Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD 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:

Bob Fink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this and other articles on/by this Canadian musicologist need external review of notability and content. They were created by, and have continuing edits from, 65.255.255.* addresses [1], which correspond to Bob Fink and his publisher. This same IP range edits extensively to raise Fink's profile by self-links (see [2]) in a walled garden an interlinked set of various musicology articles, with continuing refusal to abide by WP:COI and WP:Autobiography guidelines. Admin attention over the COI would be particularly appreciated. His excessive and argumentative presence on Talk pages (see Talk:Divje Babe and Talk:Musical acoustics) also seems well out of the spirit of COI guidelines to "defer to the community's opinion". (updated) 86.139.249.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) 09:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walled garden? Where? MER-C 06:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the facts: I have not refused to abide by Wiki rules. 1. The page written in my Wiki bio was written by User:Victoriagirl, and one of us wrote in to her: "Good job" at the time, even though what was originally written there over a year ago (based on my publisher's webpage bios --as we didn't know any Wiki rules), was completely scratched by her. We thought that was ok.

2. Despite some disagreements, I immediately seized upon Craig Stuntz' offer to rewrite Divje_Babe entirely (see Talk:Divje_Babe) and I instantly agreed he should go ahead (8 hours before User:Rainwarrior did, who I believe is asking for this watch). That's "refusal" to abide by rules? Rainwarrior even placed, out of chronological order, a comment that he, too, agreed with Craig's proposal, putting it ahead of my agreement made 8 hours earlier than his. If one didn't read the time-date, it could appear that I was a "me-too" succumbing to a "band-wagon" preceeded by Rainwarrior and Craig. Rainwarrior at other times similarly moved around his replies out of time. This is not the first.

Virtually All Rainwarrior's recent edits and activity for many weeks has been especially targeting me (see his user tasks pages targeted on me), slandering me, without any grounds offered. Like the other pages which have material about ancient and prehistoric music (written long ago, and not by me), they will show that the edits (I dare Rainwarrior to quote them all in full) rarely have my name in them, and only sometimes are my webpages (but usually quoting material by other authors). How on earth does that "promote" my "profile"? This all is evidence and fact that Rainwarrior knows or has read time and again, but ignores because it doesn't suit his corrupt campaign against me. -- Bob Fink Greenwyk 05:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI COI: 1. "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest." This shows that total silence is not what the rules prescribe from involved scholars as Rainwarrior seems to believe. Please "unwatch" me as I am playing by the rules. We also have offered to replace any and all edits, if irrelevant, made long ago, which possibly violate rules didn't then know. Maybe Rainwarrior needs watching?

(deindent) "The page written in my Wiki bio was written by User:Victoriagirl". Wrong. A look at the history shows that 65.255.225.0/24 (which is you, isn't it?) has made at least half of the edits to the article. Another problem is that the article lacks third party reliable sources and is almost completely unreferenced (so tagged).

You also need to keep an eye on our spam and external link guidelines. MER-C 06:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that I do not in any way consider myself the writer of the Bob Fink entry, rather I stumbled upon an unencyclopedic article and did my level best to improve it. In this way, it was no different than many other articles in which I have chosen to participate. That said, I found the extent of the work to be more challenging and time consuming - in fact, I appear to have timed out. As the edit summary indicated, my edit concerned the Manual of Style and general clean-up, the deletion of redundancies and advertising. Also deleted was an essay concerning Rosa Parks. A casual glance will reveal that much of the text of the new article was a rewritten or boiled down from the previous version. Information concerning Fink's renderings, contained at the end of the previous version, was inserted under "Biography"; otherwise the section remains virtually unchanged. This is all to say that I can't in any way claim to have "written" the entry, nor do I. The description is made all the more unrealistic by the fact that other users have performed more than 50 edits since.

I should add that I'm pretty much your average rock chick disco doll, and know nothing about prehistoric music, the origin of scales, or any other area of study referred to in the article. My participation in the Bob Fink article was a result of the clean-up challenges offered by the entry as it existed in September.

Finally, I cannot let this opportunity pass without expressing my extemely irritation by the great number of anonymous edits and posts, and reluctance by these same users to provide edit summaries. These have had no other effect than to throw up roadblocks. Victoriagirl 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was careless -- I should have said that the article as it once stood was not any longer there, and was replaced by a "cleanup" by Victoriagirl (which I for one thought was fine. I have no complaint with her). I will agree there is a difference between "cleanup" work and having "written" the article. I was not aware of what great signficance that difference would suggest to Victoriagirl, but the exact fact, to avoid misinterpreting what I meant, is now to say that I meant this: I didn't do the cleanup of the current article. Victoriagirl did, and now seeing how she has responded, I now know I should have used that word instead of the broader term "written." I would've assumed that a cleanup happens by writing it -- but Wikipedia distinctions like that clearly I haven't found nor learned yet from the rules. I just don't understand the hostility or irritation it generates.

Since the cleanup (as the history will prove), I have done little content editing, if any, except for correcting dates, alphabetizing, and trying to find references that are on-line for the specific facts of the biography as allowed to me. The quantity of that may appear numerous, but the significance of them against rules (like centering the picture doesn't break any rules, does it? Or advertise me more than it being at the left? As to "advertising," that was part of the publisher's original write-up when not knowing the rules. The edits (all from the publishers computer) in "history" will show that since the cleanup, edits have been minor, dealing only with as said, dates, etc. The whole idea of a bio for me here was when my publisher asked me for info to put one together a long long time ago. If I have a bio in wikipedia, nice for me, its importace to me is mimimal.

As to "third party references" I simply don't understand that charge in this article. Specifically, please: What items or claimed facts in the article remain unverified or uncited? What exactly is needed? The list of works is factual, they can be found in libraries, and references to worldcat or ISBM numbers have been or can be provided. If I provide an ISBN or link (such as the link to the human rights commission) is that not a third party reference or link? I've read the citation rules, etc., and perhaps the person tagging it could explain which specific rule is not followed? PLEASE? I would appreciate the good manners of receiving specifics instead of attacks and accusations which seem to me highly provocative. (As when I take advantage of the wiki excerpt above regarding and allowing the citing of one's own work. Scholars in journals do it all the time. Here it seems to be a high crime, worthy only of great penalties. Bob Fink, Greenwyk 03:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by an anonymous user that began this discussion was not made by me (I did not know that this particular noticeboard existed until just now), but it matches my opinion more or less and I had previously linked the website search to one or two other people I had hoped might comment on the situation at Talk:Musical acoustics. That search will return less results next time the database updates though, because I have been removing those links which were directly added by a user with one of his IPs (each time with a link to the edit history where it was added). His IPs usually are of the form 65.255.255.* where * ranges from 33 to 52, though 40,41,42,50, and 51 were also used briefly by someone claiming to be Kate McMillan during a debate at that page some time ago. I'm assuming these are IPs from a Saskatchewan dialup ISP. There are also some older edits by 204.83.156.17, 28, 36, and 38, and a look at the edit histories of any of these IPs will reveal editing entirely related to the work of Bob Fink (adding links to his website, particularly, and often adding his self published book to the reference lists of article). I made a list at User:Rainwarrior/Bob Fink, because all of this anonymous editing makes it difficult to evaluate the depth of the problem here otherwise.

My direct notice of this editing began after I made a few comments, without editing the article, about the content Mr. Fink had added to Musical acoustics. After his rather harsh reply, I looked again at the material in the article and became of the opinion that that information was irrelevant to the subject. After the editor claimed to be either Mr. Fink or his publisher, it began to look like a case of self promotion to me, especially as I began to find links to his website all over the place. (I made some edits regarding this at the time but they were reverted by Mr. Fink, and I haven't edited the article in quite some time pending consensus from other editors on the talk page, but it is slow in coming.)

I should point out, though, that at Divje Babe, I think a mention of his work regarding that artifact is entirely relevant, as it is mentioned several times in the published literature about it. I do, however, object to the manner in which it is currently presented (which was written by Mr. Fink). I've made very few edits to that article itself, though. - Rainwarrior 12:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FACT: I have never heard of Kate McMillan until now. FACT: She has never used the same computer as the one I use (that Rainwarrior says has the same ISP or IP -whatever). Maybe this Kate uses the same Saskatoon server? FACT: Her link above shows she is very right-wing. I am well-known in my city as a left-wing activist. Why she would add links to any book I wrote or add links to my websites would be inexplicable to me, as she'd likely never agree to anything to help anyone with my left-wing politics, I'm sure. What's going on here??? FACT: The Talk:Divje_Babe page shows I am not the writer of the current Divje Babe article. Totally perplexed, Bob Fink, Greenwyk 00:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC). P.s. Anyway, if some person wants everyone to watch the edits made at my bio page, actually, what do I care, after all? Go for it. Whether the period goes before the close-quote or after it can be very exciting to witness. :O)[reply]

I was suggesting that she uses the same ISP as you, nothing more than that. Just pointing out that the IP contribution record shows. And the Divje Babe history and content shows that you did in fact write a great deal of the text of that article. You've also contributed lengthy argument to the talk page (along with reversion edits) over even very minor changes to the text you wrote in the article. - Rainwarrior 01:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have contributed comparably lengthy ship-galley volumes of writing to Talk, always the first to start the cannons rolling, and continuing your charming habit of naming your ad hominem false statements about me as "facts"; Rarely -- perhaps almost never -- fully quoting specifics (the kind one puts inside quotes) to back up the misinformation. I seem also to be so much more interesting to you than ANY of the articles involved -- I really am so flattered. You just follow me everywhere like a puppy. Awww shucks, golly jeepers. Giggle. Greenwyk 17:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Primerica Financial Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is apparently supervised by company employees. It has been edited by a company IP (12.163.2.10 (talk · contribs)), by a SPA who named himself for the company (until made to change), and even by someone claiming to be the company's representative. They've repeatedly removed even the mildest criticisms of the company. -Will Beback · † · 09:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should have blocked the SPA because of a commercial/trademarked username. As long as the criticisms are sourced, they should be reverted and warned with {{test1a}}, etc. MER-C 09:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wgungfu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User repeatedly removed any mention of Battlezone, a video game probably inspired by Panther (although the article does not assert this); he has even removed See also links. Edit summary of removal of See also link: "RV due to speculation comes from the claimed relationship of Bzone being a copy of Panther, which is speculative at best"; no such claim was made in the article. Likewise, has repeatedly removed or muted mention of Panther from the Battlezone page. User page suggests close links to Atari. Has said on Talk:Battlezone that he sides with Atari POV that "Factually, there is no direct link between Panther and Battelzone." (sic) // ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:06, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this should go here or on the general board. I received an email to my Wikipedia account stating

thank you for your help on The Pharcyde's page on Wikipedia. We are really looking for some that knows Wikipedia editing well to make more overdue Wikipedia enteries for our record labels' artists. of course, we are not talking about any illicit 'marketing' messaging, only justifiable quality entries. If you have some feelings or suggestions on this please email me (name and email from Delicious Vinyl)

Delicious Vinyl is behind such classics as Tone Lōc's Wild Thing and Young MC's Bust A Move, if anyone else is a fan of late 80s hiphop. Any thoughts? - BanyanTree 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do anything right now. No article, no conflict of interest problems. As for notability, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. MER-C 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis King, who edits Wikipedia as Dking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has made over 50 edits to this article in the past three days. He was the author of a hostile biography of LaRouche back in the 1980s, and his edits are very problematic from the standpoint of WP:COI#Citing_oneself. --Tsunami Butler 09:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general case has already been resolved in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche_2 Dennis King is a respected and published author on LaRouche. Why is Tsunami Butler publishing on every possible noticeboard then? Because Tsunami Butler is simply another LaRouche follower who is attempting to whitewash negative facts about LaRouche. Please be cautious in reading any claim of Tsunami Butler because many of them are simply incorrect. Mgunn 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more appropriate place for this would be the arbcom enforcement board, as this could be in violation of the two arbcom rulings. Please file your request there, complete with diffs and links to the two arbcom decisions. MER-C 12:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read those ArbCom decisions, and the issue of self-citing never comes up. I have no basis for bringing this complaint to that forum. Self-citing is a COI policy issue. If you need diffs, a brief glance at this should get you started. --Tsunami Butler 16:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too have read those two ArbComm decisions, and am completely puzzled by Mgunn's comment that the matter has already been resolved. WP:COI as a policy post-dates the ArbComm decisions (prior to the current policy, it was limited to vanity pages, I believe, and that's not the issue here). And in any case Dennis King was neither a party to nor mentioned in the ArbComm cases; these decisions thus provide no guidance or his edits nor a basis for enforcement.

This is a current WP:COI issue, and deserves further scutiny. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user 68.98.161.246 has made more than 300 edits, all of which relate to Georgetown University and Georgetown's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service in a positive nature. I think the IP should be checked to see if it comes from the university. For example, there has been a discussion at the School of Foreign Service article about academic boosterism by the user. Here are their contributions: Special:Contributions/68.98.161.246. Another similar IP user has made similar boosteristic edits, Special:Contributions/68.49.15.185. Thanks --AW 07:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely I did the whois on both IPs. Neither resolved to the university itself, but rather the surrounding urban area, Arlington and Vienna to be precise. It's consistent with a student/employee editing from home. MER-C 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added a {{primarysources}} to that article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but they are still doing that sort of thing to other articles. I've left them messages to see the Conflict of Interest policy but they haven't responded so far. --AW 05:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Trainer (games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dispute over external links. I recently removed all external links from this article as they all failed WP:EL. One link was for a site run by User:Apache-; he has stated that he will continue to put up these external links each time they are removed, dismissing WP:EL and WP:COI as 'vague and ambiguous'. // Marasmusine 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:SPAM? And you're not alone, too, which is a good thing. Just looking at the history, User:Apache- might have violated 3RR as well. MER-C 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

01:19, 5 January 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) blocked "Apache- (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Revert warring, spamming) MER-C 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Apache-'s block has ended and his first act is to re-add the external links to Trainer (games). Marasmusine 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Apache has shown utter disregard for the WP:EL and WP:COI guidelines, has gone right ahead and repeated the action that he was blocked for and has no interest in building the encylopedia or working with others. Not, imo, the kind of editor we need to have around, especially as he appears to be a WP:SPA. Deizio talk 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to place a {{spam4im}} on his talk page right now. If he adds those links again, I will place such template. MER-C 11:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• XanGo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Mangosteen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - AnonIP trying to remove criticism of XanGo MLM (multi-level marketing scheme). See edits for User:67.128.38.100. He (she?) keeps removing all critical information, or trying to insert material favorable to the XanGo MLM scheme. I suspect, but cannot prove, that this person is a participant in the scheme. I don't know quite how to deal with this. I've reverted twice today and don't know if this would be considered a content dispute or vandalism, so I'm not sure I dare any more reverts. Zora 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Likely Geolocation puts the IP in Lehi, Utah. Guess where our little scheme is based? MER-C 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/she/it seems to have stopped for the day, but may return. If COI is likely, what next? Have the article semi-protected? Have the user blocked? Zora 08:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely vandalism anyway, so {{subst:test1a}}, etc, may be appropriate. MER-C 09:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jennneal1313 (talk · contribs): This is not specific to one article, but I'd like a second opinion on this user's contributions; it's a subtle case. In some instances these are reasonable additions, but the user has several times changed an existing source from the edition originally cited (usually out of print) to the Parmenides Publishing edition; see this edit for an example. Individually, I'm not sure these are a problem, but collectively, they would seem to indicate a conflict of interest. Other opinions very welcome; thanks. Chick Bowen 06:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it spam, as it doesn't really add to the article. Good catch. Reverted. MER-C 06:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user e-mailed me about correcting information about books from her press. I told her that the links were what raised a flag, and that ISBN numbers and up-to-date publication info would not be a problem--I certainly see no problem with this. So I think this is resolved. Chick Bowen 18:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've run across these publishers before and have no qualms about deleting or RVing all of their posts. However, I do check the books, and twice with publisher spams found books that were well-connected to the article, so I left them. One I even added a sentence to the article to tie it in with the book better. Generally they are not well-regarded books being added, so it's easy to delet them all. Another time they were books for one of the university publishing houses, so I wound up checking all of them more closely, but none were particularly well tied in to the articles. The annoying thing about spam, conflicts of interest and the like, is it's not always so straight-forward. If they're updating out of date editions to current editions this may conflict with the article citations, so it might be better to parenthetically list the newer addition rather than deleting the old. KP Botany 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I told her to include both. This is primarily a scholarly reprint publisher, so it does seem useful to have an up-to-date ISBN for books we're already citing but in out-of-print editions. Chick Bowen 19:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a win-win in spite of the conflict of interest: she gets paid to do the tedious work we don't have to. KP Botany 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Lishian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user account has existed for less than a month, and in that time he or she has concentrated, almost without exception, on editing either Gordon Lish or articles that mention Gordon Lish. Lishian also deliberately blanked Talk:Gordon Lish on December 24. I suspect a conflict of interest. My guess is that Lishian is either Gordon Lish himself or someone with with a close personal connection to him. Pat Berry 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: edit patterns look very suspicious. UserRandom is also prominent in having created a large number of redirects and links to Gordon Lish). There are also a few other users - Nominickel, Judge&Jury and The Hystorian - who have done little but pop up to add Lish material. The article needs serious attention to make it encyclopedic, including wikifying to remove redirect loops and duplicated hyperlinks. 86.140.183.135 23:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After analyzing the edit patterns further, I am now convinced that Lishian is Gordon Lish's granddaughter. Here's the evidence:

• On 15 November 2006, a person at IP address 69.138.176.86 edited the Gordon Lish article and entered this edit summary: "i'm his grandaughter, nina"
• 69.138.176.86 began editing Wikipedia on 28 October 2006 and from the very first edit behaved exactly like Lishian, concentrating almost exclusively on either the Gordon Lish article or articles that mention Gordon Lish.
• Edits from 69.138.176.86 essentially stopped after the Lishian user account was created on 23 December 2006. There have been only two edits from 69.138.176.86 since 18 December (probably because Lishian simply forgot to log in on those two occasions).
• The last edit from 69.138.176.86, on 7 January 2007, was a request for AutoWikiBrowser registration. The username submitted in this request was Lishian.

What this all adds up to: 69.138.176.86 (Lish's granddaughter Nina) and Lishian are the same person. Pat Berry 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies, where another editor has called attention to Gordon Lish. Pat Berry 17:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• IPhone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - appears that various Cisco employees have been edit warring on this article regarding the trademark dispute between Apple and Cisco over the iPhone. Numerous attempts to create disambiguation page contrary to consensus and WP:NAME guidelines. For example, confirmed that 64.102.36.140 (talk · contribs) edited the page in such a disruptive fashion from a Cisco IP, and I'm confident that same user was also Whointhe (talk · contribs). Another editor identified 171.71.37.171 (talk · contribs) as another possible Cisco employee, and I'm sure there are others. // --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Amped (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article created by Bdickason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), apparently the current "Content Director" of the website. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a case of WP:WEB, to me. More an issue of encyclopedic notability than COI. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 18:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snarkart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("Gillian") has only edited pages related to David Elliot, and has been updating other pages to include links to said article. In this user's defense, all of the contributions seem to be appropriate and fairly NPOV, but I am pretty convinced that this user has a substantisl conflict of interest, in that they work for or are closely affiliated with Mr. Elliot.

The comments left on my talk page support this theory, as does the edit summary of File:Mossflower.jpg (which has now been deleted, see its entry in The Deletion Log).

I am unsure of what action is warranted, blocking seemes severe, but someone with more experiance than myself should look into this. --Matthew 05:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The early history of Aliweb, beginning in May 2004, shows a variety of editors slowly building a small and increasingly encyclopedic article about one of the earliest web browsers, ALIWEB, an item of historical interest.

This began to change when anonymous and apparently associated IPs began moving in:

• 12.203.102.190 (talk) (contribs) August 2005
• 12.202.236.138 (talk) (contribs) November 2005
• 12.202.236.233 (talk) (contribs) December 2005, April 2006
• 74.131.81.181 (talk) (contribs) May 2006 through September 2006
• User:Aliweb (talk) (contribs) June 2006 through January 2007
• 74.140.187.28 (talk) (contribs) November 2006 through January 2007

A closer look at the IPs:

12.203.102.190 (talk) (contribs)

• One edit: (diff) Removed link to Historical Web Services where the ALIWEB developer's descriptions of web services he developed 1993-95 include this statement:

"Note that I have nothing to do with aliweb.com. It appears some marketing company has taken the old aliweb code and data, and are using it as a site for advertising purposes. Their search results are worthless. Their claim to have trademarked "aliweb" I have been unable to confirm in patent searches. My recommendation is that you avoid them."   (Martijn Koster) (see below, 74.131.81.181) **

12.202.236.138 (talk) (contribs)

• One edit: (diff) Removed line, "Aliweb was not very successful as not many people submitted their sites."

This line is part of a passage found in "An Annotated Chronology of the History of Information from about 30,000 B.C.E. to the present," by Jeremy M. Norman, in From Gutenberg to the Internet: A Sourcebook on the History of Information Technology:

"Aliweb allowed users to submit their webpages and add the page description with which they wanted them to be indexed. This empowered webmasters, who could define the terms that would lead users to their pages and also avoided setting bots (as the Wanderer) which used up bandwidth. Aliweb was not very successful as not many people submitted their sites." (emphasis added; most of this passage is in the article, nearly verbatim)

12.202.236.233 (talk) (contribs) — two edits apply (other two edits added external links to other articles)

• 1st edit: (diff) Posted (unsigned) to article talk page.
• 2nd edit: (diff) Added line to article, "Contrary to ask.com searching Aliweb was very civilized."

74.131.81.181 (talk) (contribs) 15 edits total, 12 in June 2006

• 1st edit: (diff) Removed line, "The site presently at aliweb.com is unrelated to the original ALIWEB."
• 2nd edit: (diff) Added first spam, five paragraphs beginning, "Aliweb is currently undergoing a total rewrite of the programing code and is set to relaunch in 2007 as a competitor to Goodle [sic], MSN, and Yahoo."
• 3rd edit: (diff) Removed two paragraphs, including Martijn Koster's statement (cited above)** which did not favour aliweb.com.
• 6th edit: (diff) Posted (unsigned) on article talk page.
• 7th edit: (diff) Linked aliweb.com in text.
• 8th edit: (diff) Removed line (previously restored (diff) by another editor removing spam), re-added spam.
• 10th edit: (diff) Linked aliweb.com in first word of article plus five more locations (six total). (Aliweb began editing a few minutes later—see below)
• 11th/12th edits: (diff) Posted twice (unsigned) on article talk page.

Aliweb (talk) (contribs)

• 1st edit: (diff) Linked aliweb.com twice more in text.
• 2nd, 3rd, 4th edits: (diff) Posted on article talk page, "I am currently the lead programmer working on Aliweb ..."
• Has edit warred with every other active editor. Forty-plus edits about aliweb, all to this article and its talk page except three on List of search engines and three to another editor's talk page. No edits on any other subject.

74.140.187.28 (talk) (contribs) 20 November 2006 - 2 January 2007

• 4th edit: (diff) Removed comments by another editor from article talk page.
• 7th edit: (diff) Posted (unsigned) on the article talk page, with "Bit of sarcasm added to offset deleted misinformation" edit summary:

"I guess the database needs to be updated to so when you type wikipedia or google in the search box you will find wikipedia or google in the search results. Also the outdated link to nexor needs to be updated to nexor.com / Anything else need to be fixed? Let me know. aliweb@aliweb.com"   (emphasis added.)

• 8th edit: (diff) Deleted own post, with "minor edit" edit summary.

The burden of this little gang of editors (who may be only two or three, or even one) is too great for the article to carry. They need to be stopped, so that good editors may (and quickly, too, judging from what they have been able to contribute between increasingly determined obstructions) bring the article back into that encyclopedic zone we all seek here. Athænara ✉ 13:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 June 06 User:Aliweb declared 'I am the lead programmer working on Aliweb' [3]. Warnings about conflict of interest seem to have no effect. EdJohnston 15:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. One possible resolution, for the sake of the obvious historical significance of the first web browser ALIWEB (Archie-Like Indexing for the WEB):

• Remove all commercial COI-pushing-sock additions to the text.
• Add one short section specifying the absence of any connection to a website called aliweb.com. Include and reference the original ALIWEB developer's clear repudiation of that site.
• Refactor the talk page (Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages), archiving the interference from the socks and nearly everything which relates to it, returning the emphasis on the current talk page to material pertinent to the historic ALIWEB browser itself.
• Move the article to [[ALIWEB]], the name of its subject.
• Get normal encyclopedic editing back up to speed—it could be a very good small article.

All this is aside from the possibility of continued interference from the socks, none of which have edited since 03 January 2007. I have not, myself, previously edited this article, but I can do this for it. Athænara ✉ 01:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the last good encyclopedic version of the article. The lengthy "closer look at the IPs" section is now located at Talk:Aliweb/Archive 1 (link provided above in that section's place) in a verbatim copy of the entire initial post. The remainder of the post is abbreviated here for eventual noticeboard archiving. Athænara ✉ 04:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Lengthy "A closer look at the IPs" section restored here because User:Aliweb has returned:

• Five edits (so far) to the Aliweb article, beginning 07:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• Nine posts (so far) to the Talk:Aliweb article talk page, beginning 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)

Can this self-identified aliweb.com employee, determined to subvert an encyclopedia article about the historic search engine for promotion of a commercial website repudiated by the ALIWEB developer, be stopped in his tracks? Athænara ✉ 09:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs for Update above:

After refraining since 03 January, User:Aliweb (talk) (contribs) returned to the Aliweb article for further disruptive editing: five article edits in less than five minutes, nine talk page posts in less than one hour, of the same type repeatedly inflicted during the past one and a half years:

Talk page:   08:03 - 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• 08:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 08:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 08:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff) * (see note below)
• 08:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 08:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 08:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 08:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 08:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
  

* In 08:17 post: asserted ownership contrary to WP:OWN, claimed he "started the article" which, according to its history, was begun 07:23, 9 May 2004 (UTC) (diff) by 64.253.96.252 (talk) (contribs).

Article:   07:52 - 07:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• 07:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 07:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)
• 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff) (1)
• 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff) (2)
• 07:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC) (diff)

This type of assault on the article was relentless for more than a year and a half. What Wikipedia process is best suited for preventing it from resuming? Athænara ✉ 09:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to report conflicts of interest in Admin actions. If not, please move this section and include a link here so we can find the new location. Friday is a member of a group I will call "Ref Desks deletionists", who favor unilateral, or at least nonconsensus, deletions of questions, responses, or entire threads, from the Reference Desk, if they don't personally approve of them. Unfortunately, he also engages in blocks against "Ref Desk inclusionists", those who believe a consensus must first be reached on the Ref Desk talk page before taking such actions. This alone is a conflict of interest. However, he follows a much stricter standard and applies the maximum penalty to inclusionists while imposing no penalty at all, and a warning at best, to fellow deletionists who engage in similar, or even far worse, behavior. I have mentioned this on his talk page several times, but he has not responded favorably. His recent block of Ref Desk inclusionist User:light current for calling someone a "Freshman" is a good example. He does not block Ref Desk deletionists for far worse behavior, such as these comments by an anon with a dynamic I/P:

Fuck off - that's an insult.87.102.4.227 14:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) [4].[reply]

You are a totally time wasting twat - why don't you fuck off and stop wasting everyones time with your pointless words - I had doubts at first - but now am am absolutely certain - you are a total fucking twat - fuck off.87.102.22.58 17:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [5].[reply]

The only response from Friday for these severe insults was a rather mild comment on the talk page of the anon in question, without even the threat of a block for repeated future insults: [6].

The perception, among many Ref Desk inclusionists, is that Friday abuses his Admin status in an attempt to "crush" inclusionists. Does everybody agree that there is a conflict of interest here ? If so, what can be done about it ? StuRat 17:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to report and discuss concerns about administrators' administrative actions is at WP:AN/I. If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to move this entire thread there. Note that this is a continuation of a previous, ongoing pattern of incivil and disruptive behaviour by Light current, the previous discussion of which is still on AN/I at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Civility_block_for_review.

At the same time, a review of StuRat's ongoing incivility would be welcomed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC

If you're talking about the use of the term "deletionist", that has already been reviewed at the RFC, and the consensus seems to be that it is, indeed, appropriate to refer to "those who support nonconsensus Ref Desk deletions" as "Ref Desk deletionists". Also, I must say that if your response to a complaint is to attack the messenger in an attempt to discourage any further complaints, this is also highly inappropriate behavior for an Admin. StuRat 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving the thread over. Do be careful when you copy and paste next time, though; you seem to have missed some of the other comments in the thread that would be relevant and of interested to persons reviewing your report. Don't worry; I've filled in the missing details. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As would a review of User:Hipocrite's gross incivility and repeated attacks, which has been encouraged by countless administrators. -THB 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Statik Selektah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article created & edited by Statikselekt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suggestive username, promotional tone, external links to record company/Myspace, and disruptive edits here and here suggest WP:COI issues. UnfriendlyFire 01:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the text is identical to that online here and here. So if it's not put here by Statik Selektah himself, it's a copyvio; if it is, it's COI. 86.145.94.9 03:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a warning in user's talk page and removed copyvio from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

See these edits: [7][8][9] Reverted by WP:VP2: [10] [11][12][13][14]

User:199.48.25.10

User:199.48.24.11

Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.10

Whois: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=199.48.25.11

What can be done?

I am in the middle of a checkuser with a possible Bridgestone employee from Australia, who is deleting the same exact content as the head Bridgestone office in Ohio was deleting. Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Mobile 01 Best wishes, Travb (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Serampore College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - this article on a perfectly respectible and long established (nearly 200 years) College is being "attacked" by User The Hermes who has it in his had that this is some sort of fake College and diploma mill - neither of which is true. He has ignored several editors telling him where the degree issuing authority comes from and keeps adding derogatory remarks to the page. I am now getting too close and feel someone else needs to monitor this - and if necessary protect it for a while to let matters cool down. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 07:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this page shows a long interwiki war. Some users and even administrators don't like ru-sib interwiki and try to delete it from the page. More of them - I have been attacked with this reason many times in my homepage. The last one was here. I'm really tired from this strange war and request for maintenance and protection. All arguments about the legitimation of ru-sib interwiki (which is not an external link) you could find in pages of discussion. --A4 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forum-shopping? What has this to do here? If there's anybody who has a "conflict of interest" here it's you, because you are a contributor to ru-sib. This was last discussed on WP:ANI, you failed to find support there, so now you're trying to take it elsewhere? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]