Talk:Unfiltered Breathed In

Article created by a banned COI editor
Since this article was created by a banned COI editor, in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a place to promote things), whose obvious purpose was to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for promoting the subject film, I can see no good reason to retain what little of it that is left.

Clearly, if the banned COI Spam editor had been discovered and banned right after he had started writing this article, the rules of

would apply:
 * WP:BANREVERT
 * WP:REVERTBAN


 * Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion. Any editor can use the template (db-g5), or its alternative name (db-banned), to mark such a page. If editors other than the banned editor have made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned editor, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.

In my view, the fact that he was able to build this article for so long, by violating numerous Wiki rules, should not be grounds for retaining what is left. What remains is nothing more than a propaganda advertisement for the film, written by a banned COI editor who created and expanded the article in violation of WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. It should be deleted without further delay. EditorASC (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * REVERTBAN only applies to things that an editor does after they are banned. If you want to nominate this for deletion, you are free to do that at any point. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

COI template
User: Bbb23. i don't understand this. The SOCKing is part of the history of this article and is essential for understanding the likelihood of the kind of edit that just happened and the reaction to it. This is what the list above is for - for people who come to the Talk page to discuss and to see what's up. That editor should be added to the list above.... Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like overkill to me, but you can restore the template if you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! So the connected contributor seems... punitive or shaming to you?  I just see it as context and history.  I won't revert you. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not punitive or shaming. I'm not in the business of molly-coddling socks ("I really hate to do this but I have to block you, nice person"). I guess (1) I've never seen it done before and (2) I'm not sure how much it helps. I meant it, though, when I said you could restore it if you wish ("revert you" sounds ugly).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * :) OK. I will restore it.  If it is helpful there was a discussion a while back at WT:COIN about how COI editors (or companies) are persistent in returning to articles and an ardent plea (that I reacted negatively to, zoiks) for more attention somehow to that issue.  if you are interested see We're outnumbered and ill equipped.  the persisting CC tag is the minimum community can do to flag the issue ... Jytdog (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)