Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bell Bank Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Capital One Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Bruce Karsh Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:L.A. Care Health Plan Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Scott Mitchell (wide receiver) Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rainer K. Sachs Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:Versapay Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

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.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Hatashe

Resolved

 –  – ukexpat (talk) 16:39 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hatashe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hatashe (talk · contribs) has recently created two articles American Chronicle[1] and Modern Ghana[2]. It seems he's an editor in both those electronic publications and he has put his own articles as references to those articles. After a quick look at his contributions, I saw he is adding his own articles as references to a lot other articles as well[3][4][5][6][7][8]. Does this constitute self-promotion under WP:COI? --Avg (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I added spam and COI tags to his talk page. From his user page I would think that he is genuinely trying to contribute in a positive way and not just maliciously spamming. Regardless, there is a conflict in interest being indulged by linking to one's own work; it is plainly self-promotional. Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've PRODd American Chronicle but Modern Ghana may be more notable but I'm not too sure. Smartse (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD removed by anonymous IP in Bangladesh (possibly Hatashe) - now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chronicle Smartse (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP 123.49.40.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the AfD notice on American Chronicle - their edit history shows that they have edited articles on subpages of Hatashe's userpage - I think Hatashe needs to be warned over this (I imagine that it is also very likely that he removed the PROD) but I'm unsure in what way to do so as there's no direct evidence. Any suggestions? Smartse (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Though this IP is also from Bangla Desh, my guess is that the editor is not Hatashe. I've semiprotected the article for one week to prevent any further removal of the AfD banner, in lieu of blocking the IP, who seems inexperienced with our policies and may be well-intentioned. We still need to decide on a good response to Hatashe's insertion of links. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm inclined to disagree but lets give them the benefit of the doubt. As shown at the AfD the website is clearly not a WP:RS and any links should be removed. There are an awful lot of links (397) that need removing however: [9]. Just to clarify the American Chronicle can be edited by anyone as shown by the disclaimer on their website. Can they all be removed quickly or does it need to be done manually (I hope not!!). I've tried to encourage Hatashe to explain their POV on this but as yet they are silent - not sure what action to take considering this. Smartse (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that Modern Ghana should also be sent to AfD. Regarding the 397 spammy links to those two websites, I suggest leaving a report at WT:WPSPAM and ask for the best way to get the links removed. Somebody who runs AWB could probably do it in a jiffy if they were sure of consensus for the removal. The posting at WPSPAM would probably be enough to justify it. The excessive redirects to American Chronicle will qualify for speedy deletion if the main article is deleted at AfD. I've left a {{uw-spam3}} warning for Hatashe. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's been done here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#americanchronicle.com I'll look take a deeper look at Modern Ghana later. Smartse (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Modern Ghana has just been speedily deleted as a copyvio. – ukexpat (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Levanteditor, User:Nora abazed, et al.

• Levanteditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nora abazed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Quinn56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abdulsalam Haykal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Transtek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was speedily deleted and has since been restored
• Forward Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Compass ERP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) speedy delete requested and declined

User:Levanteditor appears to be a single purpose account that has solely contributed material related to Abdulsalam Haykal since its creation in 2008. Such articles include Haykal's, which was created by this account, along with Transtek (a Haykal company), Compass ERP (a Haykal product) and Forward Magazine (a Haykal Media publication). This user edits in close harmony with User:Nora abazed, an account that was created within a day or so of User:Levanteditor and occasionally with User:Quinn56, an account created on the same day. I've tagged Transtek and Abdulsalam Haykal articles with {{COI}} a total of 6 times, but one or another of these accounts has eventually reverted 5 of them. I've posted on article and user talk pages and tried to establish a dialog (here and here, for example), but without ever receiving an answer as to why the accounts revert the {{COI}} tags. This could use some community attention. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 02:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• N.B. Transtek was nominated for speedy deletion on 2009-05-24 by User:Smartse under A7, was subsequently deleted and has since been restored. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Since my original post above, User:Nora abazed has twice vandalized Talk:Abdulsalam Haykal by blanking most of the page. I've reverted each change and coincidentally posted {{uw-delete}} warnings on the user's talk page, much to the dismay of the user. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Once the Transtek article was restored, two of the accounts cited above added bogus citations supporting the claim that "Transtek is the largest business software firm in Syria." The first was a video-blog interview with Transtek's president, the second was a reference to Transtek's own web site. The restored article also contains a citation to an article about Transtek's anti-money laundering software, but the article appears in a magazine published by Transtek's president.

This case could become a poster child for prohibiting COI-editing on Wikipedia. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 16:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nora abazed has revealed the basis of their COI on Talk:Transtek. They interviewed the somebody, I assume Abdulsalam Haykal and is using this interview as a reference. I think the claims made about being Syria's biggest software company are probably credible but there aren't any reliable sources for this claim. I'm not sure how to proceed. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, Smartse. The conflict at issue hasn't anything to do with whether this user interviewed someone; that's WP:OR and tangential to this WP:COI. The core of this is captured above: 3 accounts that prosecute the interests of one individual. Add to that, this user has thusfar refused to discuss any of the actual conflict issues or explain why he or she has removed {{COI}} tags. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how many times I have to mention that I removed the COI tags out of ignorance. I spent the morning with someone I don't know on wiki chat, trying to learn about things. However, Mr Jim Ward has taken this from good vigilance to harrassment. By the way, Forward Magazine is a very reliable source. And when Mr Ward decideds to discredit its content so easily, it only attests to my claim that his arguing in a very deffensive manner. Just for the information of anyone reading this, I have done minor edits to about 400-500 articles relating to Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. And I still do that without signing my name. I have no relation to the other two editors that Mr Ward mentions. I think they are watching the pages. But enough is enough. I think this vigilance should be taken somewhere more deserving in Wikipedia. A lot of articles include a lot of bias, but Mr Ward's major business today is my edits. I rest my case.

Needless to mention, I owe a big debt of gratitude to all those who spent time looking at this matter, and I apologize for having wasted their precious time trying to find out what the story is all about.

Nora abazed (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nora abazed has grossly confused persistence with persecution and has chosen an ad hominem response rather than focusing on the facts surrounding this issue. It has crossed the civility line.

Nonetheless, I stand by each of the observations and analyses in my original post at the top of this section. The 3 accounts at issue have never communicated via user talk pages, though have edited the aforementioned articles in close synchrony and with common goals. An example? User:Quinn56 created the category WEF YGL Honorees; the accounts cooperatively added Wikipedia articles to those categories. No other Wikipedian has worked on this category. Coincidence? Only if you believe in the tooth fairy. U:Na's claim of no connection to these accounts fails WP:DUCK – even when viewed apart from his or her admittance of making contributions under other account names. A checkuser would likely clear this up, though I think these cards are sufficiently face-up on the table.

Claims to náiveté ("ignorance") above in response to deleting 5 {{COI}} tags and blanking article talk pages don't wash well, either, considering that the user, who first appeared in July '08, claims 400-500 anon edits alongside 280 edits attributed to the 3 topical accounts. Moreover, the user acknowledges the legitimacy of my conflict claim and significance of the COI tag when telling me that I should AfD an article rather than flagging it COI. Curiously, that acknowledgement at User talk:Levanteditor was posted 12 minutes after U:Na removed a COI tag on Abdulsalam Haykal. Another unlikely coincidence.

By my reckoning, one user + three accounts + one common agenda = conflict. Even when heavily dosed with WP:AGF, I can't make the math work out any other way.

Fwiw, I stumbled onto one of the articles at issue while reviewing new pages; I added improvement tags and persisted in follow-up, leading weeks later to this point. While I'm disinterested in the subject matter, I am motivated to see our community's standards upheld. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have done mistakes but definitely they are out of naivity. Now that I know better, they won't be repeated. It's up to you to remove all my entries, however. Ward mentions all these incidents. However, he never mentions the other users editing these pages too. I'm sick of this, I apologise, and rest my case, for the embarassment this has caused you, Wikipedia, other users, and the subject of these articles. It's definitely not in their interest that this conversation is taking place!!!!Nora abazed (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that commentary on this issue has reached a plateau, so it might be worthwhile to try to move it toward closure. Perhaps disinterested editors would consider and respond to these questions:

• Have the named accounts conflict-edited the articles listed?
• If so, what should be done about it, especially looking forward?
• Should a relationship between the named accounts be explored further here or at WP:SPI?
• What other information must come to the fore in order to reach closure?

Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 03:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

N.B. The 3 accounts named here are also the subject of a sockpuppet investigation at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nora_abazed. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 23:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Self referencing

• Jud Newborn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor who seems to be Jud Newborn has been adding self-referencing his own work. I've removed it but don't have time today to explain why. If someone could take a look and explain I would be greatful. (he's left a comment on my talkpage). Smartse (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Charles Taze Russell

• Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles
• Pastorrussell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Some time ago, User:Pastorrussell introduced links to his own website (pastor-russell.com) in several articles related to Charles Taze Russell and the Bible Students. A similar issue has previously been raised at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_21#Charles_Taze_Russell, which was never completely resolved, though there was some degree of consensus to not call the website 'official'. The user's original promotion of their own site has not been properly addressed. See discussion at Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell#Pastor_Russell_website and User_talk:Jeffro77#Consensus.

I have proposed at the article Talk page that links to User:Pastorrussell's website be removed from articles, for User:Pastorrussell to refrain from reinstating them or encouraging others to do so, and to allow other editors to link to the site if they consider the site notable.

There is also a tendency of the editor to be 'defensive' of C T Russell. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pastorrussell, Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell/Archive_2#Official.2FChief_website_by_Bible_Students, Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell/Archive_2#User_with_potential_COI, Talk:Charles_Taze_Russell/Archive_2#.22Official.22_Website--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember some of the issues from the last time this was posted here at WP:COIN. Not yet having read all the threads that Jeffro supplied, My initial thought is that Charles Taze Russell seems neutral and well-written, and Pastorrussell (talk · contribs) is the top contributor to that article, with 266 edits. Does anyone have time to notify a few of the most-frequent contributors (from the toolserver summary) who are still active in 2009, to see what they think of Pastorrussell's editing? Obviously if he is trying to slant the article or to put links to his own website in places where they are not needed, this would be a concern. We would need specifics to know whether this has occured. The last time this was reviewed here, I did not see a case for removing all the links to his web site. EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Initial edits of mine back as far as 2004 were not always in line with Wikipedia policies, not having been fully aware of them at that time. Discussions came up over time about a potential conflict of interest, and links to the official site were removed. I have tried very hard over the past year/year-and-a-half not to do anything that violates Wikipedia policies. Although some of the links to the official website were added by myself back in 2004 other editors removed them and they were put back by others. My contention is that since this was done, and that a consensus was also reached on removing the word official from the referenced links that there is no need to continually bring this up. There is no attempt or desire by me to slant the article for Charles Taze Russell, and do believe that my recent editing record demonstrates this, including making sure that when someone removes critical statements of this person that I have put them back and have even added references to that section. Numerous claims have been made about my character, assumptions about my motives, and even an seeming suggestion that I edited under more than one username. All of those things are untrue. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not suggested that you have edited under more than one username (i.e. sockpuppetting). I indicated that you made some edits under an anonymous IP, either simply forgetting to log in, or before the creation of your username. This was to indicate that it was yourself who added the first references to your own website, because you claimed this was not the case. Consensus of the points I have raised has never been properly established regarding your obvious conflict of interest, apart from the single matter of including the word official with regard to your website. The goal here is to establish the parameters for a proper consensus regarding your conflict of interest on each of the points I raised. See User Talk:Jeffro77#Consensus.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a look through the history, and overall I agree with EdJohnston. 4/5 years back there were pretty serious article ownership problems, but I can't see any current neutrality issues with Pastorrussell's editing.
As to the Pastor-russell.com website, it might be worth running it past Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. My personal impression is that it's fine for any primary historical documents it hosts, but that its secondary content isn't up to WP:RS, since there isn't anything to distinguish it from self-published material on a personal site (i.e. there's no identification of authorship, and it hasn't been published by a third-party publisher of known reliability). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The website is not a self-published personal website. It is the official website supported by numerous entities directly connected to him, including his only surviving relative. Please let me know what steps you recommend be followed to confirm this to satisfy Wikipedia standards. The listing of the website was in no way an attempt at self promotion, but a link to the official website. When the link was removed it was replaced by others without my prompting. The user Jeffro77 has accused me of lying, has maligned my character, and made gross assumptions about my actions. If others could please give some advice on how to deal with this it would be appreciated. This creates many questions in my mind, especially with regard to motive in again raising this issue despite past consensus, and no complaints from any other regular editors. Thanks. Pastorrussell (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The website is not a self-published personal website. It is the official website supported by numerous entities directly connected to him, including his only surviving relative.

That isn't the basis for deciding reliability on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" - that is, material produced through the editorial process of publishers of known and generally agreed credibility. The secondary material at that site is unsourced, has no credited authorship and no indication of what editorial process produced it, nor is www.pastor-russell.com a publisher of generally agreed reputation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Indeed, my primary concern is with articles linking to the editor's personal website, their self-promotion of it, and more recently the editor's claim that they were not the first person to add references to their site to articles, which has been shown to be untrue. My concerns about Pastorrussell's other edits are somewhat minor. What you've indicated above is pretty much what I suggested at User talk:Jeffro77#Consensus--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a checkuser report establishing the link between the anonymous IP which originally added the link, and the user known as Pastorrussell? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Very unlikely. Checkuser is a nuclear option for major ongoing disruption, and wouldn't be invoked for a fairly lightweight issue like finding who added a contentious link. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless Checkuser works historically (i.e. the IP a user had at the time), this would not be reliable over a period of years as provider may have changed. In any case, most of the articles had the link added by the named user; only a couple were added by the IP-based user, but the timing of the edits in October 2004 are fairly conclusive.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth pursuing. This is way back, and insufficient an issue to merit Checkuser. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me, then, to assume good faith on the part of User:Pastorrussell, and not make unprovable accusations against him/her regarding anonymous edits that may or may not look suspiciously similar to you. This is just my thoughts this particular issue. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is not the same as being naive. I have assumed good faith as far as is possible, and my specific comments regarding the IP-based edits clearly indicate this.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

BibleStudents.net

At various times, User:Pastorrussell has selectively removed references to the website, http://www.biblestudents.net. Sometimes the links are deleted[10] [11][12], sometimes they are changed to http://www.biblestudents.com or http://www.biblestudents.org (websites unrelated to BibleStudents.net)[13][14][15][16] , or to pages hosted at pastor-russell.com[17][18][19][20][21]. This concern was raised in 2005 and 2006 but the behaviour continued as recently as August 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Claudio Edinger

• Claudio edinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Claudio Edinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This photographer is notable, but I don't think I have to explain why, due to all the recent edits, it appears to be an autobiography (although to be fair, User:Claudio edinger didn't create the article). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

KRLU, Austin City Limits, et al.

• Austin City Limits - KRLU domain has edited Austin City Limits page. "Producer Terry Lickona continues to seek a balance..." was a tipoff.
• KRLU - KRLU domain has edited KRLU page.
• Austin, Texas - KRLU domain has edited Austin media section.
• Katee Sackhoff, Susan Hendricks, The Bionic Woman, Darrell Royal edited by KRLU domain, appear to be referencing self or acquaintances. 24.21.184.134 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK: I've mended the article links. Tell us which user is "KRLU domain" and we'll investigate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MacTalla Mor

• Mactalla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MacTalla Mor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This band's notability is debatable, but the article is written pretty promotionally, which isn't surprising considering the creator is User:Mactalla. The article is the victim of a contested PROD, and although another user claimed to have added references, none of them mention the band (the front page of newspaper websites? Come on!). I also wonder if User:Superpipeman is a sockpuppet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think I should run it for AFD?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked. When it says they were written about in the NY Times, this is what they were referring to: "A post-parade party at Stout will feature the music of Albannach, Scocha and MacTalla Mor." That's it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI of Wikimjb

This appears to be a WP:SPA to promote the interest of the Immigration Advocates Network. The original editor ImmAdvocates was blocked due to a COI. Then this account appear and has done nothing except edit this article. There is an AfD on this article and the Wikimjb has been there arguing every editors opinion. I've asked him directly twice if he is affiliated with the organization and he refuses to answer and accused me of being "uncivil" and "badgering" for asking twice. Perhaps someone could render a third party opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Wikimjb has admitted at the AfD discussion that they are affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network, but says that there is no COI because there is no evidence that they are editing to advance the organization in disregard of Wikipedia's policies. I don't think the user's edits to the article itself are too bad, but the edits to the AFD discussion, such as accusing other editors of being influenced by personal views, are problematic, and it's unlikely they would have such strong feelings about the potential deletion if they weren't affiliated with the organization. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, he has admitted it.....and is now claiming I have a COI myself by saying to look at my userpage. There is nothing on my user page about immigration, attorneys or any of the groups affiliated with his network, so I have asked what the supposed COI is. The answer should be interesting. His edits to the article may not be a COI, but his constant arguing in the AfD are a COI and he's starting to make it personal. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Daws

• Nick Daws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• NikkD (talk · contribs)
• MartineHill (talk · contribs)
• 86.20.79.13 (talk · contribs)

Maybe stale as a COI, but created by SPA accounts, one with a name rather similar to the article, and looks considerably NN. AFD candidate? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Article has been PRODd - does not appear notable. Smartse (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

• Sathya Sai Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andries (talk · contribs)

I object to the COI warning tag. There is no serious accusation of COI except against me, but I have not edited the article for more than two years and many edits have been made since. I have requested without success that is removed. See Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Conflict_of_interest.3F.Andries (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Two years is a long time. However, the fact remains that you are the largest contributor to this article by a huge margin. And you failed to mention that the reason you haven't edited the article was because you were banned during the second arbitration. While it has been two years, edits you made certainly remain on the page. I believe the tag is appropriate under the circumstances. Note: I was the one to put the tag on the article. Additional input on the subject would be appreciated. Thanks, Onopearls ^(t/c) 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am affiliated with the website http://www.exbaba.com a website of concerned former followers of Sathya Sai Baba. I have always been open about it. But even when I stopped editing there was no link to that website. Due to my background one could expect a very critical article, but when I stopped editing the article was less critical than it is now. I have repeatedly supported reverts (without success) to a less critical version that I think has better quality. Andries (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Elliot Jay Stocks

Resolved

 – Autobiographical. Moved to subpage of user as per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest-- billinghurst (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Elliotjaystocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elliot Jay Stocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a well-written article, but it's an autobiography 100%. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, the creator keeps removing the {{autobio}} tag even though he full-on admits it's an autobiography. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add that I don't think he is notable enough for inclusion per WP:ARTIST. I sent the article to PROD yesterday, but the original author removed the tag. I wasn't going to follow it up, but depending on what happens here, an AFD may be in order. --GW… 07:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Cheema08

• Cheema08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Most of this gentleman's output is the creation of bombastic unreferenced biographies or eulogies of members of the Cheema clan, such as this enlightening eulogy of "the most prominent Cheema" (old revision before copyedits by bots and myself). Subjects seem decently notable, but close examination of his username led to suspicion of a potential COI in this matter. 62.147.39.48 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Mandyvandeven

• Mandyvandeven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Editor has posted numerous links to self-published blog on a number of unrelated articles. Editor appears to be acting in good faith, but the links seem unacceptably self-promotional in nature and may reflect original research in violation of WP:No original research. Would appreciate additional input. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Brett Frana

On article about musician who plays in a few notable bands, User:Brettfrana (same name as subject) is adding peculiar spammy information such as

In June 2009 Brett will be returning to the Manhattan area for few months and hopes to be reunited with his fiancee in los angelas before the year comes to its end. Brett and Laurie had been struggeling with some problems and he is confident that he and his soulmate will work things out and continue their plans to get hitched in vegas.. Untill then Check out Laurie Elyse Design and check out her awesome swimwear and her press coverage in Junes 2009 issue of AP and keep posted for her all new runway collection and for her charity auctions where she will be auctoning off one of a kind art pieces and chandelers designed and built by Laurie herself. they all will benift children and all proceeded are to be given to charity, its a really cool thing shes come up with and all the art she has created, and built, and thought of they truely are amazing.

I've reverted this twice. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the article of promotional material, which left about two sentences. The user has reverted me and removed some of the tags. Dayewalker (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Only 141 Google hits. Even notable enough for inclusion? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's questionable enough to be taken to AfD. I see the admitted COI user subject of the article has reinstated the promotional materials. I won't edit war to remove it, but it still looks awful. Dayewalker (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues: COI editing, and perhaps notability. Frana is mentioned in our article on Bile. Since Bile's records since 2000 appear to be self-published, the band's notability is not guaranteed. My Life with the Thrill Kill Kult seems to meet WP:MUSIC, but the band's web site does not mention Brett Frana. Google does not reveal any association between Frana and that band, except for mirrors of Wikipedia. It is unclear if Frana has even made any recordings with them. So an AfD might serve to stimulate the finding of actual sources. Meanwhile I've left Brettfrana a 3RR warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good work all. It looks like the page somehow made it through PMDrive's csd watch, but I can't find what wp:rs was used to establish notability. I agree with EdJohnston in taking this to AFD. I also cannot find anything to show that he played with MLWTKK. Surprisingly, for a band with their notability, their article and talk page do not appear to be particularly active. If Ed has no problem, I will just copy his text above to the AFD. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've opened an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Frana. Since the present article is unsourced and self-promotional, I think it's fair to ask the COI-affected editor to find some real content for us. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

hi i have been a member since 2003 of thrill kill kult and whick im also a member if Pigface a well established legendary band from chicago.. and have recorded many tracks on cd i have gone by many knicknames through out the years some shok was one also i have been known as brett frana my name also brett pirannha and brett bile,, feel free to look up those names if you will. i however was adding the information to my page as i was typing it and adding more refrences because i have a bunch... im not skilled at the ways of the computer and internet. i would hate to see it be deleted if you all think it doesnt belong here when i have been a major part of these bands for a long time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brettfrana (talk • contribs) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please read this page: WP:N. It describes the kinds of things that we look for in Wikipedia in order to have an article. If the article can meet those requirements, and you can find some reliable sources you can link to (reliable sources defined in this page: WP:RS), then just add them to the article, (or put them on the article's Discussion tab and ask someone there to format them into the article), and that should prevent the article from being deleted. Arakunem^Talk 17:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

CRSPs articles

I encountered Intsormil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when I discovered the editor adding links to intsormil.org to various pages. I then discovered that the editor had created an article on their userpage for INSTORMIL CRSP (Sorghum]], Millet]] and Other Grains Collaborative Research Support Program and deleted it as obvious advertising by someone with a COI under WP:UP#NOT and left a note asking the editor to read WP:SPAMNAME and explaining the deletion. The editor came to my talk page asking why I had deleted the article, pointing to IPM CRSP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and saying that they had been asked by their "contact at USAID to establish a wiki article for our organization after this article Farmer to Farmer was published. They feel that the CRSPS should have a presence on Wiki for historical purposes as well as a reference for people looking for information about the USAID CRSP programs." See my talk page and their talk page for my reply. So, we have IPM CRSP created by IPMCRSP2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also has a COI, and maybe a couple of other articles with COI, all pretty badly written. If anyone here feels able to give at least these two editors some advice/help it would be useful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Space Science Institute

Space Science Institute being edited by User:Space Science Institute. Disembrangler (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK to start with I have reported the username to WP:UAA as a spamname/shared account. – ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

2 Skinnee J's

Andyaction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has admitted he is/was a member of the band 2 Skinnee J's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)has been advised that he has a conflict of interest, but insists on inserting unsourced material, even though advised to provide sources, has also inserted point of view statements here [22], here [23] and here [24]. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

When informed politely about Wikipedia's policies, Andyaction didn't make any effort to try to edit to them. Instead, he just reacted more negatively. We just don't need edits like this, which is vandalism. There is a good point he had, though... The article is poorly sourced. Should probably be just a short stub. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 02:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The history section is all referenced (by me) to reliable sources so I'm not sure what you mean by poorly sourced. The lists could be blanked though if we think they're inaccurate. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I would know if the lists are inaccurate or not, it's just that all info is supposed to be sourced. The lead paragraph is good, except that I didn't see a mention of "nerd hip hop" in the article body. Seems there should be something out there that labels the band that. Getting back to the COI, though, I hope Andyaction either reads & respects the guidelines or stops making unhelpful edits. Either way, a COI definately seems to exist. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Kellogg Biological Station

• Kellogg Biological Station (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kellogg Biological Station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

What else needs to be said? (But to be fair, the above user didn't create the article, and the article's subject is notable.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Royal Microscopical Society

• LauraK9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Royal Microscopical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Infocus Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:LauraK9 has made a great deal of non-neutral, promotional edits that has turned Royal Microscopical Society into one big advertisement. I didn't nominate it for deletion because it is an article for a notable magazine, but definitely not in its current form. The user then created Infocus Magazine a day or so ago, which is not only promotional as well but also only has references from the magazine's official website. In addition, I'm wondering if LauraK9 refers to Laura Kingsbury, the editor-in-chief of both magazines. [25] [26] THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

LauraK9 also continually removes the {{coi}} template from the Royal Microscopical Society article without doing much else but adding more promotional material. I'd reinstate it again, but I don't want to be accused of starting an edit war. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise. The RMS page was very out of date and lacked important information. I added detail but realised afterwards that it wasn't as neutral as it should be. The recent editing I have done has not added promotional material but has deleted anything that is not completely factual to try and make the page as neutral as possible. If there is anything on the page that is still advertising, then of course it should be deleted. I honestly wasn't aware that I had removed the template from the page.User:LauraK9

You weren't aware that this edit and this one were removing the template? Also, please take a look at WP:COI and please use edit summaries. To deal with the COI issue, the best approach is to discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page to gain consensus first. – ukexpat (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Again I'm very sorry and assure you I will do nothing else on the site.User:LauraK9 —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

No, no we are not trying to scare you away from editing, just pointing out that for articles where you have a conflict of interest you need to be especially careful and make every effort to gain consensus for your edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukexpat (talk • contribs) 8 June 2009

Whitby Seafoods Ltd

Stargirl84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Recent activity at Norway Lobster, Scampi, and Whitby Seafoods Ltd by this user and anonymous user 82.68.66.225. Believe to be User_talk:Whitbyseafoods. Also potential copyright images uploaded to Commons, appear to have come from company Thedarxide (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jill Thompson

Jill Thompson being edited by user:jillthompson. Some experienced COI hands please help improve the page and introduce to WP. Disembrangler (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls

International Order of the Rainbow for Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Lenagirl5 (talk · contribs) identified on my talkpage as being involved with the official Rainbow site. She's twice blanked the {{Freemasonry2}} template to get it off the Rainbow page, even after I explained it to her once. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Make that three times - twice after it was explained. WegianWarrior (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I blocked her for an hour after the third time -- that's beyond content dispute. I would urge others to keep an eye on it after the block expires, as I am heavily involved as an editor in that article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ivey

• Dariv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- [By her own admission], user is only interested in editing the article about herself. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

But the important thing is neutrality being observed. I can't see anything non-neutral in the edits she has made so far. Neither is there anything at all wrong with her wish to add a picture. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)