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 22:10, 22 May 2007 editAthaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits →Possible autobiographies found by bot: + User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult instead of huge transclusion - typically over 50 kilobytes - nearly as long as the rest of the noticeboard.← Previous edit Revision as of 22:30, 22 May 2007 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,200 edits →Autobiographies found by bot: Tried to make the bot list more visible to the readers, and explain what they should do with itNext edit →
Line 14: Line 14:


==Possible ] found by ]== ==Possible ] found by ]==
* ] &nbsp;&nbsp;''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.''
* ]


==] {{coi-links|Roy Gordon Lawrence}}== ==] {{coi-links|Roy Gordon Lawrence}}==

Revision as of 22:30, 22 May 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 and 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.
    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-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:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Andrew Hoffman Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:V Pappas Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre 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.

    Roy Gordon Lawrence (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    The user truedominican (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a sockpuppet of williamo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Williamo1 is self indicated as the former pastor of the church involved in this story who also now lives (part time) in the Dominican Republic. He likes to propogate his side of the story at various spots across the internet. The main goal of late appears to be to discredit another local church:

    The criminal past of the said Roy Gordon Lawrence is certainly ugly. It's place on Misplaced Pages has already been established by surviving some AFDs. However, the latest round of using the article as a soapbox to discredit a non-profit organization does not seem to be of any encyclopedic value. History reviews of this article show this is not the first time this article has been used this way. It may not be the last either.

    Andyru 15:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gospel Hall (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gospel Hall.

    The Gospel Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article (about a sort of religious denomination/affiliation) appears to have been written by members of Gospel Hall assemblies. I have attempted to re-write the article since the previous version read like pieces from letters to the editor by members. But I don't have any familiarity with the subject matter and it will probably need correcting. It would be helpful if other editors would add the article to their watch lists so that any changes that are made can be reviewed by several sets of eyes. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 01:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    No improvement in the article in many months, no references or assertion of notability in a year. {{prod}}ed. — Athaenara ✉ 23:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    I prodded it with reason "This article has had neither references nor assertion of notability since it was created a year ago. Time to let it go."

    142.177.73.65 (talk · contribs) removed the prod tag the next day after another edit which was typical of the COI SPA edits which have contributed nearly all of its meagre unreferenced content. — Athaenara ✉ 13:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    Editors who want to say more about this issue can participate in the AfD listed above. EdJohnston 18:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gordon Bell (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Came to my attention through a self-promotional offsite find that included ...and even has his own page on Misplaced Pages!' Not surprisingly, this thinly substantiated Misplaced Pages bio has quite a few edits from Cgordonbell. At User talk:Cgordonbell the account confirms that this is Gordon Bell himself editing. I have left a message for Professor Bell in conjunction with this report. Request urgent attention so that issues may be resolved before his university marketing/PR lecture later this month. Durova 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    I think the notability is there; he may be the most famous computer designer, in a class with Seymour Cray or Ken Olsen. Someone should add the fact that he turned down the original proposal for DEC to build a personal computer, back around 1973, believing people wouldn't want them. Of course he shouldn't edit his own article without discussion. EdJohnston 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't contest the article's notability, but the behavior does appear unseemly, especially the weight the announcement of his lecture gives to the Misplaced Pages biography and the fact that he's planning to speak on PR and marketing. It makes me wonder whether he intends to tell the audience to manipulate Misplaced Pages articles. Durova 08:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    He could include it as an example of how not to go about it. Tearlach 09:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    Durova, Gordon Bell is a legendary computer scientist. Publicity from this page is absolutely insignificant compared to the multitude of references about him all over the net. You'll notice that this Misplaced Pages page, unlike most, doesn't appear within the first page of Google search results for the subject. Jehochman / ✔ 18:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    How about this - we put up a highly visible notice on the article on our non-tolerance of corporate vanity/paid for editing before the time of the lecture and keep it there for several days so as to get our point across.

    I added a {{coi2}} to the article, by the way. MER-C 13:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    We should follow WP:BITE and show some respect to an old timer who may be unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages's community standards. Jehochman / ✔ 18:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    Easy now. Gordon Bell does not appear to be giving a marketing/PR lecture. The lecture is on entrepreneurship, technology startups, and innovations from Microsoft. I suspect this lecture writeup was done by an eager PR intern and that Bell didn't even see it or care what it says. This is analogous to some youngster saying that William Shakespeare must be important because he has a Misplaced Pages page. Jehochman / ✔ 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

    Transnistria (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Linksearch for *.tiraspoltimes.com

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria, an Arbcom case that does not involve User:MarkStreet but mentions the Tiraspol Times

    Sockpuppeteer User:MarkStreet who is editor of Tiraspol Times, confirmation of identity to Jayig (at that time, the link http://tiraspoltimes.com/aboutus.html mentioned MarkStreet's name with a link back at his Misplaced Pages userpage), known also with the name Mark us street, with known sockpuppets Henco, Esgert, Truli, Buffadren is edit-warring for long time in Transnistria-related articles in Misplaced Pages, one of main activities being to include refference at his webpage "Tiraspol Times" in Misplaced Pages , defending the credibility of "Tiraspol Times" , voting for the inclusion of a link to "Tiraspol Times" and in general promoting in Misplaced Pages the POV of necesity of international recognition of Transnistria's independence like "Tiraspol Times" is doing (note: Tiraspol is the capital of Transnistria). I consider that a conflict of interest exist and MarkStreet/Buffadren and all his sockpuppets should be banned to edit Transnistria-related articles in Misplaced Pages.--MariusM 19:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    I have put the link on COIBot's monitor list and blacklisted MarkStreet against the link. I guess blacklisting all the sockpuppets against the link is going to be useless. --Dirk Beetstra 12:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    Block as many sockpuppets as you can. Bearian 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    MarkStreet is not anymore an active account, his style is to drop old accounts when he accumulate blocks on them and start new sockpuppets.--MariusM 14:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    Both of them are banned now: Buffadren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Britlawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). To be seen by the future clients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.8.146 (talk • contribs) 19:25, May 16, 2007 (UTC)

    McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA)

    The three articles describe recently published psychology tests that all have as an author Ronnie L. McGhee. This person's initials coincide with those of RLM2007. Both RLM2007 and 168.10.112.2 have added multiple links to these tests to psychology, counselling and speech-language articles, for example including the tests as "prominent examples" (a phrase that was there already).. RML2007's edits appear to have a single purpose at present.

    I wrote a note on RLM2007's talkpage inquiring if they were McGhee and pointing to the conflict of interest and spam guidelines. There has been no response and indeed another article was created and the link adding has continued unabated. I note that RLM2007 signed as Carol Phillips School Psychologist, at one point, however. I would be glad of some advice and help at this point. Slp1 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    I tagged all three articles with {{COI}} and {{advert}}. They all deserve {{db-spam}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 02:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for this. Now that I have some confirmation that I am not being overly negative about these additions, I will go through some of the articles they have changed and revert some of the more gratuitous spam links and references. And change some the extensive page redirects to more appropriate destinations? Once again, any comments or advice welcomed --Slp1 14:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    One of the COI SPAs also redirected existing articles to their corporate vanity pages; you did well to revert them. I listed the associated images and a redirect to the deleted article, and placed a link to the AfD at the top of this section. — Athaenara ✉ 14:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gerry Cohen (director) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This appears to be an autobiography of Theguvnorgc, and I have notified the User of my suspicions. The user's name seems to be a contraction of The-governor-Gerry-Cohen. This may also be the use of a sockpuppet. Bearian 23:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    Shaun Pizzonia (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This article appears to have been created and/or edited by its subject, Sting International (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Shaun is also known as Sting International, according to the article. Bearian 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

    I've prod'ed the article and left a uw-coi warning for the editor. That's what to do in simple cases like this. If prod fails, then AfD. If the editor persists, an administrator may issue a block. Jehochman / ✔ 03:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    Chief Magazine (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Article created by chiefmag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Started adding links to own magazine after finishing article.

    Links have been fed to the bots, link-additions have been reverted. The article has a {{coi2}} and a {{notability}}, though I do expect that it is notable enough. --Dirk Beetstra 16:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

    George Azariah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Article seems to have been written by a relative of the recently deceased subject, possibly his wife. All edits were made by Azariahmoreno except some minor ones made by me (under my IP address - oops). Looks like it will pass notability, but there are no sources. Needs to be verified by an editor without a conflict of interest. --Steven J. Anderson 04:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    Just making a quick inspection, I don't even see how it would pass notability. I'm probably missing something here, but it just seems to be an obituary with wikilinks. I see some Google hits for a George Azariah-Moreno, but most if not all of them are signed comments on bbc.co.uk articles. Apart from references, the article doesn't assert the subject's notability well at all. I would put a prod tag on it unless, again, I'm missing something major. --Dynaflow babble 04:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
    An AfD is now in progress. Feel free to contribute there. EdJohnston 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    William Lerach (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) and related articles

    I've added some rules to COIBot. --Dirk Beetstra 14:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

    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)

    Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) , Crisscross (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) and Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    1) created two articles directly related to the company in which (s)he linked to the company/magazine . (S)he inserted links and references to Metropolis/Japan Today/Mark Devlin in several other articles as well:Puts Crisscross news above Kyodo(!!)
    2) Has been removing "negative" material from these and other articles related to either Metropolis, Crisscross or Mark Devlin. Removal of poorly sourced/unsourced "negative" claims: . Removal of unsourced "negative" material, which probably should have been fact-tagged: . Removal of "negative" well-sourced material: .
    3) Repeatedly drew attention to how allegedly large/important said companies/products are, in listed articles: (see also point 1)
    4) Removed "notability", "advertisement", "primary sources", "importance", "unreferenced", "fact" and "merger" (prior to any discussion) tags from said articles: . In no more than 2-3 of these reverts did (s)he actually post on the talk page. Also closed a merger proposition after only 4 days of silence , instead of 10, as WP:MERGE specifies.
    5) Voraciously defended the Metropolis article from deletion: VfD/Metropolis
    6) Has written extensively on the Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) article, despite that Mark Devlin is seriously involved in the whole situation, and referred to Mark Devlin several times. (reverted somebody with the rationale "Unlike you, Devlin is a leading, published critic of the case")] :
    7) Edit warred extensively on listed articles(see most of above links), but especially on Nick Baker (too much to list every single instance, see , it stretches back to December 2005). Showed, and continues to show serious WP:OWN issues.
    (links in bold shows where (s)he reverted my own edits (bolded text is for emphasis only). The above link diff's are only a sample (!) of all the editing/rv-ing/edit warring Sparkzilla has done on listed articles)
    • Evidence that Sparkzilla is Mark Devlin (or closely associated to him):
    1) Nature of edits are very similar to 219.123.156.18 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) - an IPwhois traces this IP to "Crisscross KK", which at the very least shows there IS somebody at Crisscross who is prepared to ignore his/her own bias and position when it comes to these articles. Sparkzilla might be using a proxy now, but a checkuser might show that he too comes from "Crisscross KK"
    2) Mark Devlin's e-mail is "sparky@crisscross.com"
    3) Mark Devlin refers to the Misplaced Pages Nick Baker article on his personal blog , and in another post, openly stated "We are happy to make corrections to our Misplaced Pages page"
    4) ((very circumstantial but worth mentioning)) Forum postings on Fuckedgaijin (discussion board for expatriates in Japan). (site is currently down but google cache exists (NOTE: might take a few minutes to load): ). By a poster called "Sparkzilla", relating to the whole Nick Baker situation, suggests he has been very much involved in the case (dates back to 2005). Also, Tribe profile "Sparkzilla". "Name: Mark. Country: Japan. Age:40". Dates back to 2004 (changed since this CoI was posted, but see google cache ).

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

    Phew! did you get all that? It is clear from the obsessive report above and from the user's history that Heatedissuepuppet (an SPA sockpuppet that was recently blocked for disruption is not interested in improving Misplaced Pages articles, but is simply interested in attacking and exposing a particular user to influence content disputes. Heatedissuepuppet has made no constructive edits to any of the articles mentioned and is upset that poorly sourced defamatory information has been removed Let my history of constructive edits, the notability of the articles, and the quality of the sources speak for themselves...
    • Metropolis (English magazine in Japan) survived AFD by 8-1. Even so, Heatedissuepuppet insisted on adding notability tags multiple times to all Metropolis related pages, and continuied to do so after being told to discuss the issue on the article talk page. The article has six external sources.
    Note also that Metropolis is a leading source of information about Japanese culture, arts and living. It has an archive of hundreds of features and commentaries about Japan going back 13 years. It is not unreasonable that relevant links to Metropolis articles should be included in some WP articles. If the magazine wanted to spam WP they could spam hundreds of articles rather than adding links to the handful of articles noted here. The intent here is obvious -- this editor dislikes Metropolis and wants no mention of it in Misplaced Pages.
    • Crisscross survived a merge discussion with Metropolis by 3-1. Editwarring over the closing of this discussion casued Heatedissuepuppet to be blocked. The editor nmisrepresents the time the discussion was open. It was closed after 5 days as policy dictates. Check here Talk:Crisscross. The article has six external sources . Feel free to nominate it for deletion on notability.
    • The disputed section of Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) was the subject of a recent RFD (which I initiated) . I have done many, many constructive edits to this page, including two major rewrites and finding/confirming almost all the sources for the page. I created an RFC for disputed text about the case that only appears in a round-up article in Metropolis. The disputed text is curently not in the article. The current criticism of Baker's campaign by Devlin and Baker's MP has two sources for each claim, and has been rewritten to take undue weight concerns into account. Mr Devlin, as the publisher of Metropolis , the No 1 English magazine in Japan, and Japan Today , the largest news and discussion site about Japan in the world, has clear notability when making claims about a support group's attempt to mislead Japan's foreign community, and the media, about a Japan-related issue.
    The poorly sourced negative material that I removed is as follows:
    • Japantodaysucks.com. . Obvious attempt to include defamatory domain. This site does not exist, it is not in Google, or on the Internet archive.
    • Japan Traveler: Article does not exist on japantraveler.com website, Google, or Internet archive.
    • Tokyo Weekender . Article that Heatedissuepuppet claimed backs up Japan Traveler claims actually proves Japan Traveler's unreliability. Comprehensive rebuttal with some 20 points why this source is not acceptable at the bottom of this page: Talk:Metropolis (English magazine in Japan)
    • Bogus claims and vandalism No editor would let any of these stand.
    I will accept, and have accepted, properly sourced information on any of these pages, but even if I was intimately involved with Metropolis, I would still be allowed to remove poorly sourced, libelous, defamatory claims. This is what the policy says:
    An important example is that unsupported defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved.
    I do not think I should be penalised for upholding Misplaced Pages content policies.
    I am happy to give further details to interested editors on request, but please note that I will not respond to Heatedissuepuppet or David Lyons (a non-constructive Nick Baker supporter's SPA) here. I will not feed these trolls further. Thank you for your consideration. Sparkzilla 17:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    As an outside observer, here's my take on the points raised by Heatedissuepuppet. First, I do think the evidence that Sparkzilla is either Mark Devlin or closely associated with him is very convincing. That said, point by point from Heatedissuepuppet's complaint:
    1. I don't think it's that bad a thing to have created the articles on Crisscross or Metropolis, and whatever happened earlier aside, they are relatively neutral and fair now. However, Metropolis' take on all sorts of other issues is promotion and inappropriate. I especially disapprove of edits like the creation of Omotesando Hills with Devlin's commentary included (which is still there). I don't know very much about the topic but I find it suspicious that this particular commentary is worthy of mention to the degree at which it is included. WP:COI discourages edits like this: see "Citing yourself." Similarly, the edit to japan is not appropriate.
    2. I don't blame Sparkzilla for any of these removals, I find those passages suspicious as well. Even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important. But this is part of the evidence that convinces me there's a connection between Sparkzilla and Devlin/Crisscross.
    3. I definitely have a problem with this. It is not on point to be promoting Metropolis in other articles by boosting its apparent importance, and given the conflict of interest, it is not appropriate. Again, see "Citing yourself" at WP:COI.
    4. I encourage Sparkzilla to try to address the complaints behind dispute tags like these via communication. However, several of these were justified removals. For instance, he removed the "Unreferenced" tag while adding 5 sources. He removed the "Advertising" tag when the article was definitely neutral in tone. Still, it's good to remind that these dispute tags are sometimes put up as a middle-ground compromise between editors who disagree, and for that reason it's important to be more responsive. As for the notability tag, I really don't think that's in the same category: that's sort of like a pre-deletion tag and doesn't truly call for any kind of change to the article... and when an AfD has already been run and has not resulted in deletion, it is no longer needed. As for the Merge request, I can't help but feel that the whole 4 days vs. 10 days point is pretty irrelevant, and a call for process for process' sake, but it shouldn't be edit warred over.. but then, I think this is a problem for both editors involved here.
    5. This happens all the time. I consider this good evidence that Sparkzilla is connected to the topic, but not problematic behavior in itself, I don't see any of the behavior there as disruptive.
    6. Apparently it is not part of the dispute whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant. So, I don't fault Sparkzilla for contributing on that topic, but...
    7. However, this is problematic. Sparkzilla, as a connected party, should appreciate that his perspective is too close to the events to make good editorial judgements, and back off, and remember that he doesn't WP:OWN the article on Nick Baker. Sparkzilla has eventually, seemingly, submitted to some outside input, but had been pressing an extensive amount of material from Metropolis / Devlin into the article. Sparkzilla should back off.
    Overall, I feel that it's clear there's a strong connection between Sparkzilla and Mark Devlin, Crisscross, and Metropolis, just from the edits, with additional points reinforced by Heatedissuepuppet's further evidence. Sparkzilla, you need to come clean about it: you do not need to acknowledge that you are any specific individual, but acknowledge that you are connected with these topics in real life. If you don't, you should just stop editing that relates to Metropolis or Devlin in any way. Second, Sparkzilla, you also must stop inappropriately promoting Devlin and Metropolis. It's one thing to edit the articles on Metropolis and Crisscross in line with policy (and I do think you've done okay in these areas, but should be communicative), but it's quite another to add external links or favorable wording to unconnected articles, and it's inappropriate to cite yourself in situations where the Metropolis coverage is not clearly noteworthy. It's an issue of WP:UNDUE weight on the coverage in your own publication. I am particularly concerned about this because Metropolis, despite being prominent in its small niche, is obviously a pretty low-level publication as things go in Japan, AND it's hard for most editors here on the English Misplaced Pages to understand the Japanese coverage (or even search in it!) which means that many mentions of Metropolis are probably inappropriate, and even more so when they're included by someone with a conflict of interest. If the Metropolis coverage is worth mentioning, let someone else be the one to include it: even then, I would imagine it's likely they're making a mistake by not being able to read the Japanese sources, but at least it won't look like a malicious choice. I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way. Consider this a wake-up call: you have made some valuable contributions but you have also been editing inappropriately and it needs to stop. Mangojuice 19:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    MangoJuice, I do respect your assesment and your constant level-headedness, but I can't help but think you are far too lenient on Sparkzilla. If you go one page up (WP:COI), some of the very first sentences which greet you are: "... if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when: 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, 2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, 3. Linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam)". Can you see any evidence of "great caution" being exercised on Sparkzilla's behalf? I think a more approriate description of his behaviour would be "bulldozer-ish", if you excuse the colourful language.
    I do however largely agree with your comments, with the following reservations:
    1) See above quote, no evidence of any "great caution" being exercised.
    2) I agree that many of those reverts were completely legitimate, and I would have done them myself had I spotted them. But some of them were not... You say "even if properly verified, this criticism doesn't seem all that important", that might be true too (for the whole Japan Traveller thing), but do you really think Sparkzilla, who has an apparent COI, should call the shots whether it should be included or not? If another editor had removed them, I wouldn't have had a problem with it (Note, I was not the first person to include them).
    4) I agree to what you say to some extent, but is removing a Merger-tag an hour after it was initially put there OK? The whole merger-closure thing (which got me blocked indef for "abusing multiple accounts"), personally I'm really tired of talking about it because I think it's far from the worst thing Sparkzilla has done, but the point in question is that there was no way of telling in which way the discussion would have went when only 4 people (one with a CoI, another one saying "perhaps not necessary") had expressed their opinions. I was also waiting for responses from other editors, and I did/do think there was a clear case for merger. Should Sparkzilla, with his apparent COI, be the one who closes it prematurely? Again, if somebody else had done it, my reaction would have been different.
    5) See the above quote. Do you think Sparkzilla exercised any caution whatsoever?
    6) It was a part of the dispute "whether Devlin's involvement in the case is encyclopedic or the content in this article about Devlin is relevant", but my mistake, I didn't include these link diff's .
    Also, I'm not sure if it's just me but I'm uncertain exactly what you meant with this sentence, "I would suggest you simply confine yourself to the articles about Metropolis and Crisscross, and edits that do not involve Metropolis, Devlin, or Crisscross in any way", are you telling Sparkzilla to not make any edits whatsoever related to any of these articles, or are you telling him he can make edits to the Metropolis and Crisscross articles, as long as he doesn't make references to CC/Metro/Devlin in other articles? Heatedissuepuppet 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Clarifying the last bit: editing on the central articles is okay if done carefully. Editing on other articles in edits that have no connection to CC/Metropolis/Devlin is also okay. It's the edits in other articles I have a bigger problem with. Mangojuice 20:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    Guy, it's called "evidence", and your last sentence doesn't even make sense.
    And yeah, the evidence is extensive and pretty clear. Devlin's inserting of himself and his company into Omotesando Hills is particularly shameless. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Fine, but ignoring "Please limit all statements to 200 words or less. Editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long, drawn-out speeches" reduces the chances of anyone bothering with the issue. Tearlach 09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    Tearlach, thanks for your concern, but it it will be apparent to anybody reading this report that it indeed is "violating" that statement, even without reading your comments. The apology I made in the first post should also have made it clear that even I was aware of it.Heatedissuepuppet 11:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

    Clifford Williams (academic) and User_Talk:Clifford Williams, welcoming him along the way. He seems notable, but the article is a mess. I tried to be kind to an obvious newbie. Bearian EServer.org (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

    Similar SPAs:

    See also Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Spam#eserver.org and Misplaced Pages talk:External links#Links to online libraries. --Ronz 02:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

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

    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: An even better example, added by Administrator User:Doc glasgow: 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)

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

    What do you know! He received a warning on 13 December 2006 , 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)
    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))
    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)
    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))
    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#eserver.org. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))
    Jehochman mentioned that User:Geoffsauer received a warning on Dec 13 2006 . I'd like to point out that Geoffsauer violated that warning here on Jan 18 2007. (Requestion 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

    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 Misplaced Pages 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)

    Links to directories are not prohibited. Links to DMOZ are not prohibited. Links to categories in online libraries are not prohibited. Please see: Misplaced Pages talk:External links. Too many external links on a wikipedia page is what is discouraged. --Timeshifter 18:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    I added some rules to COIBot (blacklisted/monitor). --Dirk Beetstra 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

    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)

    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages 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)
    The web page 'eserver.org' lists an email address for Geoff Sauer. EdJohnston 22:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    Message sent. I've asked him to comment here. Jehochman / ✔ 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gerson therapy (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

    Global Panel Foundation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

    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 - Red X Unrelated - South Korea.
    Be careful of 3RR. MER-C 09:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    Jordan Hoffman

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

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

    Michael Mullan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Lesliejohn

    I've been trying to work with editor Lesliejohn, to let him know about our coi and spam policies. I'd like some help at this point since I don't think he understands, given his latest series of edits . I'm guessing there's a language issue here, but not sure. --Ronz 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

    He doesn't seem to understand our copyright issues and the idea of a license. He's copyrighted his user page! Bearian 01:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Context for others: M. T. Yohannan was his Dad. Worthy chap - government worker and army chaplain - but the online bio doesn't suggest notability. Looks like an AFD candidate, WP:MEMORIAL for starters. The personal testimonial letters and pics he offers don't sound sufficient as sources. Tearlach 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    I left him a friendly message and offered to help userify the material he's created, in case he wants to look for a neutral editor to review it. I also suggested that if he proceeds by himself, the article may be nominated for deletion. Jehochman / ✔ 02:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Law Practice Today (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Borderline speedy. Some kind of deletion seems appropriate for this article. MER-C 08:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Original editor deleted speedy tag, as well as notability and advertisement tags, wikilawyered an excuse for csd-deletion on talk page instead of using hangon tag. Continues to attempt to bootstrap notability. THF 15:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Keep. I have no idea what is the problem with the notability of this article. Its a trade magazine. I have edited it to make it as encyclopedic as possible. There are plenty of other magazines like it for other professions. Eg - Legal Week, Conformity (magazine), Pulp and Paper, The Grocer, Golf Course News International, Editor & Publisher, MediaWeek. Are you saying that a trade magazine is not notable? Sure not? It is widely used and quoted in the legal community. I have documented it. Just ask a few lawyers if they have heard of it. I hardly see why this is bootstrapping anything. As to the advertising critique - well to begin with it was criticized for not being notable. Then I provided sources who quoted it as well as respected it. As soon as I do that, it's called advertising. Well how do I prove it notability without advertising it? Just so there is no confusion, I have no commercial or otherwise connection with this publication. Heliumballoon 15:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm a lawyer and I haven't heard of it, though that's not the criteria for notability, nor is this the page to discuss notability. (Editor and Publisher and MediaWeek are plainly notable; but that doesn't make every other trade magazine notable.) But you're making outsized claims for notability: the Oklahoma Bar did not "recommend" Law Practice Today, their website listed it in an indiscriminate list of forty links that related to a particular subject without commentary. "Law.com" did not identify LPT as notable, an author's self-written and unedited bio in a different publication reprinted by Law.com did. And the fact that just about the only thing your account has done is implausibly push "Law Practice Today" (see WP:SPA) in multiple articles and remove legitimate tags in violation of Misplaced Pages policies is what is making people suspicious. THF 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    A different editor needs to get involved in this, since the user has accused me of a conflict of interest, has personalized this, and is not going to be responsive to my attempts to correct the problem. THF 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    I take your point about the Oklahoma and Michigan bar associations merely listing and not recommending it and I have fixed that in the article. IMHO there is some ambiguity because at the top of the Oklahoma Bar Assoc page it says 'Prepared by the Oklahoma Bar Association Management Assistance Program', which implies at least somewhat that this isnt some random list, but a list that sets out to help fellow lawyers and as such implies some level of approval of what follows. I did not realize that the author's bio was self-written and unedited. I have changed that too. However the magazine is quoted a lot online and it isn't just a flim flam blog. I understood that the magazine was sufficiently notable. I think you need to define in some precise manor how notable a subject needs to be for wikipedia inclusion. Heliumballoon 17:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    I am not trying to give a 'Single-purpose account'. I just have not got around to looking at other legal articles. I created this article because Law Practice Today was a source for an issue (the eeconomic position of attorneys) that I talked about in another article. Attorneys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliumballoon (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    Point of information: The Single-purpose account page is about user accounts, not "accounts" as in narratives or descriptions. — Athaenara ✉ 20:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

    Across Five Aprils (band) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

    Categories: