Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badmonkey

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

User has made several WP policy and guideline violations, including WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:CIVIL, WP:DE. He is primarily concerned with keeping information reguarding a product he is involved with (Rocna anchors) advertised on WP.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Desired outcome would be for User:Badmonkey to agree to follow suggestions at WP:COI and keep his suggestions to anything invovled Anchors to the appropriate talk page. Though he so far refused to do such, if he will not then unfortunately a block or ban may be the desired outcome.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}'' User appears to represent Rocna anchors, insists on adding link spam and references to his anchor that show it in a biased positive light. Has edit warred, page blanked, link spammed and not maintained civility.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * Page blanking
 * Link spam
 * Inclusion of biased information and edit warring over it
 * Removal of competing products mentions
 * 3RR
 * Post on users talk page by a member of the board of WP France

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:COI
 * WP:DE
 * WP:SPAM
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:OWN

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * See entire page Talk:Anchor
 * See entry called 'Anchor' on Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard
 * The article he has been disruptive on has already benefited from a Third opinion and an RFC, neither of which changed this user's behaviour.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Postscript: after his "Anchor holding power graph" image was deleted from Wikipedia, he to Wikimedia Commons. Note that the associated deletion of the image talk page also deleted the evidence of his repeated removal of other editors' posts. — Athaenara ✉  09:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * EdJohnston 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I often participate at the COI noticeboard. Many COI cases are resolved through negotation or by AfD. In this case, the article was too important for AfD, and negotiation gave no progress owing to the stubbornness of User:Badmonkey and his insistence on re-adding his commercial links. Commenters on the web have speculated that this editor is a sales representative for the Rocna company. For some reason, the company does not seem to fear damage to its reputation due to bad behavior on Wikipedia.
 * Russeasby 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I came to the article Anchor as a third party in request to another biased editors request (note this link is outside WP and I am user Russell in this discussion, Alain POIRAID here is another WP:COI editor but his behavior has not warrented actions that Badmonkey has), I have attempted to restore neautrality to the article, including opening a Third Party Opinion, RFC, listing on the COI noticeboard but this user has persisted in his behavior in supporting biased POV and spam content reguarding the Rocna product.
 * Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I came to anchor via a report at WP:COIN. I believe that User:Badmonkey has been edit warring, but the article on the whole needs a lot of improvement, and it is quite possible that other involved editors may have their own COI problems.  I have counseled Badmonkey on ways he can participate without violating the spirit of WP:COI.   I also removed some spam before the article was protected.     Hopefully Badmonkey will step back and avoid further involvement.  Once he stops edit warring and spamming, we will see what the other editors are doing and what steps may be necessary to prevent them from making their own COI edits. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 01:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Athaenara 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC) I became aware of Anchor after requests for a Third opinion and a report to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard on March 29 and 30.  My efforts to address the article and a related image and its talk page as per the neutral point of view policy and the conflict of interest guideline were determinedly opposed by user Badmonkey.
 * Alain POIRAUD 22:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)	Although I am an anchor designer, I am pensioned now and I don’t have any financial or commercial interest with any anchor manufaturer. I came to this article, informed by another anchor manufacturer, who has his comments regarding the neutrality of the article removed by user Badmonkey. I never came to this article to make the promotion of the products I have designed, but only to keep its neutrality of POV.             It should be noted that the same Rocna commercial links have also been posted in the French page “Ancre” and on the page “Anchor” of Wikipedia in simple English

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.