Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:48, 14 December 2007

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

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see 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-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. 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 All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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.

Human trafficking in Angeles City

Anti-stuttering devices, Stuttering

• Anti-stuttering devices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Stuttering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tdkehoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• Stutterman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - it's not clear, at least to me, whether or not this is another Tdkehoe account. — Athaenara ✉ 22:24, 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, 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., (with expanded reasoning here ) 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)

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

• silanis.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

www.esignrecords.org

• esignrecords.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Spammers

• 66.46.217.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 209.167.254.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

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)

66.46.217.132 recently contacted Gerry Ashton and me about the situation. Gary has responded at length, while I recommended she join this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Moneybomb

→ See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moneybomb.

• Talk:Ron Paul (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Moneybomb (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Political positions of Ron Paul‎ (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Criminologist1963 and Conflict of Interest

• user: Criminologist1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• article: Satanic ritual abuse in The Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages guidelines related to sourcing and NPOV, and (b) it seemed that Beetstra was using Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

Automated Valuation Model

Automated Valuation Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Bearian 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Calnea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - A provider (or its employee) of such services created and edited this article, which is a valid subject, but they should have informed the users of WP of said conflict. Bearian 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• 194.200.20.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This IP has also made almost a dozen edits, and may be assigned to this company. Bearian 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Article was created by spokesperson from Calnea Analytics. The article attempted to be neutral and recent edits have been made to try to address any bias, e.g. no one provider is mentioned more than another. Written by a new user who was unaware of the need to inform WP about COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seal1234try (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I will review and remove the COI tag if appropriate. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

PIPC

Currently, and for quite a while, this has been a redirect to Palisades Interstate Park Commission. Mid month last month, it (the redirect) came under assault by a number of SPAs and IPs, seeking to either blank the redirect or convert it to a unsourced stub about a company, claiming that the company owned the trademark to the PIPC acronym. Given that the company article gives no evidence of notability, let alone even a real claim that it can pass WP:CORP, the redirect was repeatedly restored by me and a couple of other people. An ANI report was filed, in good part because of the quasi-legal threats of the trademark claims. I ended up semi-protecting the redirect for a week, and things quieted down, until today. Today the redirect was once again replaced, this time by a bit fuller article for the same company, but still no real attempts made to show how WP:CORP is met. I have left a note on the replacer's talk page, laying out how I see this needing to go forward. But given the fireworks that occurred last month, any additional eyes on the situation would be greatly appreciated. (Oh, and this is a COIN report because the earlier edits make it fairly obvious to me that these efforts to replace the redirect with the company page are coming from one or more people associated with the company.) - TexasAndroid 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how PIPC Global Holding Company Limited is in a position to assert unique ownership of the abbreviation. It's just one of many organisations called PIPC (e.g. Palisades Interstate Park Commission Political Institutions and Public Choice Program, Polska Izba Przemysłu Chemicznego, Plateau Investment and Property Development, Pender Islands Parks Commission, Pacific Islanders' Presbyterian Church, and so on).

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd have thought a disambiguation page PIPC, rather than one solely redirecting to Palisades Interstate Park Commission, would cover the situation. Gordonofcartoon 02:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And as soon as we have more than one article that properly shows notability of an organization or company that uses the acronym, then a disambig will be appropriate. But as long as only one shows notability, there is really IMHO no point to a disambiguation. - TexasAndroid 14:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno: disambigation pages not uncommonly contain redlinked entries. Gordonofcartoon 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The idea is supposed to be that they can contain red links if the target could be reasonibly expected to get an article at some point in the future. At this point, I'm really not certain that any of the other potential targets, especially not the company in question, are notable enough for articles. So red links are doable in disambigs, but not really red links to non-notable subjects that are not likely to ever have a lasting page here. If the PIPC corp people can provide sourcing to show that they pass WP:CORP, then this argument is moot and a disambig becomes the right way to go. Until/unless that is provided, I see little reason for it to be anything other than a redirect. - TexasAndroid 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FactSet Research Systems &‎ User:Ktsummer

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)

Michel Thomas bio

• Michel Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rivenburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Facts@mt.org (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NV Researcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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; Misplaced Pages 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 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Stustu12

• Stustu12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Dr. Stuart W. Shulman, Associate Professor at University of Pittsburgh and Director of the Qualitative Data Analysis Program
• Annotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coding (social sciences) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Content analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qualitative research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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 () 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Max Boot

I don't know if this is appropriate here or if it should be brought to the attention of folks over at WP:BLP, and it's really just something old that never was properly addressed. Let's see if I can make sense out of it all:

1. During the course of litigation against tobacco companies (esp. Phillip Morris), documents were uncovered detailing the tobacco companies' attempts to manipulate scientific data in their favor. One such document, from the mid 1990s, attracted attention and spawned suggestions that while at the WSJ Max Boot had breached journalistic ethics by collaborating with a tobacco lobbyist in the course of authoring editorials discussing regulatory policy (in other words, creating a conflict of interest).
2. This paragraph was added to Boot's Misplaced Pages article, essentially repeating the accusations. (Note: the paragraph has been heavily edited and is in a much different form today, although its content is essentially the same.) See the included citations for background.
3. A Misplaced Pages edit war ensues, with the information repeatedly being removed and replaced by various editors. Full disclosure: I attempted to at least improve the controversial paragraph with copy edits and citations, and twice restored the paragraph when it was deleted with no prior discussion.
4. In January 2007, an anonymous letter is published by blogger Eric Alterman on his blog, hosted by Media Matters for America. The letter alleges that the information above was scrubbed or whitewashed from Misplaced Pages by one or more editors operating from the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank that employs Boot. Thus, Boot or someone operating on his behalf is implicated in COI edits to Misplaced Pages. As far as I can tell, there isn't any evidence presented that these edits were actually made by an IP owned by CFR, but I'm IP illiterate, so what do I know. The allegations are discussed by bloggers Matthew Yglesias , Brad DeLong , and Steve Gilliard , among others.
5. Talk page discussion led me to mark the paragraph as containing original synthesis, but I wonder if adding a discussion of Alterman et. al.'s accusations would establish that this is not, in fact, an original argument made for the first time on Misplaced Pages.
6. Perhaps the whole thing is giving undue weight to a controversy about a 13 year-old editorial, but the accusations of whitewashing or scrubbing seem especially important. I'm basically just curious about the attribution status of blogs, and completely unsure about discussing the article in the article itself. I realize doing so may be nauseatingly meta for many readers, but any help or advice would certainly be appreciated.

- Tobogganoggin 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Even when BLP is involved, stuff that is factual, well-referenced, and very briefly stated usually will pass review. Looking at Max_Boot#Controversy, that section seems extremely short, and nobody seems to be arguing it is incorrect. Does even this very brief statement cause you concern? EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not particularly, I'm just hoping to achieve a bit more article stability by appeasing critics of the passage. I'd like to mention the CFR conflict-of-interest edits ("whitewashing") of Misplaced Pages as well, but I'm not sure how to proceed. Does such information belong in the article at all? If so, should I simply cite the accusations of popular bloggers who, while openly biased, appear to be correct? Perhaps I should instead also cite the edit history of Boot's Misplaced Pages article together with a reverse DNS lookup to make things a bit more factual, or would doing that be considered OR? - Tobogganoggin 00:22, 10 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)

Cold fusion conflict of interest

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Heliodisplay

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

That is:

• Heliodisplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• IO2 Technology LLC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Io2technology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

IAC/InterActiveCorp & User:IACWik

This is pretty blatant, even without the evidence of the extremely stilted, biased text that's been added. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Posted on my talkpage at the date above; moved here at 04:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC). -Jéské

Having examined the article, the whole thing reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like a peacock's tail. There are no cited sources (just site/company names in parentheses w/year), and the whole thing smells of "Company Spin". I will note, however, that IACWiki appears to be inactive (I have not checked the block log). -Jéské 04:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like a poorly-written article about a notable company, one that clearly deserves coverage. Since COI editing is no longer taking place, I suggest this might be closed as a COI report. Anyone with a bit of free time is invited to fix the article. Curiously, IACWik stopped editing completely after receiving the original {{uw-coi}} notice. Since then a few improvements have happened (a bunch of spam links were removed) but the terrible prose remains. Stubbifying might be an option, while we are waiting for somebody who is inspired to write a better article. EdJohnston (talk) 06:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Worldwide Business Research

• Worldwide Business Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TradeTech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Brittenstreet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 208.49.200.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 38.112.44.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• wbresearch.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• wbr.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• iqpc.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• sixsigmasummit.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Worldwide Business Research
See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Worldwide_Business_Research_.28WBR.29
--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos discussion on WP:AN

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:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? (permanent link)

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. 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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. Psinu_{to 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 Misplaced Pages.)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

Metaphor Entertainment

• LMA2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SJR2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HollywoodFan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.30.201.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MetaphorEnt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pr.Girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Linzmac78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MetaphorPR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zip100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joshua Feinman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marta McGonagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lindsay MacFarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mimi Fuenzalida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dennis W. Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cassandra Braden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Erika Ringor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Milena Lukich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fatimah Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kevin T. McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brien Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Elle Travis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

LMA2007 seems to be connected Metaphor Entertainment/ Breakdown express. All the contributor’s edits have been in relation to actors, most of who have been metioned on Metaphor Entertainment’s Myspace.com Blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=102544542). Cassandra Braden‘s resume and Erika Ringor’s resume list Metaphor Entertainment as their management. These comments made by the LMA2007 indicate that they are representing Erika Ringor:

LMA2007 was blocked from editing for a month for photo copyright violations, the similarly named SJR2008 edited during that time and reuploaded two of the images that LMA2007 had previously uploaded.

HollywoodFan1 was created a day after SJR2008. They edited the same group of articles and created the Mimi Fuenzalida article. Mimi’s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment.

The IP Address 64.30.201.109 also edited the same set of articles. A number of other IP addresses also only edited these articles, but none of them made a significant number of edits.

MetaphorEnt, which is probably short for Metaphor Entertainment, created the Elle Travis article.

Pr.Girl created the Lindsay MacFarland article, Lindsay ‘s management is listed as Metaphor Entertainment. Linzmac78 is likely Lindsay MacFarland. BlueAzure (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Clarify - Above Gordonofcartoon quotes "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." I would like to make the same argument for the articles I have contributed to. I do not know any of the people in the articles I edited. I took an interest in this group of talent through one Actress that I am a fan of her work. From there and myspace I have followed the people she's working with. Being an avid blogger, I though it would be interesting to slowly get involved with Misplaced Pages. From my understanding everyone's contributions are welcome as long as they are impartial. If that is not the case, please explain. (HollywoodFan1 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

Beyond the evidence I previously provided, I noticed a number other items that give the appearance of a conflict of interest. First, you uploaded and indicated that you are the copyright holder for and . At the very least they indicate that you have met multiple actors managed by Metaphor Entertainment on two occasions. Second, you created the Mimi Fuenzalida article, it includes fairly detailed information that I could not find online. I’m curious as to where you found the information? Third, your edits have occurred on the same day and within the same hour as edits by 64.30.201.109. 64.30.201.109 has been editing this set of articles starting back in November of 2006 and has continued since you joined wikipedia. Finally, when I searched your username on google, most the results were from imdb.com. Most of the imdb.com pages were for the actors listed above. A hollywoodfan1-1 had posted on the message boards of these pages. The only other posters appeared to be the above listed actors and their Metaphor Entertainment manager Sharon Weintraub. If you are not directly involved with Metaphor Entertainment, you have a relationship that I believe is at least close to a conflict of interest.

I have also added two more accounts to the list above:

In addition to the username, MetaphorPR’s only editing was to one the articles in question.

Zip100 created the article for Marta McGonagle and only edited that article, Marta’s management is list as Metaphor Entertainment. BlueAzure (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not MetaphorPR, nor am I Zip100. My relationship with Metaphor has been through myspace. Isn't is a blessing that multiple users have contributed to a group of articles. Shouldn't that suggest that there is diversified interest. Isn't that what WP is founded on? Do you have issues with the articles content or is there something I contributed that you object to? I've only written one article, and most of my edits have been minor. I openly admitted to meeting one of the actresses once at a premiere. That photo was indeed placed on this site. I contacted you directly for a solution and didn't hear back. What else do you suggest? Please clarify what your solution is.

Simson Garfinkel, Sandstorm Enterprises, Sophal Ear

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

• Simson Garfinkel - Article on himself
• Sandstorm Enterprises - Company he founded

*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)

Atlas terriers

Author is User:Autumnbriar - Lauren Wolfe of AutumnBriar Farms is the originator of the Atlas Terrier name, and the Atlas terrier "breed". --jdege (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

After a quick read of the article and its tags, I've prodded this for speedy deletion as spam. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I contested speedy on this as it does not, to my eyes, read as an advertisement. However, I would support a prod if the tagged issues (refs, coi, etc.) are not addressed. -- Shunpiker (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've sent the associated Mini Parsons article to AFD for failure to verify. IrishJack looks COI too, as one of the breeders is also Autumnbriar Farms. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:30, 11 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)

Articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church

User Steve Dufour has been consistently watering down articles related to Sun Myung Moon/Unification Church, an organization of which he is a member (see his user page and this website (look for Dufour)). Articles include Jeffrey T. Kuhner, which he is pushing for deletion and from which he has repeatedly removed relevant information to make it appear less notable, as well as Insight (magazine), which he has been monitoring and watering down. His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's. The possible COI may be in the fact that Insight is owned by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church, and Kuhner is editor in chief of Insight. Dufour seems to have an interest in these articles because of his affiliation with the church. He has also consistently removed mentions of the Unification Church and Moon when it appears in the Insight and Kuhner articles. Athene cunicularia (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to any "watering down" which conceals the existence of a controversy. I glance at my user page shows that my main focus at Misplaced Pages is identifying controversies - not concealing them. Insight is owned by the same holding corporation which owns the Washington Times, so the two are clearly affiliated. And Rev. Moon is the founder (but not literally the owner) of the Times. He has pumped well over a billion dollars of church funds into it,

I'd like to see the linkage between Insight and the Unification Church clarified. (Oh, and in case anyone has forgotten, Jimbo and Lee Crocker and Maveric knew I was a follower of Sun Myung Moon six years ago when I was helping out with the database, the mailing list, and was made a sysop. The only POV I push is that we should HIGHLIGHT the existence of controversy! ;-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a genuine COI problem with User:Steve Dufour on Unification Church-related topics. I've run into this with him and another editor, both UC members, at articles of other UC members, notably Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) in the past. I've not edited any of the articles mentioned here so I'm uninvolved enough to have a word with Steve but if he ignores my advice I'm leaving it for another admin to take any additional steps to avoid any concerns over my past run ins with him. It would be even better if Ed, being friend and fellow UC member, were to get Steve to step back and find something else to edit. Want to help Ed? FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to be fair in my edits and have never tried to restrict the right of anyone else to edit here. If I am to be kicked off WP for editing articles about my church then I think the same standard should apply to political parties and other organizations. Hmmm....that might be a good idea. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW Jonathan Wells's article is unreadably badly written. I have tried to help with that but have never removed any information about his church membership. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Steve. As I've said in my email to you I've found you to be a a reasonable chap in our previous run-ins and we've somehow managed to work things out, so I'm sure you'll be reasonable now. I'm signing off for the night but will check back tomorrow. FeloniousMonk (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(Wrote this at the same time as FeloniousMonk) That's why people recuse themselves--because although they may sincerely "try to be fair," they can't. I would probably agree, too--if someone expresses an affiliation to an organization that they're supposed to objectively portray, they should recuse themselves. Unfortunately, you have disclosed that you are a religious follower of the owner of Insight magazine, which is controversial, and thus, I think that you should recuse yourself from editing these related articles. I would not ask that you be kicked off wikipedia. I think that your intentions are good; in this case, though, I believe that you have a COI.Athene cunicularia (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Jjhmccarty

I believe this user is editing articles (rivet, Wrought iron, RMS Titanic), and creating articles (Tim Foecke) to promote her soon to be published book. The fact that she created an article on her co-author seems to present a clear conflict of interest. Pjbflynn (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And the Platelet edits concerning the work of OJT McCarty, who a little Googling finds to be her husband. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This does seem to violate the prohibition on Self-Cites. Additionally, as the book has not been released yet, it is un-verifiable as a source. The references to the book should be removed, at the very least until such time as it is released and independently evaluated. If the material cited does add value to the articles in question, then the cites should reference the sources used by the author in the book, and not the book itself. If those sources are OR, well then.... Arakunem 15:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Errol Louis

I have no expertise in this field of Misplaced Pages policy and am not about to start wading in with my clumsy boots on and wielding my mop.

I noticed this () and it seems that User:ErrolLouis who has on more than one occasion removed a photograph from the Errol Louis biog, claims to be, erm, Errol Louis.

See Special:Contributions/ErrolLouis.

I will notify both users in the conflict of this thread. --Dweller (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's not really a conflict. Or a big conflict. Louis doesn't like my photo of him, which is fine. He uploaded a photo of himself, but it was a tiny one that is ten years old in black and white. In an effort to prod him into uploading a better, more recent photo I posted a message about it on his talk page and restored my photo he dislikes. He took it down, and I haven't reverted. He sent me a message on my Talk page that I can re-photograph him, but I have too much going on this month that I said it would have to be after the holidays. That's all. --David Shankbone 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I put up an edit protected request at Talk:Errol_Louis#new_image. At least that way it can be unprotected for now. Lawrence Cohen 06:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritz Newspaper

• Ritz Newspaper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Franceslynn (talk · contribs)

Could we have extra input on this? User:Franceslynn is being mentored and has understood the COI issues with editing the previously-discussed Frances Lynn, but as she's an ex-staffer of Ritz Newspaper, I think there's a strong COI here too. I'm not comfortable with information being added direct by someone with a COI and cited out to a defunct publication where it's extremely difficult for other editors to check the accuracy of the citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lizzie Dean and zorbing

• Zorbing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - contains NPOV material added by a person with a conflict-of-interest
• Lizzie dean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a Zorb Limited employee (thus the conflict-of-interest)

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

• DSL Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Yue chen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "I chair the Marketing Committee of the DSL Forum. I'm currently editing the DSL Forum page paint a more complete picture"
    
• dslforum.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards