk and that your birth date is in 1975. Further, in that opinion you write that you filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau which you also kept linking to in the article. So, it appears that you're the one with the conflict here. Metros 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of tags to this one, too. Bearian 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Space (film)

Out of Space (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This film has not had a theatrical release nor has it an IMDb listing. The attached external link leads to a personal website for the creator of the film. It is possible that the article was started by the filmmaker. I have tagged the article but I have not reported in this area of wikipedia before so my apologies if I have done any of this in error. Also this may be an entirely legitimate entry so again apologies for taking up your time, but, due to my unfamiliarity in this area, I thought that this was something that should be looked into. MarnetteD | Talk 11:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Out of Space (film). MER-C 13:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth Arts

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

A second look at the page for the film above showed a link to the Stoke-on-Trent production company listed here. Its page has no external links and the page seems to be there for the sole purpose of advertising the Out of Space film that is already in question so I have tagged it with the COI2 tag also. Thank you for looking into this. MarnetteD | Talk 14:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got bundled in with the above afd, so this section has been merged. MER-C 03:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ragging

Noraggingfoundation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Noraggingfoundation and Noragging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/Noragging are performing POV edits on Ragging. Amongst the edits are adding links to their own organisation, deleting information (with references; diff). Some of the edits are really strange, adding facts with fact-tags (diff), or several {{db-spam}} tags diff and undirected attack remarks: diff.

Ragging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Ragging Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
no2ragging.org: 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

Two IPs who may be involved:

122.167.105.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (122.167.0.0/17; Broadband service in India)
59.93.245.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (59.88.0.0-59.99.255.255, National Internet Backbone of India)

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The links deleted were generated not for reference ( each one takes to a single site www.noragging.com/... )but for increasing their traffic.

Ragging in India is a serious problem that has taken at least 22 lives since 2000. It has also left hundreds injured and many more have been brutally tortured.

Even before the recent order of the Honbl. Supreme Court of India, several organizations were formed by volunteers to stand against ragging. CURE, Stopragging and No Ragging Foundation are those organizations.

Some organizations like CURE, that runs only online works, has earned much site traffic to their site from wikipedia...

whereas No Ragging Foundation has kept itself busy with activities like helping victims or like organizing awareness drives.

Now some volunteers want to let people know that organizations like the No Ragging Foundation is providing Real support to victims, as far as possible... this would help many victims and/or families.

But repeated, intentional and jealous attacks on the information and links provided by the No Ragging Foundation is really unfortunate.

If Wikipedia considers it to be spam, so is Coalition to Uproot Ragging from Education (CURE)... but when it is found that No Ragging Foundation links are replaced by CURE links... it is really unfortunate acts of jealousy.

Warm regards,

Noragging 19:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)NoRagging[reply]

I blocked Noraggingfoundation for its username suggesting a role account before seeing this report. woops -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh Engle

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

I have tagged Marsh Engle as a badly-written autobiography, which has been copied verbatim from a user's page. This is the worst violation of the rules and the English language I've seen here in months. Bearian 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This "article" makes your typical vanispamcruftisement look like a featured article. Here we go. MER-C 03:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danngala

Gustave Baumann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danngala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have fired a warning shot over COI & SPAM, plus copyvio of images and text might well be an issue. See bottom here re name, and here re text of Gustave Baumann. contributions here. The gallery also covers Hayter. Incidentally I don't have an issue with the notability of GB. Johnbod 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability looks fine. I've expanded and wikified the Gustave Baumann article, using more sources so that it no longer relies solely on the Annex Galleries. Gordonofcartoon 22:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bennison

→ See also: Charles Bennison section in BLP/N Archive 18

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

This assumes that this account isn't just a Joe job. Rklawton 00:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the Charles Bennison BLP/N section because the last post in it (twelve days ago) said BLP issues had been resolved. This report suggests that they were not. Should I return it from the archive to the active BLP noticeboard? — Athaenara ✉ 04:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the post-rewrite edit history and talk page discussion, I don't see an active dispute about the content of this article -- a least not any that would require relisting at WP:BLP/N. It appears User:Barbaraalton is the only editor actively opposing the inclusion of this material, but she (presuming she's who she appears to be): a) has an apparent WP:COI, and b) doesn't participate in the talk page discussion or respond to messages on her user talk page, and so would be unlikely to participate in the BLP noticeboard discussion either (I notified her of it when I initiated that discussion and tagged the article BLPC).

As Rklawton points out, the account could be a joe job. I tend to think not, primarily because her first edit[27] doesn't look like something someone trying to discredit the spoofee would undertake. But if it is a joe job, the editor is a vandal; if it isn't, then User:Barbaraalton oughtn't to be editing Charles Bennison because of the WP:COI. Either way, this unresponsive WP:SPA probably has no business editing Charles Bennison. --Rrburke^(talk) 16:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunpendulum

Douglas Wood

Douglaswood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Attempted hijack of the Douglas Wood article with apparent autobiographical material about a different Douglas Wood (an entertainment executive). Reverted and warned. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also wrote an article about his business associate, Ayelet weinerman. It has been put up for AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayelet weinerman. Both people are associated with Animation Lab. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked for 24 hours for repeated article hijack attempts despite warnings. RJASE1 ^Talk 21:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overton Loyd

While I don't justify today's COI editing, please don't judge him by the number of his edits because most them have been minor. For example, his 7 edits on June 5 were an effort to create a single external link. In a similar vein, with his first 6 edits today he created 3 references to some of his published work. Since being informed of WP's COI policy, he has reverted all of his edits except 2 external links that I don't think are COI. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Trivers

Arthur W. (Nick) Arundel

James W. Sperman

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Sperman. RJASE1 ^Talk 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dunlap

Bill Dunlap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bill Dunlap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dunlap and this request for editor assistance
Complicated situation. Looks like the biographies for two painters named Bill Dunlap have been cludged together, and one of the painters is writing his autobiography into the article of the other painter. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Neuroliminal Training

I've placed a note on the author's talk page, pointing him to the WP:COI and WP:NOT pages. -FeralDruid 17:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 648: / Line 648: @@
 {{userlinks|Jameswsperman}}</br>
 Autobiographical and COI editing by a restaurant founder about himself and his businesses. [[User:RJASE1|RJASE1]] [[User talk:RJASE1| <sup>Talk</sup> ]] 02:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
+*See ''[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Sperman]]''. [[User:RJASE1|RJASE1]] [[User talk:RJASE1| <sup>Talk</sup> ]] 17:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 == [[Bill Dunlap]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia'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.
Allgemein	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Bildung Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Artikel Redirects Kategorien Templates Dateien Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 17:17, 7 June 2007

Possible autobiographies found by bot

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (2) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

EServer.org (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Gerson therapy (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Global Panel Foundation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Michael Mullan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Across Five Aprils (band) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Trax FM (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Christopher Bennett Reeves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?] and Gabrielle Reeves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Common Cause (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]