Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:50, 1 December 2007 editGordonofcartoon (talk | contribs)7,228 edits →Moneybomb← Previous edit Revision as of 00:51, 1 December 2007 edit undoGordonofcartoon (talk | contribs)7,228 edits →MoneybombNext edit →
Line 397: Line 397:
::::Since Ron Paul is a contributor to freemarketnews.com, I would hardly call it a nonbiased source of information about anything involving him. ] 20:04, 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. ] 20:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, but I have already accounted for those last two observations, which are more pertinent to ]. This section is about whether I and Elonka can avoid bias from potential conflicts of interest in editing ]. ] 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC) :::::Thanks, but I have already accounted for those last two observations, which are more pertinent to ]. This section is about whether I and Elonka can avoid bias from potential conflicts of interest in editing ]. ] 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Let's just cut to the chase. A quick Google on 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 the article. ::::::Let's just cut to the chase. A quick Google on 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 ], the attacks on ] come under ], and these verbose essays in relation to attempts to discuss edits are one very recognisable flavour of ] and ] editing. ] 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC) ::::::Furthermore, the general polemical nature of your posts is well in breach of ], the attacks on ] come under ], and these verbose essays in relation to attempts to discuss edits are one very recognisable flavour of ] and ] editing. ] 00:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Revision as of 00:51, 1 December 2007

If you are an anonymous user who wishes to make a COI report, please edit this section.

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     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-wp@wikipedia.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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Jonathan Mildenhall Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Optum Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation


    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.

    Articles tagged for COI that need to be cleaned up

    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 06:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

    Ego Pharmaceuticals

    Editing "List of Mind Mapping Software"

    Resolved – Editor who opened the complaint is now satisfied. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    List_of_Mind_Mapping_software

    Hi, I want to raise an issue of links to websites in this article. I feel like it's time to edit this article, adding links to websites in the FOOTNOTES section. Reason for it is that this article is about mind mapping software, which presupposes that people coming to this page actually WANT to find out information about different software, try it and make a choice. So they will go to these links in the FOOTNOTES section in any case, but because most links are not clickable at the moment, it makes it harder for people to do that (copy+paste operation is simple yet it takes more time and effort than simply clicking on the link). So I (and many other users) think that links should be allowed in the FOOTNOTES section of this exact article (due to its solely practical nature). Otherwise, I believe all links in the footnotes section should be deleted, because the way it looks now makes people think some software is superior over other (or some editors are favoring some software), which is not good and that's the reason I'm raising this issue here, in WP:COIN
    Please consider this option. Thanks! Julia sova 09:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

    I believe you have a conflict of interest for the very links that you've added, and have asked you to respond to this concern. It's probably best to do so now and here.
    The article is in my opinion a failed experiment to present additional information than is normally found in lists. Best to discuss those issues on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
    I'm concerned not only about links I've added, but also about all other software that you have deleted from that list. It doesn't seem like a reasonable action to me, I think what you've done simply robs people out of their choice to try and decide. Julia sova (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    This list has faced a long struggle over the issue of allowing direct links to vendor's web sites where the package in question is not notable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. I have seen many such links removed in other articles such as List of search engines, and to me it seems a sensible application of the WP:EL policy. This issue does not qualify as a normal COI posting which requires (a) an article name, (b) the name of a problematic editor who has a COI, and is not staying within the rules. I think Julia sova needs to give a more convincing argument why the issue should be here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
    EdJohnston, thank you for comprehensive answer, I now see why this issue shouldn't be here. I thought Ronz was being prejudiced against particular software, because his first cleanups of the article didn't have any system, so when Ronz deleted all software that doesn't have its own Wiki article, I decided that Ronz didn't want to bother thinking about which software is worth having a link and which is not, and simply deleted all of them. Now I see that it has been done in other articles, which makes it reasonable for me. Thanks again and I'll stick to Wiki policies (it's just that sometimes they should be articulated better...) Julia sova (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

    Highgate Vampire

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

    Vampire Research Society (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    It's an article about a supposed vampire sighting, and I think it's in need of attention. It is edited by User:Vampire Research Society, who is one of the self-described vampire hunters who claim to have discovered and destroyed the vampire in question. There is a bitter rivalry between VRS (Sean Manchester) and David Farrant, another (ex-)vampire hunter (don't laugh), as well as with sceptical authors who have written on the matter. I had a very hard time keeping the article neutral and the discussion civilized a year ago or so (mostly as an IP). Now I see VRS is active again, and while he doesn't seem to be doing anything particularly terrible at the moment, I'm quite nervous about what can happen next. If I were active on Misplaced Pages at the moment, I would keep watch on it, but as I'm not and won't be any time soon, I'd be relieved if a more regular Wikipedian occasionally takes a look at what is going on there.--Anonymous44 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

    I added some further reading and moved some of the external links. -- Jreferee t/c 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    It also has a flavour of WP:SYNTH; the whole article is very authorially-framed (e.g. "The growth of its reputation is a fascinating example of modern legend-building"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

    Digital Entertainment Network and The Digital Entertainment Network

    Digital Entertainment Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Tdenusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The article is about the old DEN.net portal (which someone else has put online, and is restoring the old video content to). Someone else -- User:Tdenusa -- insists his company owns the trademark to the name "The Digital Entertainment Network." He has repeatedly posted content about his current company on the top of the article here, insisting he has a "legal right" to do so. I've suggested to him that his information would be better served in a separate article, The Digital Entertainment Network, which would reflect his company's name, and preserve the historical record of the original article. I also noted to him that his information would be subject to WP notability guidelines, as his information appears to be little more than an advert for his company.

    Some guidance here would be helpful. Thanks! --Mhking (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    User:Tdenusa has disclosed he is Ralph Press, President of TDEN, USA. — Satori Son 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Just to note, Mr. Press has indicated that he plans to restore the disputed information once 24 hours has elapsed, so as not to be in violation of 3RR; and has threatened to "report" me for vandalism if I remove the advert information again. --Mhking (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Please don't revert again. Even though the information is clearly not appropriate, there is no need for you to risk a block for possible edit warring as well. WP:3RR is a touchy area. — Satori Son 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Understood; I'll stand apart from it, but when I note it, I'll report such here. --Mhking (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    If http://www.den.net and http://www.tden.com are separate companies with no overlap, then it's reasonable we should have two separate articles, and use a DAB or a hatnote to distinguish them. Putting unrelated material into a single article seems mischievous. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    I kind of thought so - I thought I was being reasonable. I did note to him that the advert-related info would certainly be subject to possible removal under WP guidelines, but I thought I was being reasonable (at least I was trying to be). I know I can be heavy-handed at times, plus I needed some guidance in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhking (talk • contribs) 21 November 2007


    I see a new page was created for The Digital Entertainment Network. That's fine. I will work on improving it. Our trademark ownership can be verified at the uspto.gov website by typing in Digital Entertainment Network in the trademark search page. The trademark registration# is 2347797. I am a little surprised that the Misplaced Pages experts are not aware of this capability. The problem here is the patent and trademark office does not distinguish whether the 'The' is in front of Digital Entertainment Network or not. They will not issue that mark to another company. By having two separate pages it just adds to the confusion that existed almost 10 years ago. Our website has been using this registered trademark continuously for 11 years now. I am not going to reinstate the prior edits for Digital Entertainment Network. However the trademark infringement problem between our 2 companies is an historical fact which I can document with references from articles in the NY Post and correspondence I have with their attornies. I will add some information about this at the bottom of their page. I don't see why there should be a problem with this as it is part of that company's history just as the lawsuits against Collins Rector are.

    Sincerely, Ralph Press Tdenusa (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

    If you have references from the New York Post it would be good to list them here. We can use published sources but we can't use your correspondence with attorneys. I suggest that you not make any edits to the articles yourself, since you have a conflict. If you see a change that needs to be made, ask for it on the article Talk page and neutral editors will address the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    Archives search of New York Post did not come up with anything for me . I found the patent registration under 2347797 (filed 22 May 1998 and live). I also found 2 dead registrations to the other comapny though they weren't for the Wordmark Digital Entertainment Network but rather the wordmarks DENMART and CHATDEN to a company of that name. Further also at the patents office -  : A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. ... Digital Entertainment Network, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, Registration No. 2366329 for the mark "DIRECT DRIVE", Cancellation No. 92045801. I found no record in the patents office website of a trademark dispute but that might be my poor searching skills although I did search the Decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and I think the matter must not have been tested there eg . --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    See this link for the current status of a service mark #2347797 on the Digital Entertainment Network. It was granted on 5/22/2000 and is now owned by a company called TDEN USA which is based in Plantation, Florida. The service they provide is called Computerized on-line ordering and retail services in the field of digital audio recordings, featuring previews of the recordings. However, the original Digital Entertainment Network is reported to have gone bankrupt in May of 2000 so the timing doesn't work out for the trademark issue to have played any role in their demise. There is apparently a successor company that still runs http://www.den.net and maybe *they* have had dealings with TDEN USA. However our article doesn't say anything about them. So unless the New York Post has something to report about the trademark issue it's not yet obvious that anything about the trademark belongs in the original DEN article.
    Our additional article called The Digital Entertainment Network has these sentences:

    That company infringed upon the tden.com trademark. After a period of negotiations to license the trademark to DEN, DEN went out of business.

    So far I see no case for keeping those sentences, since no evidence has been provided, and the date of bankruptcy of the original DEN doesn't fit. I'd like to see User:Tdenusa comment on the situation, though. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    Although registered (granted) in 2000 the application was filed in 1998 and thus the time period does overlap. I was unable to find evidence on the web of negotiations (there was less on the web then). Obviously cites from newspapers or other reliable sources that are not online are fine - but there need to be cites and correspondence between attorneys would not meet our guidelines - wouldn't be encyclopaedic.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 05:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    Actually the overlap period started in 1996. A trademark doesn't have to be registered for there to be infringement. We started using it on our website in 1996 while DEN's website started 3 months after ours. The conflict wasn't discovered until the end of 1998. While attorney's correspondence may not be 'encyclopedic' they are direct evidence of the situation. Newspaper articles are second hand sources and can contain misinformation. I have a copy of a NY Post article that was written about this stored somewhere. I will dig it out and post it on my website for all to read.

    Tdenusa (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    You can read the article here http://www.tden.com/NY_Post_Article.pdf. It was written on June 17, 2002 by Ben Silverman of dotcomscoop. There are 2 articles on the page. The first is about DEN the second is about us. The company he refers to Digital Masters USA was the original company I set up to run the website and own the trademark. When I moved to Florida I started TDEN USA and transferred everything over to it.

    Tdenusa (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    Rick Cesari

    The author of this article has a name similar to the subject. According to User talk:Cesaridirect, the same user has deleted sourced material. I tagged it. Bearian (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    It looks like all of his edits are to promote himself and his business. Hopefully, he'll respond to the warnings soon. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

    Cayra

    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. ) over what seem to be to be clear Misplaced Pages 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)

    Human trafficking in Angeles City

    See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks.
    Susanbryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been accused by the Senate of the Philippines of running a smear campaign against Angeles, see http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2007/0726_revilla1.asp . She has used other internet forums to spread lies about Angeles City. She claims it has 150,000 prostitutes (out of a total population of 280,000) and that a woman or child is raped or killed every 6 seconds.
    There has never been one arrest for Human Trafficking in Angeles City. Susanbryce makes unfounded claims this is because of some wild government conspiracy. RodentofDeath (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

    Refactored link. I'd suggest a peer review or an article RFC to get more opinions on whether any soapboxing survives. (As an aside. National Geographic noted in its September 2003 issue that "here's a clear link between slavery and government corruption" (p16)). MER-C 11:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

    RodentofDeath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    If soapboxing is an issue, please consider the accuser's stated agenda, and his edit history. RodentofDeath's tendentious edits to various Angeles City-related articles, notably Human trafficking in Angeles City (edits), consistently remove well-sourced information that is not flattering to Angeles City (which has some problems). After 100's of kb of Talk page discussion on various articles, RodentofDeath resumes deletion of source material for specious and highly disputed reasons (see Talk), and sustains a near-constant campaign of personal attack against editors who challenge him. This WP:POVPUSH has been raised repeatedly in WP:ANI, and dismissed as a content dispute. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    I just found the ANI thread and it appears both sides (i.e. RodentOfDeath and Susanbryce) have engaged in POV pushing. I was suggesting a community review of the article to make sure that no soapboxing by either party survives.
    I'd file a user RFC on RodentOfDeath with the possibility of bumping it up to arbitration in the future. (Note that the arbcom doesn't rule on content issues, you'll need to produce evidence of user misconduct.) MER-C 13:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    Started Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. Am currently awaiting more Users certifying the basis for this dispute before submitting the request. This may be problematic because many of the editors who have tried to resolve these disputes are no longer contributing to Misplaced Pages, and a certification from Susanbryce (talk · contribs) might be dismissed due to partiality. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    You've got three now, which is more than the prerequisite two. I guess we're done here, further comments should go to the RFC. MER-C 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    excuse me, but how is susan's documented conflict of interest resolved by asking people for requests for comments on ME?!!! she is still inserting false information continually in articles she has a direct conflict of interest editing. here is the diff from today and my discussion of why these edits are incorrect are on the talk page where they should be.RodentofDeath (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    I would have suggested mediation but you refused that. Plus your conduct is the most questionable out of all three participants. MER-C 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    please show me where i ever refused moderation. my conduct has nothing to do with the fact susanbryce has a conflict of interest. if i were to fall off the planet and never were heard from again she still has a conflict of interest. in the past when moderation between susan and i was suggested elsewhere i asked what would be moderated. the reply to me was the human trafficking in angeles article. i responded that she has a conflict of interest and should not be editing that article. the subject was then dropped and she didnt edit for several months. during this time nobody had any complaints about my conduct. now that she is back editing articles she should not be involved with suddenly i am a problem again. please address the issue here which is her conflict of interest and her deliberately inserting false information. you can address my conduct elsewhere as you seem to already have done. RodentofDeath (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    I will respond on the RFC. MER-C 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    are users supposed to be removing COI templates from their user page? even after the response on my RFC i dont see how commenting on my actions resolves susanbryce's conflict of interest. my statements can in no way affect if she has a her conflict of interest or not, which she clearly does.RodentofDeath (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    User warnings aren't supposed to be on their user page. And yes. You can remove warnings from your talk page. Gscshoyru (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    thanks for the answer. so where are they supposed to be? apparently i didnt understand the purpose of them. back to the conflict of interest topic.... is anyone watching the human trafficking page and all the errors getting inserted now (including statements already proven false months ago)? nobody else can see the clear smear campaign and conflict of interest going on here?RodentofDeath (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    susanbryce is reverting to reinsert false information here. she re-inserts false info that operator of club was convicted and adds unsourced "in obscene exhibitions and indecent shows, and for inducing child prostitution" which is unsourced. it is simply for employing a minor.

    susanbryce removes sourced "law is severe and strictly enforced" here.

    susanbryce removes Men from the list of people vulnerable to rape, AIDS and murder here.

    susanbryce then reverts to insert false information listed above about "bscene exhibitions and indecent shows, and for inducing child prostitution" and also says club operators were convicted when they were acquitted here. she also removes "They have yet to document a case of sex slavery" without explanation or discussion. she also changes the exact wording from the citation "illegal recruitment" to trafficking.

    susanbryce has a clear conflict of interest as the founder of Philippines Child Rescue Agency and is campaigning for her cause in violation of wikipedia's COI policy. she has also been accused of running a smear campaign by the Philippines Senate here. These items still need to be addressed.RodentofDeath (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    R Family Vacations

    Resolved – No COI here. IP has a history of attacking the editor this thread regards. -Jéské 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 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 , 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)

    Break for ease of editing

    (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 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 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 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 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 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. Arakunem 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Yep. I would not stoop to disrupting Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 01:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    Author inserted "Christian" to describe protesters in starting article: , source cited with no mention of "Christian" protesters: , constituting anti-Christian agenda. Author titles reference "Reservations" (note title=Reservations): , 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 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 20:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    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. 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. 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 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, has sought advice on various occasions , and I honestly think hasn't understood some WP policies and guidelines. On the other hand, he hasn't readily followed through with recommendations made to him,, , or chose to interpret them to allow what he would like to include.
    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 Misplaced Pages 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)

    uSwitch

    American Apparel

    Relevant thread at WP:ANI#POV edits of User:Leftcoastbreakdown to American Apparel and others. Relata refero (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    Sav Remzi

    MRC LTD (talk · contribs) has a clear conflict of interest in editing the Sav Remzi article, but feels that he/she can blatantly remove the coi tag from the article because Sav Remzi isn't editing it. Corvus cornixtalk 23:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

    Brightcove

    brightcove.com Linksearch current

    Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Brightcove. Was speedied six times previously.--Hu12 (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    Perry Institute for Marine Science

    Clear evidence of COI can be seen in phrases like "We offer...". Despite the promotional tone, the subject seems notable, so cleanup would be preferable to deletion. It's a big job, so be prepared to devote at least ten minutes. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    The whole article is copied directly from the Perry Institute website and is a copyright violation. I have speedied it. --Slp1 (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    Silanis

    An IP address, 66.46.217.132, registered to SILANIS TECHNOLOGY has pluged the websites of that company in articles such as Digital signature, Electronic signature, and Digital signatures and law since August of this year. The spam continues even after warnings. Silanis provides services in the digital signature field. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

    www.silanis.com

    www.esignrecords.org

    Spammers

    If they return again, we'll probably blacklist the links. MER-C 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Agree with MER-C, feel free to request @ MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist refering to this if there is a resurgence.--Hu12 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    The spammer 66.46.217.132 has returned; here is a diff of the spam addition. I suggest that the IP address 66.46.217.132 be blocked indefinitely and the domain silanis.com be blacklisted. I will post a blacklisting request as suggested by Hu12. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Gerry, I've added the links to the local blacklist per your request. I'd preffer not to block the IP because the links can no longer be added. --Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
    I've been involved in tracking this problem and giving warnings. I think that blacklisting should be enough. It's a pity that the editors never responded to the warnings. --Ronz (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

    Laissez Faire Books & Sharon Presley

    Could somebody have a look at the Laissez Faire Books and Sharon Presley articles and their relationship to User:SPresley. This user refers to Sharon Presley as her article . There maybe nothing wrong here but there is at very least a strong potential for COI--Cailil 01:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    Eagle Forum & Phyllis Schlafly‎

    Schlafly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose mother Phyllis Schlafly‎ is the founder of the Eagle Forum, is far too personally involved per WP:COI to be editing either the Eagle Forum or Phyllis Schlafly‎ article. Yet not only has he been editing these in a ccontroversial manner since October 16, namely deleting sourced critisms, he's been waging edit wars at each to keep criticism out: He's been informed about WP:COI before and dismissed it, and I'm too involved to take action myself. FeloniousMonk (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    I have not removed any properly sourced criticism. I have corrected the article by using the actual quote from the cited source. I have discussed the changes on the Talk page, as per guidelines. FeloniousMonk is someone with personal animosity towards me, and he should not be reverting my edits. Roger (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    MediaWiki:Watchlist-details

    MediaWiki:Watchlist-details (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This page, editable only by admins, forces a message to appear at the top of everyone's watchlist. This is being used to promote a contest organised by members of the for-profit Misplaced Pages mirror Veropedia. (This fact is not immediately obvious as their response to criticism has been to remove all mention of Veropedia from the contest page) Putting this notice in the watchlist gives the false impression that this is an official wikipedia move, as that is the sort of thing usually advertised there. Objection sto this have been reaised by multiple people in multiple places, and the response has been rather dismissive and sometimes patronising- "If you don't like the the fact that the watchlist has a message about it, dismiss it"; "It is very simple to click that little box that says to make it go away"; "If you don't like the contest, ignore it and the worst "If you cannot ignore it, maybe a Wikibreak until December 9?" Lurker (said · done) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    Could you please provide diffs where this issue has been discussed elsewhere? Thanks. — Satori Son 14:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    Add #watchlist-message { display: none } to your monobook.css. MER-C 02:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    The solution doesn't seem to be working for me. Is it dependent on whether or not you have script-blockers active? -Jéské 02:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    Did you bypass the browser cache? MER-C 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    Regent University

    Ttnrwtvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is making many edits to the page to remove all critical information about the school. S/he has repeatedly removed well-referenced citations and material over the protestations of multiple other editors, apparently to push a particular point of view, raising concerns that the editor is working on behalf of Regent University directly.

    Examples of removed references and material:

    Many subsequent edits removed a large amount of content, and replaced it with more promotional material. --GoodDamon 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    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. 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." I would appreciate the assistance of some other editors, to help ensure that the article stays in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 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"-- 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)

    67.86.11.24 and Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer

    67.86.11.24 admits to being associated with Character Arts, which handles the licensing of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and has repeated inserted links to www.rudolphstore.com, including one time after having the external link policy explained to them on their talk page.Kww (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    Heres a link analysis, seem the spamming has stoped.
    --Hu12 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

    Further inappropriate edits today. Kww 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Susanbryce&oldid=172957195
    Category: