Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest‎ | Noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 25 December 2007 (Archiving 3 thread(s) from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Yunkyung Ashleigh Cho

Resolved
 – Articles deleted. MER-C 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Editor has created an autobiography page, and a promotional page for her company. Editor hasn't responded to comments on her talk page, and has been removing COI tags from the articles in question. As the editor continues to remove COI templates without addressing the concerns on her (and the articles') talk pages, I left a template removal / blanking warning notice. Bfigura (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This may now be a moot point, as the pages have been A7 speedied. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Cayra

Resolved
I had previously warned Julia sova with a uw-coi. Discussions on my talk page led to her report above: WP:COIN#Editing_.22List_of_Mind_Mapping_Software.22. I'm also concerned that there may be a language problem here causing confusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ronz should give some thought to nominating this article for deletion. Notability has not been shown from reliable sources. There is a real COI here, but not yet any troublesome violation of the COI guideline by the affected editors. All I noticed was a bit too much indignation at the noticeboards and on Talk pages (e.g. [2]) over what seem to be to be clear Wikipedia policies. If the article creators had cooperated fully, Ronz wouldn't need to come here to get support, the editors involved would have understood the policy issues themselves. It shouldn't be hard to understand our reliable source policy, which excludes the web sites these editors were using to reference Cayra. The site http://killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll, not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'm neither the creator nor main contibutor to Cayra, copyrighting the logo was a mistake (simply haven't found other suitable options that will not grant access to the logo editing).
I don't see where advertisement can be read in Cayra article, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. What concerns reliable sources, what's wrong with mind-mapping.org or mindmap-software.com? I have read WP:RS and it says WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, am I wrong?
Also please compare Cayra article with FreeMind article. Are there any differences? Any reliable sources there? The reason why I'm pointing to FreeMind article is that it was the one that inspired me to create an article about Cayra, as these two mind mapping applications seem to have a lot in common: both are free and practice no advertising.
Please show me what's the weak link in my judgement and how can I improve the article, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabriski (talk • contribs) 2 November 2007
Since Zabriski doesn't have a coi, this comes down to WP:N and WP:RS issues that are best addressed on the article talk page. I think this is resolved here. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ronz, there was some misunderstanding but I wouldn't say it was because of "language problem" - when EdJohnston explained everything to me, I understood it quite well. As you see, I'm not editing Cayra's article, so this issue can be now removed from WI:COI Noticeboard. Julia sova (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Julia sova.

As I pointed out above, I think this can be closed. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

R Family Vacations

Resolved
 – No COI here. IP has a history of attacking the editor this thread regards. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Inital discovery: This article is fraught with error. The sources for references 1,2,3 and 10 do not support the text. Reference 4 is an outdated link. Reference 11 doesn't work. The source for reference 6 lists Dan as a friend of Rosie, not a biz partner as written in the text. The source for reference 7 lists the capacity of the ship to be 2,600; they had 1,600 passengers the first year, and 2,200 after -- text says capacity is 2,200 and is over 70% full with 1,600. The text under reference 8 says simply O'Donnell was quoted when it was actually Kelli quoted in the source; the text preceding the quote gives no indication it was Kelli.

COI concerns: why did the single author of this article use the term "Reservations" instead of "Homepage" or any other term to describe the first reference? Readers clicking on the word "Reservations" are taken to the company website page, and an attracting jumping link to make a reservation. Did the author want to provide a convenient link to the website so the reader could make a purchase, i.e., buy tickets? Does the author have a business or financial interest in this company? Why else would he highlight "Reservations" in the first reference, a reference to a source that doesn't support the text, i.e., that the company is headquartered in Nyack? There are possible COI issues here that need to be investigated.71.127.226.19 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It may well be inaccurate, but I don't see any reason to think a COI is involved: the editor, Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has a track record of edits on varied LGBT topics. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Obviously having a track record of edits is no guarantee of accuracy in those edits. Perhaps his other contributions ought to be scrutinized for accuracy, the incidence of LGBT topics notwithstanding.71.127.226.19 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this should be closed as a bad faith nomination. It's fairly odd that a new anon editor, clearly with knowledge of Wikiprojects and the WP:COI procedure, should show up solely to attempt to discredit one article and its creator. It has just been spotted at WikiProject LGBT studies [3] that 71.127.226.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a similar IP address to someone who has been harassing User:Benjiboi. If accuracy really is a concern to 71.127.226.19, there's nothing preventing him/her helping improve the article(s), as others are doing at this instant - but this is a COI forum, not one for discussing accuracy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and as I wrote on the LGBT project page [4], the greater concern was suspicion of conflict of interest in the creation of the article and the way the article's first reference was structured to make it easy for the reader to make reservations with the company. The factual inaccuracies, etc., were secondary to the COI concerns, but were presented to give a complete picture of the author's "work." 71.127.226.19 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Obvious bad faith nomination from an anon IP who has been stalking Benjiboi for over a month now. Please see Talk:Hot House Entertainment#2007 David Awards to see how he was following Benjiboi there. That is only one example. This has been happening to Benjiboi across many articles and has been taken to ANI twice. I can provide more diffs if required. Jeffpw (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote on the LGBT page: I have raised legitimate concerns over suspicion of conflict of interest, and many errors in this article. You are all masking errors and possible impropriety in your defense of the author of the article. How do any of you know for certain that the author has no financial or business interests in the company R Family Vacations? You do not know that for certain.

The stalking suspicion is absolute nonsense and simply a smokescreen to mask the errors of another LGBT editor and his possible impropriety. It's troubling that WP editors are conducting themselves in this manner. 71.127.226.19 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's stopping you improving the article. An anon account created entirely to diss one article and its editor is more troubling. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, sir, it is more troubling when an editor raises legitimate concerns over perceived impropriety and he is accused of stalking, and the very discussion in which he enumerates his concerns is deleted from the LGBT project page. What have the people at LGBT to fear? Have you seen how they scrambled to correct the factual errors in R Family Vacations, and to remove any material whereby the author could be suspected of COI? If those were not legitimate concerns, if there was no impropriety, then why did they hasten to change the article? No, the group at LGBT and how they've conducted themselves in this matter is what's troubling, not my reporting of it.71.127.226.19 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
And, despite the extensive changes made in the article, there should still be an investigation to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article. 71.127.226.19 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You show up from nowhere, with no previous record of constructive edits, to start complaining loudly (in the wrong places) about perceived errors that you take no steps to fix yourself, and assert that an established editor edits in defiance of a conflict of interest, on evidence that it would be charitable to call tenuous. And after the errors you complain about have been fixed, you consider that to be evidence of wrongdoing and demand an "investigation" of your own flimsy accusations? Obviously you're not interested in improving your encyclopedia; you just want to see somebody punished for, um, it's not really clear what they did to anger you so. However. Vendettas such as yours are not appreciated here. Please go away. You can think of it as boycotting us, if that makes you feel better. –Henning Makholm 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Sir, your reasoning of the facts of this matter is spurious at best, perhaps abetted by indignation. There were not perceived errors, there were errors. What was perceived was a possible incident of COI, and for that reason, the concern over COI along with the errors were brought here and to the LGBT project page; it has already been stated quite clearly that the article talkpage was bypassed for that reason. The removal of errors is not evidence of wrongdoing. The removal of material that suggests the incidence of conflict of interest -- and the rapidity with which that material was removed -- indicates the presence of impropriety at the very least. The removal of the discussion thread at LGBT is also telling, of impropriety. I would hope that well-intentioned and genuine good faith editors here will undertake an appropriate inquiry to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article.71.127.226.19 (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The "errors" that the stalker saw were not really errors at all. Benjiboi had the right website, but used the wrong page He used the mainpage instead of the appropriate when filling in his reference. That is a mistake many make when entering multiple references, and was corrected. The only conflict of interest I see is this stalker bringing articles of Benjiboi up for review. Jeffpw (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, the Reservations page does actually provide citation for the physical location for the company, so no sinister motive there. To claim ref 2 doesn't support the citation for the slogan is simply untrue: it's there, top right of the home page. And so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Errors are errors, and there were, and remain, errors in this article, and further suggestion of possible COI.

Prior to others' corrections, the author listed Dan as a friend, the source says he's a biz partner -- that is an error. The author wrote that O'Donnell was interviewed. From the text the reader gathers he meant Rosie, but the source says Kelli was interviewed -- that is an error. The author confused the capacity of the ship with the number of passengers in the second year and produced an incorrect percentage based on that confusion -- those are errors. The author listed a webpage to source the info he included on an address; that info was not found at that webpage. Whether others make a similar error does not alter the fact that -- that is an error. Not only are these errors, but they "really are" errors.

These errors were detected as part of the discovery made in reading this article and are secondary to the suggestion of COI found.

If, as has been noted, the reservations page does list the address (and it does) and that that indicates the absence of a sinister motive (author's COI?), then why, why did somebody else scramble to change the reference? If it was OK to begin with, why change it? Indeed, another source was found to verify the address, and the new reference does not facilitate making reservations (purchase tickets). Therein lies the suggestion of COI: that the author deliberately listed the reservations page as a source for the company address, despite the fact that other sources are available to corroborate this info; he titled the reference "Reservations" and linked the term to the reservations page of the company, providing a convenient link to the company webpage where the reader could make a purchase (buy tickets), in effect, saying "here's where you go to make reservations with R Family Vacations."

I have additional discovery which I will present as time allows. I presume this thread will remain active for a day or two more? --72.68.125.254 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Mangojuice's talk page and archived ANI discussions for more documentation of this anon IP's stalking behavior. This is on ANI again, by the way. Jeffpw (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Currently on ANI here, and I've tagged 72.68.125.254 as a probable sock. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In a desperate attempt to quash discussion and bury this matter, some editors have taken to spouting suspicions and accusations. They are operating under a misguided sense of loyalty to their colleague/friend, the author of this article -- and in their zeal to protect him, they overlook even the possibility that their friend could make errors and have a conflict of interest in creating and editing this article, despite the starkness of the evidence presented.

Additional discovery: Let's take a look at the article and the work of the author and the section entitled "Faith-based homophobia in the Caribbean." Faith-based homophobia -- does that heading accurately describe what follows in the section, the protest in 2004 and the threat of a protest in 2007? The protest was anti-gay, but one anti-gay protest in Nassau does not comprise the whole of homophobia in the region, just as what occurs in Nassau does not comprise the whole of what occurs in the Caribbean, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that Nassau, Bahamas, is nearby Bermuda -- Nassau is hardly close at hand to Bermuda, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that the cruise itself "was being targeted" by the interfaith group, when, in fact, the cruise dropped Bermuda from the itinerary before United's statement of intent had been published. It was the threat of protest that caused R Fam to drop Bermuda, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that protesters in the 2004 protest numbered "a hundred," when in fact, the source cited says "about 100," which is a guesstimate and can mean less than one hundred, not necessarily one hundred, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise. The author wrote that the protesters in the 2004 protest were "Christian," when in fact, there is not one single instance in the source article where the protesters are described as Christian. The protesters might have been from Christian denominations, but there is no evidence that they were Christian in any or every sense of the word Christian, so they cannot be accurately described as such, but the author would have us believe otherwise, so he writes otherwise.

The author of this article has produced this work with multiple errors and distortions, slant and bias; he has an agenda. He had made a convenient link for readers to go to the company homepage and make reservations, i.e., make a purchase, until such link was removed by his colleagues upon disclosure. That link had enhanced the business of the company. Based on the evidence presented in previous posts and the foregoing, the author of this article has a clear conflict of interest in the creation of and the editing of this article.

I would hope that this matter be attended by genuine good faith editors including those outside of the LGBT project community.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 05:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Begone and take your own agenda with you. We don't need people who have an axe to grind against a specific subsection of humanity here. Can we close this as a bad-faith thread? (And before you say I'm a member of WP:LGBT, the only projects I am affiliated with are WP:D&D (member) and WP:PCP (lurker and unofficial member). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 05:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have raised legitimate concerns over conflict of interest. One need only look at the evidence presented. Reporting incidences of conflict of interest is not having an agenda. The author of this article has a clear conflict of interest in creating the article and in the ways he has edited it.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Then explain to me why you're targeting an article Benjiboi has edited, as you did with Hot House Entertainment and Sister Roma? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The suspicions and accusations to which you allude, posted here and elsewhere are, as I've said previously, intended to quash this discussion and are a smokescreen meant to mask the real issue here: that the author of this article has a conflict of interest both in creating the article and the way he's edited it.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You have a beef with User:Benjiboi, which you're trying to avoid discussing here and which makes you incapable of accusing him of wrongdoing. Could we get someone to close this thread, please? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I had read the article and found it to contain multiple errors. Upon further examination I found evidence of conflict of interest and I reported it here and at LGBT. I would rather that the matter be attended by others who can reason from the evidence presented, and not simply from emotion or speculation.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence - you need to provide it rather than letting the people here hunt it down. Further, your IP originates from Paterson, New Jersey - the same place all the other IPs who have harassed Benjiboi come from. Just ask the RDNS link in your Contribs page. Stop harassing Benjiboi - we can contact Verizon. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The evidence for the incidence of conflict of interest by the author of this article has been clearly and exhaustively annotated in the postings above. -- unsigned edit by 71.127.232.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - attribution added by Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And said evidence has been clearly and exhaustively dismissed. Care to introduce new evidence, or are you going to keep arguing a point you've lost? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As several have said, please provide evidence of a COI. In this case, a COI would be if the user is affiliated with the company. Being a customer, fan, or advocate of the company doesn't qualify as a COI, nor do factual errors (percieved or otherwise). A diff showing the editor in question saying something to indicate a company affiliation, or some other outside proof is needed here. ArakunemTalk 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I would not stoop to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, but if WP:COI worked on such a level of non-evidence expected by our anon, we might as well consider this edit by the last-mentioned sock as COI, since adding a discography and site link for Will Boulware makes it easier to find and buy his albums. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Copied from the COI page:

"Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) a close connection with a subject are recommended to disclose this, and should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven." It was observed that the author added "Christian" to describe the protesters when that term was not in the reference cited. (This is addressed in greater detail above.) That sounds agenda-driven: an anti-Christian agenda.

Also, "COI editing often involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself or the interests of other individuals, companies, or groups." It was observed that the author added a link (in the reference list) to the reservations page of the company and titled that link "Reservations." (This, too, is addressed in greater detail above.) That sounds like promoting the interests (biz) of the company.

The comparison in the above post to another article where discography is listed doesn't hold: it lists the albums, but it doesn't guide the reader to an order form (like the reservations page in this article) where they can buy.

No, there is COI here: the author foists his anti-Christian agenda on the reader through his edits, and he promotes the interests of the company by providing a clearly identified and convenient link to the company webpage where reservations (a purchase) can be made.--72.76.104.91 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Diff, please, or scram. We're running out of patience with you. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Go to the article (it's highlighted at the beginning of this thread) and click history tab, that will bring up a page showing the history of edits.--72.76.104.91 (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Onus is on the complainant to provide diffs, not for the investigators to hunt it down. Diff, please. Stop deflecting the issue. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Author inserted "Christian" to describe protesters in starting article: [5], source cited with no mention of "Christian" protesters: [6], constituting anti-Christian agenda. Author titles reference "Reservations" (note title=Reservations): [7], representing change from previous title, to direct reader to reservations page where they can make reservations, thereby promoting the interests of the company. Author does have conflict of interest in the creating and editing of this article.--72.76.104.91 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The article states, and I quote, "A summer cruise for gay and lesbian families organized by Rosie O'Donnell has cut Bermuda from its planned itinerary because of possible protests by church groups in the British island territory." "Church groups" generally means Christian groups and clergy in the media, which is only bolstered by this ref, which you ignored. The "Reservations" part is a poor choice of words, I'll grant, since the page you complain about is the company's main page. There is no COI issue here. Closing thread. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wow. Well I'm hardly perfect and certainly make mistakes but this is special indeed. I'm happy to make any corrections or recheck references but let's put it on the talk page of the article please and assume good faith. For the record I have no interest in the financial success of R Family Vacations, Hot House Entertainment or pretty much any of the hundreds of articles I've edited in whole or part. I do make mistakes and I do try to correct them. I'm sensitive to mischaracterizing sources and statements and I'm happy to correct those as well, especially if civilly pointed out. As been pointed out I've had a few attackers (or at least one incredibly chameleon-like one) so have chosen to avoid situations that are more stressful but will happily dig through any constructive comments that will improve articles. I've read through this once and care not to relive it but if anyone, anyone, sees something in the article that hasn't been addressed please feel free to message the article talk page. Even though I've found several pointed barbs at me a bit bruising the end result has almost universally been that articles have greatly improved with the Sister Roma article being a decent example of this. Thanks to all who've helped sort through this and here's to better articles for all! Benjiboi 03:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Wow, indeed. Where to begin?

There are significant problems both with the determination of the admin here and the way by which he arrived at it. The admin has quoted "the article" -- he doesn't say which, but he quotes it to say: "...protests by church groups.." That they were church groups is not contentious here; describing the protesters as Christian protesters is contentious. Though all Christian houses of worship can be described as churches, not all churches are necessarily Christian. And it cannnot be extrapolated from either source used that all of the churches present at the protest were Christian. Similarly, it cannot be extrapolated from either source used that all the protesters were Christian -- it can only be said, reading the sources, that the protesters were from church groups. It is quite different to describe the protesters as Christian protesters than to say they are church group protesters. Neither source cited says the protesters were Christian; that interpolation is the product of the author's anti-Christian agenda. The admin finds that that use of the term "Reservations" and linking that term to the reservations page is unfortunate, when in effect, it is deliberate and designed to attract the reader to the reservations page.

The admin has made his determination referencing material in the article that was not raised in the COI concerns: he talks about the church groups being Christian groups, when it was the description of the protesters as Christian that is contentious. The admin assigns no weight to the author's choice to direct the reader to the reservations page (where they could make a purchase). The admin has ignored the very issues that form the basis of this COI notice.

It is my understanding that at WP we report the facts, not the author's interpolation or interpretation of facts as fact.

I am unable to give this matter any more attention at this time. Even this statement is incomplete but had to be made to respond to this ridiculous finding. Immediately following Chanukah I will seek additional intervention, including an inquiry into the capability of this admin and the veracity of his adminship.

This matter is far from resolved and it certainly is not over.--72.76.13.102 (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring a source that confirms Christian groups *are* involved, which I did bring up above. Scram before I contact WP:ABUSE to contact Verizon. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Michel Thomas bio

Raul654 suggested posting this here. Members of Michel Thomas' legal team have been deleting sourced material and NPOV edits by user Liquidfinale concerning well-publicized controversies about Thomas. These users (Facts@mt.org, NV Researcher and various aliases) were directly involved in an unsuccessful libel lawsuit against the L.A. Times over its coverage of Thomas. The case against the paper was rejected by four judges and by the mainstream news media (WashingtonPost.com and Newsday have republished many of the Times' findings). These users have ignored warnings about biased edits and original research. e.g., when Facts@MT.org was warned about bias (UserTalk:Facts@MT.org), he created a new username by lowercasing the "MT" and resumed editing. Now that the semi-protection template on Thomas' bio has been removed, anonymous users have added harmful edits. Rivenburg (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked much at the Michel Thomas article, but your own edit history shows an almost exclusive attention to it. Do you have any special interest in that article that you ought to declare here? –Henning Makholm 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was the Times reporter who wrote the aforementioned L.A. Times story. My interest is in ensuring fair representation of longstanding media debate over Thomas' war accounts, particularly where Thomas claimed credit for acts that the New York Times and other reliable sources credited to other people.--Rivenburg (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

After more reading: Okay. What we have here seems to be a long content dispute between User:Facts@mt.org and User:Rivenburg, both single-purpose accounts or very nearly so, and both with apparent conflicts of interest.
  • Facts@mt.org has identified himself as a "friend of Michel Thomas" and "the lead researcher for Mr. Thomas's legal team", both of which suggest that he has a CoI that he should be careful about. I have seen veiled suggestions that Facts@mt.org may be a shared account. If there is concrete evidence that this is true, it sould be brought to an admin's attention; Wikipedia does not allow such. However, Rivenburg's statement that Facts@MT.org has "ignored warnings about biased edits" etc, is exaggerated. User:Facts@MT.org (with upper-case MT) has a total six (6) logged edits, all from almost 2 years ago. These did prompt somebody to leave a povwarning on his talk page, but Facts did not immediately create a new account; the first logged Facts@mt.org contribution is from three weeks later. AGF would attribute the username change to forgetting the password to the three-days-old account, or deciding that the capital MT looked stupid, or whatever. User talk:Facts@mt.org has never had any POV or bias warnings; just a SineBot tilde warning.
  • Rivenburg identifies himself as the journalist who wrote an article over which that Mr. Thomas sued his employer for libel. Facts@mt.org seems to accuse him of being on some personally-motivated campaign to cast doubt on Mr. Thomas' war glory. That may or may not be so, but the lawsuit certainly constitutes a conflict of interest. Some time ago, Rivenburg was indef-blocked by an uninvolved admin for being a SPA engaged in what "appears to be a vendetta against a now-deceased individual". The block was (informally, afacit) lifted by the ArbCom, on the condition that he refrain from editing the Michel Thomas article. He has indeed kept away from the article, but continues to argue on the talk page, regularly starting new sections with long screeds that sound slightly whiny and sometimes border on wikilawyering. Many of them start out rather bitey and get toned down to something more defendable in subsequent retconning edits. (This has also happened in this COI/N report).
  • User:NV Researcher: another SPA, has edited nothing but Michel Thomas. May or may not have CoI, though the SPAness is worrying and edit summaries such as "Revert to NPOV version ..." always sound omnious.
  • User:Liquidfinale appears to be struggling honestly to keep the article reasonable NPOV and explore the possibility of a consensus version. Kudos to him!
  • Anonymous editors: I have reviewed all recent anon edits to Michel Thomas; they seem to show no consistent POV bias.
I think it would be in the encyclopedia's best interest if both Facts and Rivenburg kept away from the article. And Rivenburg also ought to keep away from its talk page. He shows signs of being able to contribute constructively on other articles, but, dude, the obsessive behavior you display on Talk:Michel Thomas can't be healthy. I'm not quite sure that Facts is actually disruptive in articlespace, but he does seem to have enough of a CoI that he should limit himself to suggestions on the talk page. –Henning Makholm 22:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hi, I know this isn't the place to resolve a content dispute, but it may help to explain a little before I comment on the potential conflicts of interest here. My immediate impulse when seeing the recent edits which pretty much eliminated 1/3 of the material was to revert to a version of the article which had seemed reasonably stable for the first time in years, a version carefully-constructed to balance the various points of view on the matter. However, COI, SOCK or otherwise, the editor who performed the cuts may have inadvertently done the article a big favour; as I say, my preferred method had been to seek some kind of middle ground which both Rivenburg and Facts@MT.org had admitted to "not being completely happy with" but had seemed to more or less accept. I hadn't even considered removing the detail altogether and merely inserting a link to both users' pro- and anti-Thomas pages in the External links section. And so, looking on it with new eyes, I resolved to keep away from the article for a week or so to see how it sat with everyone. To be completely honest, it seems to have worked out OK, and I would endorse this new version if it ended the matter once and for all. However, whether it is accepted by the community or a previous version preferred, there's still a conflict of interest to deal with here, and it is my suggestion that both Rivenburg and Facts@MT.org keep away, or are kept away, from the article and its talk page (where this war has been waged even more vociferously) for good. Their respective conflicts of interest (Rivenburg as the journalist whose article led to Thomas' defamation lawsuit, and Facts@MT.org as Thomas' friend and former private investigator) mean the article will never be stable while they continue to participate. If they wish to continue this dispute until their dying days, there are plenty of other places on the web to do so (and indeed, where they have already). Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Stustu12

Stustu12 added his program's website (http://www.qdap.pitt.edu), the website of a tool created by the program (http://cat.ucsur.pitt.edu), and the website of a workshop he's running (http://codeshop.wikispaces.com/) to these articles. I removed the links and gave him a uw-coi warning, as well as referring him to WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK. User:Piotrus has complicated the issue by restoring all the links, saying they're useful. Piotrus has since gone back and reevaluated his edits. However, his involvement has confused the situation by not differentiating between how the links were first added (against EL, SPAM, NOT#LINK, and COI) versus how links should be added per EL and WP:CON. I think it would be useful at this point for another editor to look at the situation. --Ronz (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's hardly spamming, I think maybe a helpful note on his talk page would be better than shouting at him! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I (a graduate student in social sciences) and another professor of social sciences ([8]) have remarked, those links were mostly useful. I have pruned them a little (what Ronz calls "reevaluation") - StuStu12 is a rather inexperienced editor and can be forgiven for going a little overboard (he added 3 links to 4 pages, where on average only 2 of those links were relevant to the pages they were added). What should not be tolerated, however, is accusing a new Wikipedian - a scholar, one who has chosen to reveal his real life persona on his userpage - of spamming and even harassment. Per WP:AGF, WP:BITE and WP:NPA, I would strongly caution Ronz to be more civil in the future. We need scholars like Stustu12 on this project and biting them for getting involved is rather unhelpful. PS. A clear illustration of what is NOT spam: adding a National Science Foundation wiki on coding to the article on "Coding (social sciences)". Sigh.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a good example of biting newcomers. New users are unlikely to know what is and what is not acceptable, and I agree with Piotrus that driving a scholar (who probably has access to tons of useful books and other scholarly sources) is incredibly detrimental. The links seem to be appopriate as well. Suggest Ronz re-reads the policies and guidelines about spam before biting any more new users. Thanks. Redrocketboy 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see it as clear spamming, as defined in WP:SPAM, against a coi, and have asked for discussion on the spamming concerns here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Need_additional_opinions_for_spam.2Fcoi_case.

I'm sorry that you all find a uw-coi notice to be inappropriate [9]. I'll continue to do the same, so you should take your complaints to the template talk page. I held off from even giving a spam warning, but it would be nice to have a combined coi/spam template to use instead. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, we have now 4 users (not counting Stu) who disagree with your handling of the case. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance and apologize to Stu for overreacting (i.e. accusing him of spamming and harassing)? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Make that 5 users. I'm not sure that the links qualify as relevant according to my own understanding of WP:EL, but calling them "spam" is quite over the top, and I don't think I really see what the conflict of interest would be. Also, the "harassment" edit summary Piotrus refers to is a clear sign of needing to cool down considerably. –Henning Makholm 01:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a WP:VOTE. I've explained exactly why I consider them spam, and have taken the issue to the appropriate forum for discussions of spam. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
No you haven't. You have repeatedly asserted that you consider them spam, but you have not provided any rationale for this. –Henning Makholm 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I've provided the diffs on the spam report. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest the same of you, that you apologize to Stu for taking a simple situation and escalating it to this. --Ronz (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm a newcomer to en-wiki, but I'm an administrator at pl-wiki, so I do have at least a little more experience than a newbie. As it happens, I'm also the mentioned "social sciences professor", but I don't want any more credit for that than any other user - as we're all equal here. I do confirm that in my personal view these links are useful and relevant. In my own perception it is an overstatement, by far, to perceive it as "spam". I do realize there are certain policies for adding the same link simultaneously to several articles. I thank Ronz for being vigilant and for watching out for potential rules violation. However, I believe that in a situation where we are now, it is sensible to leave the link in the articles they were placed in (although they may not have been put there with the proper recognition of procedures). I suggest both parties to cool down - after all, apart from rules we need to rely on common sense. We all want Wikipedia to be a better encyclopedia. If it will be so with the links, let's get over the issue of "spam". If it won't, even conforming to the rules should not make us keep them. I suggest let's keep the links, acknowledge we all have good will, and keep doing the good work elsewhere - there are better ways to enhance Wiki than in this conflict resolution :) Pundit|utter 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pundit, the links need to be evaluated according to their individual merits, & the eds. on the various pages can deal with it. I don't think a situation this minor called for using the spam noticeboard--this very page shows we have serious major problems to cope with & diverting effort to things like this is not perhaps the best use of resources. (personally I see it as normal enthusiasm--I think the link on Qualitative Research was not really appropriate, but there was a very similar one from another Institute which may have given the impression it was OK to have another,and I don't consider it a breach of our standards even with an experienced editor. (I removed them both). DGG (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. On a sadder note, the user Stustu12 has declared he leaves the project permanently. Pundit|utter 00:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid of this. We need experts like him; this is exactly why WP:BITE and similar policies were created.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Heliodisplay

Look at this.. LOL --ffroth 22:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That is:

However, edits from these accounts need viewing in the context of a succession of anon edits adding unsourced hostile descriptions of the product, as well as getting the company name wrong. On balance, the version by the above editors appears more accurate and neutral than the other. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moneybomb.

Assistance is requested at Moneybomb, an article about a neologism which is primarily associated with the campaign of the American presidential candidate Ron Paul. The primary editor is John J. Bulten (talk · contribs), a two-month-old account who primarily edits Ron Paul-related articles, and who has openly admitted that he is an active supporter (donor and volunteer) of the candidate.[10] Bulten has been repeatedly inserting large amounts of information into the article which are sourced to Ron Paul promotion websites. I and a couple other editors have been attempting to remove the unreliable information, but Bulten keeps re-adding it, and his rhetoric has been increasing about other editors being "malevolent" and "disruptive" and "causing a danger to Wikimedia."[11] I would appreciate the assistance of some other editors, to help ensure that the article stays in compliance with Wikipedia policies, and that it be limited strictly to neutral information from reliable sources. --Elonka 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I added Bulten's {{userlinks}} and {{lat}} links for some of the talk pages so npov editors may more quickly view the general trend of this coi spa's participation (he also edits the articles). Both the rhetoric and the length of his posts are remarkable—this reaction to a neutral third opinion, for example, and this ... hard to describe post. — Athaenara ✉ 05:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
In disputes, I know no other way than to be thorough and upfront. So please pardon my length, and please don't assume this is a simple case of removing straightforwardly biased edits. First and aside, A's "hard to describe" post is merely my encouragement of an IP which appears to be one of the moneybomb originators, Eric Nordstrom, and my impartial overview of my rationale for third parties. Why would Nordstrom emerge from outside WP to take special note of Elonka's edits? I don't speak for him, but I hope that question will spur you to investigation.
Elonka has grossly misrepresented the case. Most egregiously, she attempts to poison the well and prejudge the case by assuming the edits were "unreliable information", when that is the very point in dispute. And she has refused at least four requests to explain her self-derived reasoning behind that judgment in any detail (11/27 03:25, 04:19, and 15:17 at Talk:Moneybomb, and 11/27 22:25 at my talk). The closest she's come is to give a list of sites that she has prejudged unreliable, or to single out one source incorrectly as a Paul campaign site, or to claim "multiple editors" removed the info I added, which is patently false and undemonstrable. These do not answer the severity of her reversion. On the other hand, after her second revert, I provided detailed reliability proofs in edit summary for every edit, and she continued not to respond. The burden of proof may well be on the inserter, but at some point that burden is met and shifts to the deleter. After she made these four refusals, I have felt justified in keeping my response to her more minimal.
Next, her weasel words "large amounts ... sourced to Ron Paul promotion websites" are, as usually, generic and failing to explain. There were primarily three edit-and-delete cycles. First I made a good-faith attempt on 11/10 to balance the stubby article using RS as I've learned it, which Elonka discovered and massively deleted on 11/16. Recognizing the concern, I restored the most reliable parts in my second attempt, and asked for clarification on what her standards were for reliability; she just performed a nearly identical massive deletion. Very angered by her lack of explanation beyond her unsourced pronouncement that such-and-such sites are unreliable (against other evidence), I then took the disputed text wholly to comments sections (leaving the article appearance unchanged), and then, one by one, restored items with a specific RS rationale each time. She performed her third deletion without any point-by-point rebuttal of my proofs, deleting even the disputed text bracketed into comments, which would otherwise have been an excellent way to build consensus. All three times, she left the article disjointed, as she herself admitted (I would say severely disjointed), which she has not repaired until today (after reporting the alleged COI). In short, the extent of Elonka's three reversions of my content is much greater than her explanation for it; she has failed to work toward consensus in accounting for my concerns.
Further, I have not used those words quoted about "other editors", but only about Elonka. And I did not say she was those things, I said she was getting close. I said "even if well-intentioned ... not distinguishable from" malevolent; "dance the border of disruptive editing"; "I see ... danger to Wikimedia" (she created "causing a" out of whole cloth; so much for reliability). BTW, I am still assembling evidence for that danger charge. Her "rhetoric has been increasing" too; she referred me to "Tendentious editing" (subset of disruptive) on my talk 11/27, long before I said I see her dancing the border of disruptive; she also suggested "bad faith stalling" and "padd[ing] in preparation for another fundraising effort" at her talk 11/27. (Of course, the fact that many reliable sources like the Palm Beach Post have mentioned the scheduled 12/16 fundraiser is lost on her; she excised that moneybomb completely from the article.) Her rhetorical charges are not really any different from mine, but she is clearly the initiator here.
I don't mind being considered an SPA because I choose for the nonce to stick to one subject until I'm comfortable managing more of them. (In fact, Elonka and I might have been friends much more easily if I had chosen to build on my ACA membership and continue my own work on Kryptos.) And I have mentioned my support of Paul and linked WP:COI from my user page when I first became aware of the need (albeit as a WP:EGG). I am all for more careful review of my edits due to the fact that everyone has POV. However, this is now a full-blown edit war, a Defcon 2 as I set it, and I expect to have to do a bunch more typing today about it just to answer misconceptions. This missive alone seems the shortest I can make it just to provide proper context for her misrepresentations.
Finally, I am all for assistance toward compliance, reliability, and neutrality on this article; but those aims might well be better served at another particular article Elonka has edited, which I will not name here because some of the Wikipedians will be sharp enough to know which it is. John J. Bulten 15:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the kicker: Elonka actually has a demonstrable conflict of interest here, because she has been reported by the news media as having "defaced and rendered the wikipedia ... incomplete"-- [12] that description can apply to nobody else. (To be sure, she claims that news source is unreliable, but Google News disagrees with her, so which should be the WP standard?) I submit that if her relationship to moneybombs has itself been noted by news media, she should be watched for COI as much as I. John J. Bulten 16:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion on Google News does not prove reliability, merely that a source has nominally news-style format: for instance, it includes sources such as PR Newswire that are simply corporate press releases. Gordonofcartoon 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Since Ron Paul is a contributor to freemarketnews.com, I would hardly call it a nonbiased source of information about anything involving him. Burzmali 20:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but I have already accounted for those last two observations, which are more pertinent to Talk:Moneybomb#Sources. This section is about whether I and Elonka can avoid bias from potential conflicts of interest in editing Moneybomb. John J. Bulten 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's just cut to the chase. A quick Google on "John J. Bulten" "Ron Paul" confirms considerable involvement of a John J. Bulten and promotional activities for Ron Paul. Short conclusion is that this is about as much of a conflict of interest as it gets, and you should not be editing article on this topic.
Furthermore, the general polemical nature of your posts is well in breach of WP:SOAP, the attacks on User:Elonka come under WP:NPA, and these verbose essays in relation to attempts to discuss edits are one very recognisable flavour of disruptive and tendentious editing. Gordonofcartoon 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In good faith, if you wish me to understand your charges, please quote which clause of which policy corresponds to which edit of mine. I see WP:COI saying, "If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias"-- of course, assuming I am as involved as the policy states. If there is a more appropriate way of airing the concerns above, I'm all ears. John J. Bulten 12:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
John J. Bulten, giving the focus of your contributions to this project, I'm just going to go ahead and ask: What is your connection to Ron Paul and his election campaign? WjBscribe 13:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
if you wish me to understand your charges, please quote which clause of which policy corresponds to which edit of mine.
WP:SOUP. It would help if you drop all your apparent assumptions that Wikipedia works like a body of law. Obfuscatory questioning, and picking at the rules from various angles to get some result, may work in a court of law - but this kind of legalistic approach is viewed as actively disruptive here. See WP:BURO, WP:LAWYER. Gordonofcartoon 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Already answered. No formal connection beyond donor and volunteer. I have a formal connection with Meetup like 70,000 other Ronpaulicans. Don't know anything else to disclose. What type of answer do you want? What would prove intent to edit my interest unbiasedly, other than my record (not distortions of it)? John J. Bulten 14:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the lead, I have no "close personal or business connections". I don't consider being one of myriads of donors as any worse than being one of myriads of Wikipedians and editing Wikipedians, or editing the city I live in. And I apologize for not seeing the 200-word limit. John J. Bulten 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Proposed amendment to prevent overdeletion: the aforementioned user's recent attempt to change WP:V (in a way coincidentally favourable to inclusion of the badly-sourced material deleted from Moneybomb). Gordonofcartoon 17:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulten is also disputing consensus at Talk:Ron Paul#Lead is too promotional, insisting that any changes be first proposed at talk, and leveling charges of sockpuppetry. Additional opinions are requested, to help confirm consensus. --Elonka 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
See also User talk:John J. Bulten‎#User COI. — Athaenara ✉ 20:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And you notice, I am explaining my reasons and policy reliance in most every place, and I am getting very little explanation back that explicitly relies on policy; mostly generic referalls to what other editors think policy is. I guess since this is WP:COIN, I'd better start assembling evidence of my own unbiased editing, which curiously no one has asked for. Oh, and Elonka, you haven't noticed how many confirmed sockpuppets have been after that article? John J. Bulten 00:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
You have been told: legalistic bullshitting about details of policy doesn't work here. A significant number of editors view your edits as biased or contentious. That is all that matters. Gordonofcartoon 01:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Bulten for 24 hours to give npov editors (and noticeboards) a break from the user's persistent violations of disruptive editing (definition) and WP:POINT guidelines. — Athaenara ✉ 01:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, I perceive such little backup and so much misstatement in this section that I no longer wish to rebut each point directly. I only wish to list some of my many edits demonstrably against my own interests (good-faith attempt at addressing moneybomb concerns, deletion of Constitution candidates, restoring Cox and Hunter, insertion of many new candidates, John Cox, Donnie Kennedy, 13 straw polls not won by Paul, downplaying moneybomb events and removing bias from Ron Paul, removing nonsummary statement from summary in Ron Paul), and to ask whether it is typical to be blocked only four edits after being warned, without specific demonstrations that those edits contributed to alleged disruption or that there is reason for assuming bad faith. John J. Bulten 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(followup) The Moneybomb article was deleted, and then undeleted, and (IMHO) is becoming more and more unstable. I'd appreciate more eyes on the problem to ensure that the article only uses information from reliable sources. --Elonka 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

LA Times Daily Mirror blog

Lmharnisch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - In exploring links & additions, I came across a number of links added by this user. A problem may exist as it appears that this user is the author of the LA Times Daily Mirror blog. It seems appropriate to broach the possibility here and to inquire as whether this is appropriate. If this is the author, then he is being paid to write this column, and is self-promoting by adding these links. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Will someone look into this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Goatse.cx

Goatse.cx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I have no experience in this area and have no desire to cause drama, so I would appreciate if someone who's dealt with this sort of thing before could take a look at this for me. IP user 24.67.207.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a series of edits to the Goatse.cx article tonight which do have a slight whiff of COI about them - the IP address is based in Canada but the edits seem to read (to me, at least) as though they were made on behalf of the Christmas Island Internet Administration in order to insert POV regarding the 2004 closure of the website and the subsequent sale of the domain. Anything to be concerned about? Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems about equally satisfactory before and after this series of edits. It was slightly POV and a bit critical of the Christmas Island people before the edits. Do you have a change to recommend? EdJohnston (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Not really. I was a little unsure as to whether those edits were 'above board' and benefited the article or not and thought I'd better mention it. I just wanted another pair of eyes on it, as I didn't really know how to deal with the situation. Thanks for looking. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jevon Sims

Will likely be gone soon, but see Jevon Sims AfD discussion page. Either WP:NOT or WP:COI wouldn't be enough to go on, but that plus the "coincidence" mentioned in the discussion page are enough for me for probable cause. Psinualways forgetsto sign 21:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Juan Cole

(moved from WP:Notability discussion)

Juan Cole is a famous commentator on the Middle East. Before he became famous, he was a leading figure in the (tiny) field of Baha'i Studies, in which his research continues to be extremely influential. (I would say that he is one of the five or six most important recent writers. Certainly no one in the field could avoid his work.) The current article on Cole includes both aspects in considerable detail. For example, some of his articles (and one book) on the Baha'i religion are summarized.

Now, it so happens that Cole was a member of this religion until the mid-1990's, after which he quit the organized form of it. Most of these articles were published then, and are intensely critical of the religion's administration. (Members, by contrast, are not allowed to publish without the permission of these authorities.) One Baha'i Wikipedian is attempting to delete descriptions of these--despite their importance to Baha'i Studies, and to Cole--by saying that they are not notable. (It may or may not be relevant that various Baha'is, including this guy, have been systematically erasing material embarrassing to them from Wikipedia.)

So, what say ye? And what can be done about a dedicated group with an intense interest in making ideologically-motivated edits to obscure topics? Assumptions of "good faith" hardly seem applicable... --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.167.60 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A more logical place for you to air this concern is the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. To present your issue there, you will need to create an account. (At present, WP:COIN is semi-protected so that anonymous editors cannot make comments there). EdJohnston (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So moved. Dawud (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you point to any recent edit of the Juan Cole article that removed criticism of the Baha'i religion? I am amazed at the current length of this article (66,000 bytes) and the possibly excessive amount of detail. However if there were any bad-faith removals they should be investigated. EdJohnston (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Dawud: generally, it doesn't wash to argue conflict of interest on grounds of membership of a large group, even if there's some known partiality. WP:COI tends not to come into play unless the connection is closer than that. But I agree with EdJohnston; an article longer than those on many major politicians seems overkill for a commentator. Do we need his thoughts on every damn country in the Middle East? It looks like some flavour of coatrack to me. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Human trafficking in Angeles City

Anti-stuttering devices, Stuttering

Anti-stuttering devices was created by Tdkehoe, who wrote here "I'm an expert on the subject because I own one of the companies that make anti-stuttering devices". He has since removed {{uw-coi}} and spam notices from his talk page. For summaries of COI and other concerns with his edits, please see Talk:Anti-stuttering devices, Talk:Stuttering and the FAR for Stuttering. Finally, it is possible that Stutterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and some IPs are sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Tdkehoe. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a serious and growing concern, which led to Stuttering being defeatured. Please refer to the Stuttering FAR, the Stuttering talk page, and the anti-stuttering devices talk page. Slp1 (talk · contribs) and I have spent days just trying to restore these articles to a reliable level. Slp (a speech and language pathologist) suggests that some sections of anti-stuttering devices need to be reduced to one paragraph.[13] Another concern is that Tdkehoe did not participate in the FAR, but once he resumed editing of Stuttering, after a several month absence, several other new editors and IPs began backing up his reverts to the older, problematic versions. As noted on the FAR, Tdkehoe has started numerous similar articles on Wikibooks, which are now linked at alt.support.stuttering and on their FAQ. It seems as if Wiki is systematically being used to promote anti-stuttering products. (According to Slp1, some of which is easily verifiable via Google, Tdkehoe is likely the inventor of several anti-stuttering devices, including the SmallTalk and School DAF and he owns Casa Futura Technologies which makes and distributes them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there's any particular reason why this issue generates not a single response at COIN; this came to COIN once before, and was archived without a single response, leaving a few editors to deal with this for another two months.[14] Is there something I'm missing? If no admins respond here, perhaps AN/I is the next stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are most of your problems coming from a user, or from IP's? - Jehochman Talk 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
One user, with a conflict of interest. The IPs and the new account appeared briefly, recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict, so not logical order!) I actually don't have much to add to the descriptions listed above. And I must apologize that some of the links below may not be the most informative I could provide. I have extremely limited and very sloooow internet access!
On the plus side, User:Tdkehoe has since June been upfront about his business interests on his userpage,[15] has sought advice on various occasions [16] [17], [18] and I honestly think hasn't understood some WP policies and guidelines.[19] [20] On the other hand, he hasn't readily followed through with recommendations made to him,[21], [22], or chose to interpret them to allow what he would like to include.[23]
I find the editing here and on wikibooks disconcerting, in part because of the criticisms the manufacturers of another anti-stuttering device have received (in a peer reviewed journal no less) for grandiose claims of treatment effects on shows such as Oprah, without the scientific data etc to back them up. I feel that a similar approach at diffusion is being used here. Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it means, but Tdkehoe hasn't edited Wikipedia since this edit one week ago. This may or may not be because, on the following day, he was notified of this noticeboard discussion and reminded of the possible consequences of COI editing. — Athaenara ✉ 16:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the same thing that happened last time 'round; hopefully, more people will watchlist now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I have added Stuttering to my watchlist and will keep a closer eye on both articles Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
It just seemed odd to have a new editor who reverted edits so expertly on just one article. On an unrelated note, has anyone notified WikiBooks of the COI issues with Tdkehoe? I do not have an account there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said clearly that I think it is another Tdkehoe. I don't have a Wikibooks account, either; perhaps Slp1 can warn that project? — Athaenara ✉ 21:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I too find it interesting that Tdkehoe hasn't edited recently, and also wonder whether it isn't a good example of the effectiveness of polite interventions by several different editors in solving issues of this sort. On another topic, I don't have a WikiBooks account either, and have no idea how it works, but will commit to figuring it out and commenting as appropriate in the next few days.Slp1 00:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
No Wikibooks account here either, but I'm wondering if we're obliged to keep the Wikibook links in the articles or if the usual WP:EL criteria apply there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
It is only linked from Stuttering - I see it is a "featured book" on WikiBooks(!). Given the COI concerns, I am fine with delinking the WikiBook from the article for now. Should a note be left on the Stuttering talk page? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I delinked it. We should remember to add a note to the talk page once this COIN goes to archives. Honestly. I'm going to be more careful from now on with sister links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC) {{Wikibooks|Stuttering}}
Google anti-stuttering devices, casafuturatech first, wikibooks second, wikipedia fourth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting about the Google search! I have posted something over at Wikibooks, [24] and will follow up with whatever transpires over there. BTW, having read the comments in this news article, I am even wondering about the appropriateness of using 'anti-stuttering device' as an article name. Slp1 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I support changing the biased title and incorporating some of this info into the article. Is there a less-biased term used in the research studies, or should we change it to "Electronic stuttering devices"? I also notified an admin and beaurocrat on WikiBooks, but I'm unclear what the standards are there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would also be in favor of a better title, but do not have the expertise to suggest what that title should be - the newspaper article mentioned "electronic fluency devices" (IIRC). There has been a reply at WikiBooks, by the way (they are much more laid back about COI). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I support a move to "electronic fluency devices" unless Slp1 has a better term. Interesting about WikiBooks; with all of my work at FAC and FAR, it had never before occurred to me that we need to evaluate inclusion of those links with the same critical eye we evaluate other external links wrt WP:RS and WP:V. I'll be raising this issue more aggressively henceforth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
The title looks a bit of a challenge... Guitar (2005) calls them 'assistive devices' , the British Stammering Association calls them 'electronic aids' (neither specific enough in my opinion), Lincoln et al. (2006) and Ward (2006) calls them 'Altered auditory feedback devices', Kalinowski and Saltuklaroglu (2006) call them 'altered feedback devices'. Electronic fluency devices/aids are also used, but this would probably include some other types of devices, which actually might not be a bad thing. So I would plump for electronic fluency devices and have done with it.--Slp1 19:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and changed it since consensus seemed acheived.Slp1 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone advise now how to handle Category:Anti-stuttering devices? It needs to be moved to Category:Electronic fluency devices. I don't know how cats are dealt with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Checking further, that category has only two other articles, and they both had merge tags to Electronic fluency devices and need to be merged. Can the category be deleted without an XfD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help. I've found that many of your suggestions improve the quality of the article.--TDKehoe 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the COI edits continue. I hope we don't have to request a block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The latest COI accusation is about a study I summarized which was published in 1996 using EMG biofeedback. The EMG equipment used in the study was never commercialized. My company doesn't make EMG equipment. No companies sell EMG equipment for treating stuttering. The study was done by university researchers. I wasn't one of the them. I've never even met them. I don't see how there's a COI here.--TDKehoe (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Um, nobody said the addition of that information was a conflict of interest edit. Just that it wasn't an accurate representation of the study.[25], (with expanded reasoning here [26]) Other edits in yesterday's series were promoting of your products, however, as also noted on the talkpage.Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I blocked Tdkehoe for 72 hours. — Athaenara ✉ 09:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Simson Garfinkel, Sandstorm Enterprises, Sophal Ear

User:Simsong admits on his userpage that he is Simson Garfinkel. He has edited or created:

*Sophal Ear - Research associate at the NPS
Additionally, he has removed tags place by other editors questioning the material he has added. Thank you. Mbisanz (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The SG bio poses no problems--there seem no controversial claims in its present state, & he's probably notable. The only questioned part is an anecdote--which, considering his career field, may be relevant. The S Ear bio has possible notability, but more diffuse. The company article does not seem to say enough for notability at this point,based on the information included. I've commented a little further on the pages Ear & Sandstrom talk pagesDGG (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm actually not contesting the notability of any of the articles. Merely I'm contesting a user editing his own article, an article on a company he founded, and an article on a person who seems to be a close colleague. Mbisanz (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Criminologist1963 and Conflict of Interest

Resolved
 – The article listed below has been replaced by a redirect. This issue can be reopened if COI editing resumes

I think we've got a clear case of conflict of interest at Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, and I'd appreciate some administrative attention/advice.

A few months ago at Satanic Ritual Abuse, an editor called Criminologist1963 posted a large amount of material, much of which was rambling, speculative and unsourced. The material was taken from a similar article at the Netherlands Wikipedia that had been translated and pasted into the English SRA article. Some of the material was factually incorrect, but the editor repeated blocked any changes to the material.

Much of the material was sourced to a Dutch PhD candidate called Tjalling Beetstra, who runs a website where he offers his commercial services as an "expert" on SRA. Criminologist1963 cited Beetstra as an authoritative source no less then three times, then mentions Beetstra as an expert in the article itself, and provides a link to Beetstra's commercial website.

A number of similarities emerged between Criminologist1963 and Tjalling Beetstra (they are both Dutch, they both study "Satanic Ritual Abuse" from a skeptical POV, they both claim to be criminologists, and they were both born in 1963) such that it was reasonable to believe that Crim1963 and Beetstra were the same person.

After reviewing his material, editors deleted it, since (a) the material breached a number of Wikipedia guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Wikipedia to promote himself, and to promote a commercial service.

When his COI was uncovered, Criminologist1963 promptly created the article Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands, which reproduced the deleted material from the SRA article. It seems that Crim1963 has a financial interest in maintaining this material on Wikipedia, and he is willing to conceal his identity, and ignore the concerns of other WP editors, in order to do so.

I think this is a clear-cut case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. What do administrators think? --Biaothanatoi 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This probably *is* self-promotion. Since your report, the article Satanic ritual abuse in the Netherlands has been cut down to a redirect to the main article, Satanic ritual abuse. The latter has only one reference to the work of Tjalling Beetstra, and it appears to be a book chapter (a reliable source). Evidently the main article is undergoing an intense struggle about which sources should be used (in which you are one of the participants), and this COI seems to be no longer playing much of a role. I suggest that this COI report be marked as Resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Morals and Dogma

Morals and Dogma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Presumed author of a new edition providing commentary on the original book keeps adding a paragraph about the edition. // uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

See http://www.morals-and-dogma.com/authors.html for list of authors -- I am assuming that James L. "JJ" Miller IV is User:Jjmiller768.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie Dean and zorbing

Yesterday I noticed the Zorbing article contained NPOV material, advertising material, and this content had been added by User:Lizzie dean who appears to be the Franchise Manager of Zorb Limited, the company who started Zorbing. I made some changes which were immediately changed back to the advertising material by Lizzie Dean. It appears other users have had this problem also with Craig Horrocks, CEO of Zorb Limited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amy Talkington (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Filed on behalf of Amy Talkington on 19:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) because she is not autoconfirmed yet

DSL Forum

I've reverted to the version previous to his additions.--Hu12 (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FactSet Research Systems &‎ User:Ktsummer

Resolved
 – Company appears notable, but article needs rewriting. Tagged as {{advertisement}}. No COI edits since 5 December. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone have a look a FactSet Research Systems and Ktsummer's recent edits. This looks to me like pure PR. --Pleasantville (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The company appears notable. I added {{advertisement}}. Article contains usable facts, though it's one-sided, and it could be fixed by rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Cold fusion conflict of interest

Resolved
 – The IP editor cited here for COI has been blocked once and will probably be monitored further if problems continue. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user admits to being Jed Rothwell, the librarian for the cite LENR-CANR.org, a pro-cold fusion site that makes its money promoting cold fusion. This user, in particular, has been insisting on including references that he himself has had a hand in creating (for example a translation of a book by a Japanese cold fusion advocate). In particular, I'm concerned that some of the references he insists on including at cold fusion are published by vanity presses and he is using Wikipedia to make money on the translations he himself provided. I believe that this conflict of interest is so pronounced that he probably should avoid editing the article completely: or at least his attempts to include links to books are seen by me to be very close to using Wikipedia as a soapbox or even a source of advertisement. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: The situation seems to be getting worse. Jed is taking things way too personally. His threats are coming increasingly incendiary and I'm afraid that he won't take advice from those of us with whom he's already gotten upset. Will an uninvolved admin please counsel him? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: I cannot believe it, but things have gotten even worse. I'm requesting a community ban here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate at WP:ANI has been archived, but no ban was implemented. User:Hu12 blocked the IP for 24 hours on 6 December with the comment Continued disruptive editing despite warnings. Since then the IP has not resumed editing. EdJohnston (talk)
The archived location of the Dec. 6th ANI thread is here. This case continues to be discussed at Talk:Cold fusion and at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Cold fusion, though Arbcom does not seem inclined to accept the case. It *does* appear that this IP editor, 64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs), has a Conflict of Interest, but he has been blocked once and will probably be monitored further if problems continue. I'm marking this issue as Resolved to help clear out the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos discussion on WP:AN

Resolved
 – A clear COI issue that is being vigorously debated in a long thread at WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I started to list these here but then I realized there have already been a variety of related discussions about spam, coi, copyright, and link quality in different places, so I started a more centralized discussion of all aspects at:

I'm leaving this entry here to point WP:COI/N regulars to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. You guys are our experts at finessing useful content out of spam as well as managing the editors that bring us that stuff. I think you'll enjoy this one. --A. B. (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's sensible for you to bring the matter up at WP:AN where it will get more general attention from administrators. What action are you requesting be taken? Or are you going to take the action yourself, and just need general consent? I perceive that most people agree this is complete spam. EdJohnston (talk)
Had a quick glance. Agreed. This concerns a humungous number of links to an unreliable source: a personal website carrying personally-edited entries from Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, which has long since been outed for unreliability (i.e. having fictitious entries). The links should go, as spam, and any material sourced from Appleton's be viewed as suspect. I suggest A. B. should take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, where they could set it up as a cleanup subproject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
(the unanimous feeling at this point seems to be that the links at any rate must be removed, & the articles re-examined). DGG (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The Conflict of Interest here seems obvious and serious. Since there are so many links involved this will most likely be handled like a spam issue. How to do this while protecting any genuine references is still being vigorously debated in a five-day-long thread over at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard. Editors who normally follow discussions on this noticeboard are invited to give their views at WP:AN. I am marking this resolved so as not to multiply the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Susanbryce&oldid=172957195
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_20&oldid=180075236"