Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:59, 10 November 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buses Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 17 March 2009 (UTC), see discussion. no consensus, 23 November 2008 (UTC), see discussion.

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Links related to Controversy

Here is a list of articles about Suburban Express and it's controversies. I'm creating a section for it so others can contribute - please don't delete from it, though. It was started by AlmostGrad and moved to it's own section by NegatedVoid.

1. The Daily Illini (04/19/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits lead to controversy on social media
2. The Daily Illini (Editorial) (04/24/2013): Suburban Express mishandles student allegations
3. Paxton Record (04/25/2013): Bus company suing UI students for violating 'terms and conditions'
4. The Daily Illini (04/25/2013): Public addresses Illinois Student Senate regarding influx of student-aimed Suburban Express lawsuits
5. The Daily Illini (Opinion Column) (04/25/2013): Suburban Express causes its own problems
6. The Daily Illini (Letter to the Editor) (04/25/2013): UI should defend international students, disallow Suburban Express services
7. Ars Technica (04/26/2013): Express to Internet Hate: Bus company threatens redditor with lawsuit
8. The News Gazette (04/26/2013): Bus firm's lawsuits criticized
9. The Daily Illini (04/26/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits reach 125 this year; conversation continues on Reddit
10. BoingBoing (04/27/2013): Suburban Express bus-line sends bullying, cowardly legal threat to Reddit, discovers Streisand Effect
11. Popehat (04/28/2013): Suburban Express Took The First Bus To The Streisand Effect. Have They Disembarked In Time?
12. Techdirt (04/29/2013): Bus Company Threatens Redditor With Lawsuit, Meets Ken White, Runs Away
13. The Daily Dot (04/29/2013): Bus Company Threatens to Sue Redditor Over Bad Press
14. Paxton Record (04/29/2013): After backlash, bus firm pledges to dismiss all suits
15. The News Gazette (04/30/2013): Bus company promises to drop Ford lawsuits
16. Chicago Tribune (05/01/2013): Bus company's lawsuits anger students, parents
17. The News Gazette (05/01/2013): Bus lawsuits dismissed in Ford County
18. Paxton Record (05/01/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits dropped
19. The Daily Illini (05/01/2013): Suburban Express drops lawsuits and updates terms and conditions
20. WCIA 3 News (05/01/2013): Bus company drops civil suits against students
21. Ars Technica (05/02/2013): Nonstop to schadenfreude: Suburban Express’ u-turn on reddit lawsuit
22. The Daily Illini (05/02/2013): UIUC Subreddit hits front page, Streisand effect leads to increased attention for Suburban Express lawsuits
23. Kankakee Daily Journal (05/02/2013): Bus company drops lawsuits in Ford County against college student riders
24. The Daily Illini (Editorial) (05/02/2013): University administrators absent in Suburban Express incidences
25. Pieuvre.ca (05/02/2013): Le pouvoir des masses numériques, pour le meilleur et pour le pire (Translation)
26. American Bar Association Journal (05/03/2013): Cheap bus ticket included a trip to small-claims court for unwary students
27. Slashdot (05/04/2013): Redditors (and Popehat) Versus a Bus Company
28. Ars Technica (05/13/2013): Troll road: Bus company posts “dirt” on complaining passenger
29. Techdirt (05/17/2013): Suburban Express Goes Double Or Nothing On Their Aggressive Behavior
30. Ars Technica (06/19/2013): Bus company that threatened redditor with lawsuit tries to reopen suits
31. Techdirt (06/24/2013): Suburban Express Wants Round 3: Re-Files Against Customers
32. Paxton Record (06/25/2013): Suburban Express wants to refile some of its cases
33. Ars Technica (06/25/2013): Bus co. owner threatens redditor yet again, records users’ IP addresses
34. The News Gazette (06/26/2013): Bus company wants to reinstate some lawsuits
35. Uproxx (06/26/2013): Meet Suburban Express, The Bus Line Fighting A War With Reddit Over Negative Comments
36. The Daily Illini (06/27/2013): Suburban Express lawsuits not gone for good
37. WCIA 3 News (06/27/2013): Bus co. owner may refile lawsuits
38. Popehat (07/29/2013): The Popehat Signal: Suburban Express Doubles Down On Attacks On Critics
39. Paxton Record (07/30/2013): Judge grants motion to allow Suburban Express cases to be refiled
40. News Gazette (07/30/2013): Judge allows bus company to refile some claims against passengers
41. WCIA 3 News (07/30/2013): Bus owner in court
42. Techdirt (07/31/2013): The Popehat Signal Goes Out Against Suburban Express
43. Sohu.com (10/14/2013): 赴美留学：行前需多了解当地生活细节避免被骗 (Translation)
44. Sina.com (10/14/2013): 你不知道的導致中國留學生被騙的幾大細節 (Translation) AlmostGrad (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

User:HtownCat editing article again, without discussion on talk page

HtownCat, possibly an undisclosed CoI/paid editor, has resumed subtly changing the article to push it in favor of the company, much like they and Verdict78 (another paid editor according to CorporateM's assessment) were doing earlier. Their recentmost edit should be reverted. Deducing 125-44 = 81 is a straightforward calculation, not WP:ORIGINALSYN, so there is no reason to change CorporateM's version.

As I have pointed out earlier, articles created by HtownCat are all in-depth articles about a range of barely-notable/non-notable businesses, businessmen, products, and software from all over the place. How did this supposedly uninvolved editor suddenly come to know of and become interested in a barely-notable bus company in central Illinois, and become invested in advocating for it on Misplaced Pages? Not that editors are required to stick to their initially declared editing area of interest, but I don't see any match between their editing history and their declaration on their talk page "Hobbies include running, fitness, and computers, and my editing will probably reflect those interests.", even in their initial edits.

I propose that a request for full protection be made for this article in order to contain this long-term pattern of tendentious editing. AlmostGrad (talk) 08:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Reality Check: User CorporateM has admitted elsewhere to being a paid editor and his behavior suggests that he has a strong COI. User AlmostGrad has an admitted COI and is clearly tireless in her efforts to keep this article as far from NPOV as possible. Additionally, the quality of CorporateM's contributions is extremely poor, as documented above. This article needs some fresh blood, and User Htowncat should be welcomed, not attacked. 184.239.112.215 (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Call for New Blood

This article needs some attention from editors other than CorporateM, who behaves as if he owns the article. 173.113.30.158 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I would like it to be noted, both 173.113.30.158 and 184.239.112.215 are Sprint PCS IP addresses of which Suburban Express uses for its :buses. 67.175.155.121 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Suburban Express buses and vans use ip connectivity from AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile. Please also note that these carriers have millions of customers. Suburban Express is speaking from the IP address which appears after the end of this sentence. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's relevant that the IP is from Sprint PCS, as there has been a continuing pattern of interaction by Sprint PCS IPs on this talk page reflecting a consistent point of view regarding Suburban Express, and that have in some cases engaged in questionable behavior, particularly as it regards other posters. However, without the individual signing off with an actual username, we can't make a determination one way or another that it is definitively SubEx making the posting, no matter how obvious it might seem from an intuitive standpoint. However, given that there has been synchronicity between some of the user-directed Sprint PCS postings and user-directed posts on Reddit, I would say that it's quite likely that, whoever the Sprint PCS person is, they definitely have a strongly pro-SubEx COI here. I would encourage said Sprint PCS user to either use their existing Misplaced Pages account, or create an account if they do not have one, and sign in in order to contribute constructively to the conversation. COIs are a lot easier to deal with if we have a consistent username (hence why I always log in to comment here). DarkAsSin (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Shoddy Editing By CorporateM

Wiki article says this:

"Suburban Express has initiated about 200 lawsuits against its own customers since 1994 and ten civil suits against competitors."

Here is the citation:

http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

The article does not say Suburban Express filed 10 lawsuits against competitors.

It says this:

In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX.

The three named companies are competitors, but it does not logically follow that all 10 lawsuits were against competitors. Champaign County Circuit Clerk's website reveals that suits have been filed against non-customers who are not competitors, ie Pitney Bowes.

This is the game that CorporateM is playing: He is relying on the laziness of readers. He expects that he can say something that seems like it is true, but which is not actually true, and that nobody is going to actually check. He constantly lies in his edits, which are biased and not consistent with NPOV. 99.147.28.113 (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express is attempting to pay for edits in bad faith with a "bounty": https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Bounty_board#Suburban_Express . This should show the goals of Suburban Express with its accusations against good faith editors like CorporateM 24.15.78.1 (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

False. Suburban Express has posted a notice on the bounty board. Using a wikipedia construct within the rules established for same would seem to be precisely the opposite of bad faith. The bounty offer speaks for itself. CorporateM has in fact been inserting false statements and false attributions into the Suburban Express article as demonstrated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.113 (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I checked the source and made a small revision to more-closely conform to the Daily Illini source. They are useful for their "sweep of history" but they never claim/made a detailed analysis of all cases since 1994. I found that when referencing the history of "209" suits, the Illini never said exactly "against whom" the suits were brought--that they did characterize the more recent "126" as against customers/passengers/students but the chart and the text did not extend that to all 209. You'll see in the notes on my edits that the most that can be supported from the Illini is that the suits were (probably) against "non-competitors" (which I cast as "individuals")KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Globalize

Illinois-centrism and "Foreign" Student

While the original source repeats an "eyewitness" claim that a student was "foreign" and references to "campus" it would seem that to maintain a worldwide view that we need a better way of saying "foreign to whom?" in the lead and in the Reddit part and full-references to places.KevinCuddeback (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Its an article about a US company, that clearly states US cities where these events take place. Foreign seems pretty self evident to me. I fail to see how one would even go about globalizing such an article, about a company, that has no relevance outside of a handful of college towns Gaijin42 (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If it "has no relevance outside of a handful of college towns" I'd expect you to vote for the article being non-notableKevinCuddeback (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think I agree with Gaijin, but then if there is an easy and sensible fix, we might as well. I was thinking "non-American" but that just sounds insulting. CorporateM (Talk) 03:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You could use the phrase "international student." "Foreign student" sounds a bit strange to my ear. DarkAsSin (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The worldwide reader would ask "Foreign to whom?" if the answer is "Foreign to me as an American " that's a systemic bias. You can't defend the word "foreign" as being "understood by the locals" without undercutting the claim that the article is of a generally notable subject. If we can make it clear that it is "foreign to the American witness" that's better. "international student" is the best I've seen so far (FWIW that's also how CNN would say it--they've banned the word "foreign" as their way of adopting a worldwide view)KevinCuddeback (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In the alternative, the story basically works without any adjective at all, and let the bus driver's quote speak for itself.KevinCuddeback (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

International student seems to be the politically correct term so I've gone ahead and changed it and removed the template. SmartSE (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Dramafest article

Not to defend the immensely bad behavior by their employees at this article and related discussions elsewhere, (and I really haven't gained an understanding of who is doing what here) but at first glance, IMHO this article reads like a very negative drama fest. The topic seems to be "conflicts and controversies involving Suburban Express" rather than "Suburban Express". Probably the best fix would be to include more other info about the company and the rewrite the lead so summarize the expanded article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I came to the article with the same assumption and I was little defensive when I saw students with a COI saying the article should focus on the controversy per WP:WEIGHT. However, I searched for additional sources not related to the controversy and came up empty-handed.

We have 3 cites for its early history and 15 for the controversy (probably more cites that aren't being used as well). If we took WEIGHT as a literal calculation, the controversy would need to be expanded by an additional paragraph and there's plenty of material that could be added.

The article should not be "balanced" - just representative of the source material. However, that isn't to say that there is no possibility of something worthwhile being added to the early history. CorporateM (Talk) 12:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In the fuzzy Misplaced Pages system, I think that there is some support for what you just said, as well as for what I just said, and they are somewhat in conflict. I'm not overly concerned on how this article ends up; I think that I just might leave after having made what I think might be a useful point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It's somewhat counter intuitive, but NPOV doesn't mean that articles have to be neutral. CorporateM is right that we need to represent the sources that discuss the company. If they are mainly known for controversy, then that is what should make up the bulk of the article. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Concur with User:North8000. The article scope should rather naturally include controversies and sourced history, of whatever kind if notable, but I think the point that the lede does seem to be rather WP:UNDUE relative to the weight of the controversies/lawsuits was worth making, and worth reiterating now. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding only to Smartse) Actually, the provisions that you are referring to were incorporated into my comment. They are generally to cover cases where there are opposing viewpoints on an item, and not to have preponderance in coverage categorically dictate the overall structure of the article. For example, if somebody became famous for one thing, but there was an article on that person generally, if 99% of the WP:RS coverage on them is about that "one thing", that does not mean that policy dictates that 99% of the overall article about that person be on that "one thing", and the entire rest of their life compressed into 1% of the article. And wp:npov / wp:undue does not dictate such, which would be in conflict with building an encyclopedic article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

But what else is there to include? I've checked factiva and there doesn't seem to be anything else to say. It's not like we are going to find an in depth article about the types of bus it uses... For many subjects it is impossible to write a truly encyclopedic article as sources covering every aspect do not exist. WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that if 99% of sources discuss only one thing, then that is correct for 99% of the article to be about that one thing. I agree that the lead could do with some expansion however. SmartSE (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the answer lies in a balance of these things. Misplaced Pages does not share the same editorial mission as the media, especially the tech rags, and some compensating for their sensationalism and gossip is needed. However, the lawsuits span almost two decades, which is two-thirds of its history and weight cannot be completely ignored. Also, if WEIGHT were taken literally, the controversy would be larger, so a substantial amount of compensating has already occurred. While we can debate the precise weight of the article, I think it's current form is basically round-about where it should be.CorporateM (Talk) 12:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Smartse, I was more talking about a general direction, and then responding to your comment rather than saying I had a concrete idea / the sources to fix it. But one idea wold be to include more of the mundane information, including uncontested material from primary sources if necessary. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a small company, there are few sources, and all or most of the criticism is aimed at one man, I'd be inclined to write it as if it were a borderline-notable BLP. That means excluding blogs and other social media, and not dwelling on negative detail: for example, the part about who-said-what in relation to the overseas student seems over-egged. (How many bus companies have drivers who have been rude to customers? Every single one).

I would go through the article with this in mind and try to produce something that summarizes the key criticism without dwelling on it, but that otherwise focuses on what kind of company this is, how it started, what areas it covers, and so on. I also wouldn't include the criticism in the lead. If I were writing the lead, I think I'd write something like this:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois, that specializes in transport for students traveling at weekends to the Chicago area from six universities in the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, then a student of the University of Illinois, who successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies.

1. Suburban Express, accessed October 27, 2013.
2. Rozek, Dan (October 20, 1985). "Fare wars" (PDF). Daily Herald (Arlington Heights).

SlimVirgin 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to go with the more neutral lede that SlimVirgin just drafted above; would eliminate the WP:UNDUE emphasis on newsy negative coverage in the current lede. (of course, a thorough summary of the controversy, to the extent it is well sourced and not undue, would be included in the prose in the body of the article.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with SlimVirgin's thoughts. North8000 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

In response to SlimVirgin saying it is common for bus drivers to be rude to passengers, I would ask: How many bus companies sue passenger(s) for "liquidated damages" for trying to prevent said rude bus driver from being rude to other passenger(s)? I don't think there are many companies who would do that, if any at all. This mainstream news then led the media to finding out about other lawsuits (over 200 in the last few years). How many bus companies sue 10 passengers? How many sue even 1? 24.15.78.1 (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

You may want to take that discussion about other bus companies, and what and whether history might indicate about the number of small claims actions other bus companies may or may not have ever taken against customers, or by customers against the company, to either SlimVirgins' Talk page, or to a new section of this Talk page.

As it is, THIS particular section is about an attempt by editors to discuss, and perhaps develop consensus, on a lede that would not violate either WP:UNDUE nor WP:POV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Even under the expectations of BLP rules, where we are careful to treat the article-subject's reputation with care (which we should do for companies as well anyway) I find it difficult to rationalize including a summary of the article that does not contain any mention of the controversy that dominates the source material. The lead is suppose to include any major controversies and be representative of the article. It is not undue, but rather due weight to include it. The challenge is to properly, neutrally and concisely summarize the entire issue. Something like, "The company has had many legal disputes with competitors and students" would work. Technically many of the disputes are not legal in nature, but I think this is the most important aspect. CorporateM (Talk) 02:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I entirely disagree with the whitewashed lead. In this case, the criticism of the company is a major factor in its notability. It would be remiss to not mention that whatsoever in the lead section. If we were to add something like "The company has been the focus of significant criticism for lawsuits it has filed against customers and alleged aggressive practices", that could work. Seraphimblade 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Concur. Seems like the emerging consensus here is to have something about the legal disputes in the lede. So I have inserted your suggested text in the lede of the article. It is mentioned in the lede now, but does not give excessive detail and leaves that for the body of the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for addition of Streisand Effect and FOIA requests, and more

Though Suburban Express has taken CorporateM to AN, I think CorporateM has in fact excluded certain key points regarding the controversy. I also don't think the current watered-down lead section accurately reflects the content of the article, and is somewhat vague in its wording ("involved in arguments with customers").

Streisand Effect and FOIA requests

I think that the Streisand Effect should be mentioned in the article - I have brought this up here for discussion earlier and a consensus was reached in favor of adding it. CorporateM should not override consensus reached on the talk page because he considers it unimportant (his opinion is subjective); he has deleted it twice - here and here.

Also, the sourced mention of FOIA requests that the owner of the company made to the University of Illinois in order to obtain personal information of redditors was deleted by Verdict78 without any discussion on the talk page and without even an edit summary. It was added back by CorporateM, who then changed the wording so that it no longer accurately reflected what the source said, and then deleted it with an edit summary saying it was all "editorialized conjecture and speculation".

Therefore, I think mentions of the Streisand Effect and the FOIA requests should be added back to the article - well-sourced, accurate versions of the content to be added are contained in the various diffs and links I have provided above.

Response to SlimVirgin's BLP violation concerns

Regarding SlimVirgin's response to DGG on AN, how is this article a BLP violation if the content is well-sourced and the tone matter-of-fact? The controversies and lawsuits are the company's primary claim to notability - this article has been through AfD twice before this year's controversy, and barely managed to survive, with some double voting from IP socks.

Response to SlimVirgin's enquiry about errors and false citations

Regarding SlimVirgin's enquiry about errors and false citations - if you can manage to read through this mess of a talk page, you will see that that is a frivolous claim - and wouldn't Suburban Express have brought up any egregious mistakes on AN if they indeed existed, instead of promising this elusive list of blatant errors and false citations that will finally "expose" CorporateM's biased editing?

If you read this talk page, you will see that the alleged "errors and false citations" are trivial things like this:

1. In one of the lawsuits, the student was charged $500 for liquidated damages plus "expenses incurred", which brought the total amount to $570. CorporateM initially wrote "he owed $500 in liquidated damages". Suburban Express complained about this in a section with the dramatic title Blatantly False Edits by CorporateM. CorporateM then "corrected" it to say "he owed $570 in liquidated damages".
2. Suburban Express said that they did not communicate with the Reddit moderator, their attorney did, hence the statement "The company threatened to sue a Reddit moderator involved for alleged "false and libelous" statements." was inaccurate. Corporate M responded by saying, "An attorney represents their client. There's no need to get super technical about it."‎.

If you examine this talk page carefully, you will find that all their claims are of this nature. There has been a lot of discussion on this talk page, and this article as it stands is largely accurate, except for maybe a few benign examples like the two above for which CorporateM has been given quite some grief by Suburban Express. Even those kinds of "issues" have been fixed when they were pointed out here on the talk page. AlmostGrad (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a danger of inadvertent BLP violations when writing about borderline-notable people, simply because not much has been published about them. Imagine an article about yourself that dwells on that shoplifting allegation from 1972, but doesn't mention your charity work or all the times you've helped little old ladies cross the road, because no sources have written about the latter. The article would be accurate, but unfair.

When there's a danger of this, the only way to deal with it is to reduce the negative, even when it's correct and well-sourced. Having glanced through this it seems to rely heavily on social media (though I haven't looked carefully and I'm assuming the sources are policy-compliant; I have a lot of faith in CorporateM as an editor). Perhaps the way forward it to err even more on the side of caution. SlimVirgin 20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

AlmostGrad is correct. I opposed adding the Streisand effect as general editorializing, but there was a reasonable enough consensus to include it because it was heavily cited in the source material. I even gave in after a new piece of coverage came out that summarized the entire incident, which also included it. I have put it back in at least for now, until/if/when a new consensus is reached not to include it that overrides the original.

You'll have to forgive me if I lose track even of my own edits, but I put the FOIA back-in. The source says the request was made specifically to intimidate students, but I think speculation as to its motives is not something we want to cover, even if sourced.

Though other editors seem to be, I am not convinced by the BLP angle. Even if it were a BLP, that should only encourage us to get it right, not to openly violate NPOV and due weight because we feel sympathy for the subject. We have a journalistic duty to our readers more so than the article-subject. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I noticed the sources below on the Talk page of the Suburban Express user page. The fact that the articles are hosted on Toeppen's website is unimportant. On the contrary, it's valuable that he/they provide access to historical sources that are otherwise difficult to access. I notice there are 8 here and only 3 in the article.

On the other hand, I seem to remember that at least some of the sources were just brief mentions, but it would be worthwhile for someone to cross-check any valuable citations missing from the current page. CorporateM (Talk) 07:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Daily Herald Release: http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-release.pdf

 Not done This first one appears to be a letter giving permission to repost the article on the website, as oppose to an actual article

1. Daily Herald Article re: Fare Wars http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf
2. Daily Herald Article re: University of Iowa Service http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf
3. Daily Illini release: http://www.toeppen.com/di-release.pdf
4. Daily Illini article re: New cut-rate bus service: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0128_new_cut-rate_bus_service.pdf
5. Daily Illini article re: Greyhound Predatory Pricing: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1985_0216_greyhound_predatory_pricing.pdf
6. News-Gazette release: http://www.toeppen.com/gazette-release.pdf
7. News-Gazette article re: Go Suburban - leave the driving to the entrepreneur: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1990_0408_news-gazette_article.pdf

Text-source integrity issues?

I've been talking with the owner of the company via email. Are there some WP:Text-source integrity issues with the article as the owner suspects? I see that "Afterwards, the student received a letter from Suburban Express saying he owed $570" is not verified in the source that is cited. Is something wrong with that bit of content? Or am I not understanding how it is OK? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also like it to be noted that user Biosthmors may continue to have somewhat of a COI with Suburban Express given that he previously accepted a reward in the amount of $300 issued by the company, but has since rescinded. Just something to be noted. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reward_board#Suburban_Express 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It might need to be better worded, but certainly the "meat" of the content is in the article. The source does not specifically say the notice of the fine came via a letter, but certainly that isn't a big stretch. The owner of the company has made repeated accusations of uncited content, and in every case I have investigated, the content was sourced (although wording could in some cases be tweaked)

• In Jeremy Leval's case, he was fined $570 for creating a disruption on the bus he was riding. The "terms and conditions" had warned fines could be issued for disruptive behavior.
• The next source in the article "Four days later, Leval told the Daily Illini, University of Illinois' student newspaper, about the incident. He received an e-mail from the company that said he was being fined $500 for "liquidated damages"

Gaijin42 (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express objects to inaccurate statements of all kinds - large and small. It is not the case that Jeremy Leval was pursued for $570 in liquidated damages. Period. The correct number is $500.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You may be perfectly right, but that is WP:OR. (Although there is a second source that says the $500 number). Are you aware of other secondary sources that discuss the amount? Is the primary source available from a reliable source (IE, is it in the public record of a court case, where it can be WP:Verified to be the real one?) Per Misplaced Pages:Conflicting_sources we should list both numbers unless we can find an authoritative source. For future content/source disputes, it would be helpful if you specifically identify which portion of the content you dispute vs just saying a statement is wrong. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This article, by a well established newspaper in Central Illinois, explicitly states the charge was for $570: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html 24.15.78.1 (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, here is a link to the court document filed in Ford County: http://www.popehat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/LevalComplaint.pdf 24.15.78.1 (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Page four of the "court document' refutes the claim that Leval was sued for $570 in liquidated damages, rather than supporting it. Page four explicitly states "$500 - liquidated damages". Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Page 1 shows the amount demanded by the Plaintiff as $575.57, this is the amount the lawsuit was for, not $500. I do however suppose the demand letter sent (and this clearly demonstrates that there indeed was a letter sent) was for the amount of $523.57 as shown on page 4. So maybe it would be proper to say a demand letter was originally sent for the sum of $523.57, which later became increased to the sum of $575.57 in the form of a formal lawsuit". 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The lawsuit was for $500 in liquidated damages *and other expenses*. It is not accurate to say that the lawsuit was for $575.57 or $523.57 in liquidated damages.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The formal lawsuit, as clearly shown on page 1 in the link sent from the Ford County court records, is for the sum of $575.57. To ensure the article is accurate, I believe that 3 numbers should be shown:

• The original fine was for $500
• The demand letter sent was for $523.57
• The formal lawsuit was for $575.57

This would clear up any ambiguity. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The principal amount due from Leval was $500. Collection expenses of $23.57 were included in the initial demand, and they are broken out in the demand letter. When suit was filed, filing fee of $52 was added. Neither the collection expenses nor the filing fee constitute liquidated damages. I suggest you re-read the pdf. The word "fine" does not appear in any of the court documents. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Analysis:

• Version reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=579892268

• The Misplaced Pages article states: "Afterwards, the student received a letter from Suburban Express saying he owed $570"

• The Misplaced Pages article cites: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html

• The source says "In Jeremy Leval's case, he was fined $570 for creating a disruption on the bus he was riding. The "terms and conditions" had warned fines could be issued for disruptive behavior."

• The source does not say Leval received a letter. The source does not say that a letter said he owed $570.

• Additionally, this source is garbage: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130429/07194422871/bus-company-threatens-redditor-with-lawsuit-meets-ken-white-runs-away.shtml It contains content (in quotation marks) which is regurgitated from elsewhere. IMHO, the citation should point to the source of the quoted material, not a blog post which regurgitates it.

• It is true that the $500/$570 issue is not relevant to the above. Nevertheless, there are errors. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The ultimate source is http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/article_026b7ab0-a89e-11e2-a046-001a4bcf6878.html No objection to sourcing the bulk of the information to that article, but we should keep the other sources as signs of WP:N. You are making mountains out of molehills. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The error and evidence above speaks for itself. I agree with your suggestion that a conventional-media source should be cited. I disagree with your assertion that the existence of blog posts makes a story which is covered by conventional media more notable. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 23:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says: "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject ..."

And WP:BLPGROUP says: "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group."

Perhaps the first step should be to remove anything that's arguably fancruft, e.g. that the company called a student a brat, what the owner of a blog said, how many likes something got on Facebook. Then check that everything that's left is sourced to mainstream reliable sources, and if there are discrepancies such as $500 versus $570 the writing can be tweaked to make the claim more general. SlimVirgin 00:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Biosthmors accepted Suburban Express' paid editing offer

It should be noted that User:Biosthmors accepted Suburban Express' paid editing offer on the Reward Board on October 27, with plans to discuss payment options by email. They withdrew the offer on November 3, with the edit summary "i withdraw my offer (it is now open for any takers), and i plan to make some edits to the talk page instead".

I don't agree with the dismissive attitude of some editors towards online happenings and online sources as unimportant and unreliable, respectively - many of the real-life lawsuits and legal threats originated from criticism that customers posted online, and are thus integral to this article. For what it's worth, we are here writing an online encyclopedia. Dismissing online altercations as unimportant social media spats, and online sources as opinions of blog owners is inappropriate, in my opinion - those altercations and sources are central to the subject's notability. Fancruft is a subjective concept; the fare war with Greyhound also falls under that in that case - many people find that uninteresting and unimportant. In fact, the second AfD nominator's nomination statement was "Non-notable company with poor references that do not ascertain why this is notable, other than the owner started the business and had a feud with Greyhound." AlmostGrad (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, I understand that you do not appreciate the regulatory environment in which Suburban Express began, and that you do not find fare competition to be unusual today. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Suburban Express exploited a regulatory loophole in a novel way and that the exploitation of the loophole destroyed Greyhound's monopoly in the campus-to-chicago suburbs and eventually caused them to exit the market. It is also a fact that conventional-media sources covered same. Please provide a list of the "many of the the real - life lawsuits...originated from criticism that customers posted online." That statement seems to have no basis in fact, as far as I can recall. I can only think of one filed suit, Champaign County, IL case 13CH000205. Finally, your statement that the offer on the Reward Board was withdrawn has no basis in fact. The offer is still open. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr but i'll note #Paid editing. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

False Article Text re: FOIA

• Misplaced Pages article reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=580241459

• False Statement; "The company's owner also filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the university in order to identify Reddit users."

• Article Cited: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/bus-co-that-threatened-redditor-with-lawsuit-tries-to-reopen-suits/

• Article Text: "Dennis Toeppen, once a notorious domain-squatter, filed a FOIA request with the University of Ilinois requesting "Any and all communications to which Joel Steinfeldt of Office of Public Affairs is a party which mention, relate, or pertain to to Suburban Express, Matthew Finnicum, Murph Finnicum, or Jeremy Leval, for the period 1/1/2013 to present." A link to the electronic files generated in response to the FOIA request was then posted to reddit."

• Falsehood: "in order to identify Reddit users."

• User responsible for inserting false text seems to be CorporateM. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&diff=579672730&oldid=579612274

I trust that someone will correct this error. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What you are claiming is a "false statement" is: "The company's owner also filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the university in order to identify Reddit users.""

The cited source says: "And he's trying to intimidate redditors by filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the University of Illinois in an attempt to expose their personal data."

North8000 (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That sentence was overlooked. I would characterize it as speculation. The FOIA requests were very specific:

http://www.foia.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=1298362 http://www.foia.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=1306841 http://www.foia.uillinois.edu/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=1312492

The purpose of the requests was to determine the extent of involvement of University employees in Suburban Express matters during their paid workday.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If that were true, why did you include specific names in the FOIA requests rather than simply "Suburban Express" and "Illini Shuttle"? You also used the term "or" rather than "and" when listing the specific names and Suburban Express/Illini Shuttle thereby making the aforementioned names mutually exclusive to "Suburban Express" and "Illini Shuttle" in the request. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the act. It is online. Pay special attention to the word "categorical". Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I note that you edited your comment above after I responded. I will no longer respond to your comments as a result. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

False Article Text re: Lawsuits

• Misplaced Pages article reviewed: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=580241459

• Misplaced Pages article text: "Since 1994, Suburban Express has initiated about 200 small claims actions against individuals, as well as civil lawsuits against four competitors.

• Article Cited: http://www.dailyillini.com/news/local/article_43a45b74-ae1a-11e2-9a0d-0019bb30f31a.html

• Cited Article Text:

"Suburban Express lawsuits filed against passengers this year increased from 44 to 125 since Monday."

"Suburban Express filed 209 lawsuits since April 1994, when the first lawsuit was filed in Champaign County. Eighty-four of these lawsuits were filed prior to 2013."

"Since 1994, the bus company has filed 209 lawsuits in Champaign and Ford counties combined, according to Champaign and Ford counties circuit court records."

"Champaign County Circuit Court records also show that Suburban Express brought a civil lawsuit against the Peoria Charter Coach Company in 2009. In the past, Suburban Express has filed 10 civil suits, including lawsuits against Amtrak, Champaign-Urbana MTD and then-Lincolnland Express, better known as LEX."

• Falsehood: "Since 1994, Suburban Express has initiated about 200 small claims actions against individuals" The maximum number of suits filed against *passengers* ("individuals" is not supported by the source) that is supported by the source is 125.

• Comment: Many of the suits filed in the 1990's were collections suits filed against Net66 customers for non-payment, and as I recall, some of the delinquent accounts were businesses, not "individuals". Net66 was a dba of the Suburban Express until Net66, Inc. was incorporated sometime in the late 90's.

• User responsible for inserting the text seems to be CorporateM. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&diff=573989309&oldid=573989185

I trust that someone will correct this error. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Censorship and Suburban Express

It is not disputed that Suburban Express takes issue with people who post false statements online. As noted above, Suburban Express did, in fact, file a suit seeking an injunction against a passenger for false statements posted in a Yelp review.

Undertaking defensive actions against persons who seek to harm Suburban Express by making false statements online is hardly "Internet censorship".

A recent edit attempts to cast a simple demand letter pertaining to false and defamatory statements (some of which the recipient of the letter subsequently remedied) as Internet censorship:

The letter: http://imgur.com/a/OYasT

The diff - see edit summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&diff=580252816&oldid=580241459

The quality of the source cited is low, and defensive actions taken in response to false and defamatory statements simply do not rise to the level of Internet censorship. Suburban Express does not take issue with expressions of opinion. Suburban Express does take issue with false statements misrepresented as fact.

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

When reading the text in the above image of the letter to the reddit moderator, it is important to note that no so-called "false and defamatory" comments are explicitly stated anywhere in the text. All the statements are vague, ambiguous, and grossly violate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act http://www.dmlp.org/section-230. Therefore, one can only deduce that such a letter was intended for censorship. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As for the act, the link you provided contains this statement "You will not lose this immunity even if you edit the content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not materially alter the meaning of the original content." It should be clear from the letter that *one* of the issues was material alteration of meaning. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, the so-called "false and defamatory" comments and "material alteration of meaning" are not explicitly stated anywhere in the letter. Everything is vague and ambiguous.

Furthermore, you sent an additional legal threat letter to the Reddit Moderator intended to censor him and Reddit: http://imgur.com/PHiKMM3,tUSPPiF#1 http://imgur.com/PHiKMM3,tUSPPiF#0 to which he responded again that he was not breaking any law: http://murph.cc/subex/subex-letter-response.pdf. Again, one can only deduce from the first and second letter that you intended to censor any discussion about Suburban Express. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not correct. The second letter to the Reddit moderator was *extremely* specific. It took issue with Reddit moderator's banner ad which stated something like, if you ride Suburban Express they are likely to sue you. That statement is false. We filed 100ish lawsuits out of something like 200,000 riders. 100/200,000 is the opposite of "likely". In response to the second letter, the Reddit moderator removed the false statement. Your use of the word censorship to describe that interaction seems inflammatory and inaccurate. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Refer to the response by the Reddit moderator. The context is accurate. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That does not refute my prior statement nor does it seem to advance the argument. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In the Reddit Moderator's response, he even reaffirms the statement was of his opinion and correct in the context to which it was written. I think everyone who reviews these documents will see a clear accurate account of what occurred. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Reddit moderator claims that since another bus company does not sue cheaters and Suburban Express does, it is likely that Suburban Express will sue you. The most obvious problem is that "likely" is not dependent on the actions of other bus companies. It is either true that it is likely Suburban Express will sue you or it is not, regardless what other companies do. insofar as 100/200,000 is not likely, the statement is false. Second, Suburban Express does not use a lottery to determine who to sue. Rather, Suburban Express pursues cheaters. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line is that if you or CorporateM are looking to make a poster about censorship, you're looking in the wrong place for a model for your poster. We respect the right of individuals to express their opinions. Suburban Express reserves the right to take whatever action we deem prudent against persons who intentionally seek to cause damage through false statements published in any medium. Our position has been quite consistent and it has not and will not change. I have no intention of having an infinitely long argument about this. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So using fine print to sue a passenger who complained later for "disruption" is "We respect the right of individuals to express their opinions". But I digress. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hardly fine print. The contract customers enter comprises a few short paragraphs and appears in LARGE RED TYPE (approximately 3/8" tall on my monitor) on the payment page. Customer must check a checkbox affirming agreement in order to complete order. The disruptive customer you speak of knew exactly what he was getting into. I see no connection between enforcing a paragraph of our contract and free speech issues. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As described by Ken "Popehat" White, a well-known and well-respected Harvard educated blogging lawyer:

"Suburban Express' threats, as the Reddit threat suggests, are highly problematical. Suburban Express plays fast and loose with the difference between allegedly false statements of fact — which can be the basis for a defamation claim — and statements of opinion, which are protected by the First Amendment when they do not imply false statements of fact. Courts are much more likely to view statements on the internet as opinion rather than fact. For instance, Suburban Express takes issue with a statement of Reddit that they are "likely to sue you," saying that given their number of riders it is actually statistically unlikely they will sue you. But given Suburban Express has sued at least 125 people in 2013, this is the sort of statement that will almost certainly be taken as an opinion or rhetorical flourish rather than a false statement of fact. Second, Suburban Express doesn't seem familiar with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects hosts (like, say, Reddit or a Reddit moderator) from the words of guests (like people who comment on Reddit or a blog.). All of Suburban Express' defamation threats I have reviewed are either very vague (which, as I often say here, are a reliable hallmark of meritless thuggery) or target protected communication. Suburban Express may not be familiar with Illinois' anti-SLAPP statute, which would provide a mechanism to dismiss the defamation lawsuits early and secure fees for the defendants. In short, Suburban Express' defamation threats are highly dubious." (http://www.popehat.com/2013/04/28/suburban-express-took-the-first-bus-to-the-streisand-effect-have-they-disembarked-in-time/)

I think this speaks for itself. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

That is a self-published blog post by an author who clearly benefits from clicks and attention. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that the hair-splitting on "likely to sue you" is avoiding the points. First most would read the statement as saying that there is a much higher likelihood of getting sued if you choose this bus line, not a claim that over 50% of bus rides on that line end up as a lawsuit. Second, the Misplaced Pages statement is not the likelihood statement, it is that the person said it. Not that that per se justifies inclusion, but it does say that the arguments against inclusion so far are not valid. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Moot point. The Reddit editor removed the false statement. If he'd wanted to say that you are more likely to be sued if you ride Suburban Express and cheat than if you ride company X and cheat, then he should have said that. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

So this leads one to believe that what you categorize as "disruption" you also categorize as "cheating". 24.15.78.1 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Conventional Media Source List

• Daily Herald

1. Daily Herald Release: http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-release.pdf
2. Daily Herald Article re: Fare Wars http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-fare-wars-toeppen.pdf
3. Daily Herald Article re: University of Iowa Service http://www.toeppen.com/daily-herald-uiowa-se.pdf

• News-Gazette

1. News-Gazette release: http://www.toeppen.com/gazette-release.pdf
2. News-Gazette article re: Go Suburban - leave the driving to the entrepreneur: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1990_0408_news-gazette_article.pdf

• Daily Illini

1. Daily Illini release: http://www.toeppen.com/di-release.pdf
2. Daily Illini article re: New cut-rate bus service: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0128_new_cut-rate_bus_service.pdf
3. Daily Illini article re: Illini Union Board budget matters - Greyhound commissions down by $15k (Translates to $150k sales decrease) http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_IUB_budget_impact.pdf
4. Daily Illini article re: Greyhound Predatory Pricing: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1985_0216_greyhound_predatory_pricing.pdf
5. Daily Illini article re: Suburban Express using novel method to pursue cheaters: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1996_0117_bad_checks.pdf
6. Daily Illini letter to editor re: Bad checks article: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1996_0118_di_letter_to_editor_re_badcheck_article.pdf
7. Daily Illini article re: Students who thought they could do better... http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/2000_0823_6th_Wave_Opens.pdf
8. Daily Illini article re: ...but who arguably failed: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/2000_1030_Sixth_Wave_Screws_Up.pdf

Article scanning is not complete as of 11/5/13. Updates to list will be made as articles are scanned. License agreements are included to satisfy anyone who is curious about copyright issues. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC) There are about 10 more articles Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional Materials

Here are some letters and other materials from our archive, which help illuminate some of our history.

1. Illinois Commerce Commission Cease and Desist Letter sent following investigation urged by Greyhound: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0304_IllCC_cease_and_desist_not_timely_received.pdf
2. Suburban Express attorney's opinion letter: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_fall_carraway_opinion_letter.pdf
3. Greyhound letter again urging ILL Commerce Commission to investigate Suburban Express: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_0920_GLI_Letter_to_ILLCC.pdf
4. Illinois Commerce Commission determination that Suburban Express is exempt from their jurisdiction: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1984_1231_IllCC_ruling_in_our_favor.pdf
5. Greyhound urging drivers to do their jobs properly: http://www.toeppen.com/oldarticles/1985_1119_GLI_memo_to_drivers_to_arrest_slide.pdf

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Relevant Content Removed, Suggest Restoration

On 10/27/13, SlimVirgin posted this proposed language and included citations to support the text:

"Given that this is a small company, there are few sources, and all or most of the criticism is aimed at one man, I'd be inclined to write it as if it were a borderline-notable BLP. That means excluding blogs and other social media, and not dwelling on negative detail: for example, the part about who-said-what in relation to the overseas student seems over-egged. (How many bus companies have drivers who have been rude to customers? Every single one). I would go through the article with this in mind and try to produce something that summarizes the key criticism without dwelling on it, but that otherwise focuses on what kind of company this is, how it started, what areas it covers, and so on. I also wouldn't include the criticism in the lead. If I were writing the lead, I think I'd write something like this: Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois, that specializes in transport for students traveling at weekends to the Chicago area from six universities in the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, then a student of the University of Illinois, who successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies. Jump up ^ Suburban Express, accessed October 27, 2013. Jump up ^ Rozek, Dan (October 20, 1985). "Fare wars". Daily Herald (Arlington Heights). SlimVirgin (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)"

On 11/2/13, CorporateM removed accurate and highly relevant language, in spite of SlimVirgin's thorough and accurate citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suburban_Express&diff=579885063&oldid=579679078

CorporateM posted this edit summary: "Was this prior text supported by a source? I know that is one of their routes, but dont know if they "specialize" in it)"

The question is answered by looking at the sources.

Since weekend transportation for college students is the ONLY service Suburban Express offers, and this is quite clear to anyone who visits our website (SlimVirgin's first citation), I would propose that someone revert this edit.

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the Suburban Express site, the statement "weekend transportation for college students is the ONLY service Suburban Express offers" is incorrect. Anyone can purchase a ticket on the site it appears, not just college students. The site even says "virtually all of our customers are college students" implying not all are 24.15.78.1 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

False. The website states "Suburban Express specializes in weekend transportation for college students. Because we focus on a small market niche, we provide the best possible service for college students travelling home for the weekend." Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The site has my (or should I say your) exact quote: "virtually all of our customers are college students". Nowhere does it say "we only allow students as our passengers" or something similar http://imgur.com/bMOYJpJ 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing

Just a note that I haven't been paid to post anything to the article or to this page yet. So any silly Wikipedian-drama-fest blabber from the shortsighted, ignorant, and idiotic anti-paid editing lobby can go take a hike. (tl;dr anything more than what would take 1 second above). Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Update at Wikipedia_talk:Neutrality_cabal#Paid_editing. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors has made an edit on the Misplaced Pages page despite claiming he would only make edits to the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Reward_board&diff=580092420&oldid=578980115 24.15.78.1 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Facts change, but talk pages are for discussing content. Got ideas? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is fragmenting and going off on tangents

This discussion is fragmenting and going off on tangents. May I suggest tat to get on track, folks discuss potential changes to existing text in the article or specific proposed additions. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Are there WP:Text-source integrity issues or WP:NPOV violations? Those are my concerns. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

If you agree, then I think that you would agree that it's time to get specific. Specific problems with specific sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I just counted....you have to go about 6,400 words up from the end of this talk page to find some discussion on a specific proposed content change. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Suburban Express attempting to intimidate Talk editors

• User:Arri at Suburban Express warned. Harassment and suggestions of outing are not acceptable. If the IP and Arri at SE cannot control their tempers, they will both be blocked. This is well within my discretion as an admin: there will be no fighting in the war room. Y'all's previous encounters you can discuss over lunch; it is not a matter for here. That there is an interest, and most likely a COI, on both sides is clear, and the uninvolved editors will know how to deal with it. Remember, IP and Arri, this article does not need either one of you. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Good Strangelove quote. Would you please direct me to the relevant rules and policies so that I may endeavor to respect the local customs? Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OUTING WP:DE WP:HA WP:CIVIL WP:CRUSH WP:COI WP:RS WP:V WP:NPOVGaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at those carefully. I apologize for my frustration with the IP with the undisclosed COI. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Biosthmors' conduct

As I noted above, User:Biosthmors accepted Suburban Express' paid editing offer on October 27, with plans to discuss payment options by email. They withdrew the offer on November 3. The article subject-paid editor relationship existed, at least officially on Misplaced Pages, for at least a week, during which time the parties had been communicating by email. Biosthmors did not disclose this connection on this talk page when they started editing here. They claim they have not been paid yet, but the Reward Board offer didn't say they would be paid in advance.

In the light of this, is it appropriate for Biosthmors to edit the article at all, even under the guise of "only adding tags", especially when it defaces the article by splitting hairs on trivial issues? They also said earlier that they would only edit the talk page, but seem to have since changed their mind.

Regarding the part of the article they tagged - there was a fine, an amount demanded in the demand letter, and an amount demanded in the lawsuit - all amounts were between $500 - $600. How important is the exact amount, and which of the three it corresponded to? Is it worth defacing the article with tags over this? I think the company is wasting everyone's time on trivial issues like this and badgering and harassing CorporateM, who has taken up the thankless job of trying to moderate this discussion, and has been trying to edit the article neutrally and accurately on the basis of talk page suggestions.

I find this edit by Biosthmors uncivil: "any silly Wikipedian-drama-fest blabber from the shortsighted, ignorant, and idiotic anti-paid editing lobby can go take a hike".

Also, I would like to point out that Suburban Express has used outing (on Misplaced Pages, and of course off-wiki too, but that is irrelevant here) as a harassment and intimidation tactic earlier too, against at least two other editors (other than the IP they tried to out and intimidate today). AlmostGrad (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

COI disclosure: I also have a COI there where I have the most edits. I must be a bad person. Also, a paid-editing warning: all accounts in this category are paid editors. AlmostGrad, do you make a habit of supporting monopolies? I find them a bit suffocating myself. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

BRD on recent lede changes by CorporateM

Requesting this discussion per WP:BRD. Better to discuss, especially on an article that seems is still having a lot of discussion on the Talk page, rather than start an edit war.

I recently made a Bold edit to the lede (diff), but it was not apparently too controversial as both the summary of the legal disputes, and the creation of a new paragraph for the legal disputes topic, withstood scrutiny on a very busy (multi-editor-involved) article for about three days, including during edits by CorporateM. That was on 2013-11-02.

I then made a second, and very limited, Bold edit to the lede on 2013-11-05 (diff). This edit merely linked the economic concept behind the words that were being used in the lede for some time, words of some other editor, that Suburban Express entering the market with local monopoly provider Greyhound "leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies." Those same words are in the body of the article, and are supported by a reliable source. Here is what the lede looked like after my second fairly minor edit:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois that provides transport services for students at six universities in the the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, then a student of the University of Illinois, who successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies.

The company has had many legal disputes with competitors and students.

In a series of a couple of edits on 2013-11-05 (diff), User:CorporateM made further edits, that while not technically a revert, did a virtual revert to my previous two edits. Fair enough. I assume good faith. But since the two of us apparently have different views on that, thought I should open a discussion here, and avoid an edit war at all costs on an already contentious article (based on the phosphor spilled above).

The lede as it exists now, as I find the time to write up this BRD, looks like this:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois that provides weekend transport services for students at six universities in the the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, a student of the University of Illinois and successfully challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound. The company has had more than 200 legal disputes with students and competitors.

Proposal:

1. Make the legal dispute summary in the lede into a new paragraph. It is a new topic. And WP:MOS supports up to four paragraphs in the lede. This article would have only two if my proposal is accepted.
2. Change the description of the competitive environment that ensued after Suburban Express began offering services relative to the established incumbent bus service, Greyhound, back to "leading to a price war that saw fares drop for both companies.", which had been in the article for a long time prior to CorporateM's edits, and is supported by prose, and by source, in the article body.
3. Link the price war concept to Competition (economics), as I illustrate in the bullet immediately above. That article, Competition (economics), is pretty standard Econ 101 treatment of the economic notion of competition, and the margins on which that competition typically occurs, including price. And it seems to me that we owe some sort of a clarification to our broad Wiki-readership who may not be familiar with the esoteric economic concept from market economic systems; thus, the link.

Overall, not much change. But important ideas, methinks. What do other editors think about any of this? Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

It's weird to have a one-sentence paragraph, but I don't feel it's important either way. As a minor editorial issue "seeing" price reductions is a metaphor, but it also borders on repeating almost all the information in the body of the article, rather than summarizing it. Sorry - I didn't notice I was reverting. I've just been glancing over at it when it pops up on my watchlist and keeping an eye out for any actual corrections. CorporateM (Talk) 04:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following the above exactly but you both do good work and I don't think that there is any disagreement. I saw things a bit differently than CorporateM on one point and later realized that they were right. Since coverage of the lawsuits and similar actions is extensive in sources, it should be substantial in the article, and the lead should reflect the article and so include that as well. I think that in the edit in question they were just adding such info to the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input North8000. But since I think you might have one (minor) misimpression, I thought I should clarify:

1. First, I have no issues with CorporateM either; and I, too, believe CorporateM does good work. I just thought these particular edits should change, and I saw the Talk page as much too charged right now for me to risk just Boldly editing CorporateM's changes further, to what I thought would be a better lede.
2. Your take on "the edit in question they were just adding such info to the lead" is not quite correct. It was actually removing info from the lede (but not very much). It was just changing the long-standing presence of the line about the price war with Greyhound (which, as an economist, usually brings about good things for consumers by providing consumers more options), and reducing that to lose the idea about that aspect of the change in the competitive environment completely. Sincerely, N2e (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the content.... I would lean towards something like this:

Suburban Express is a bus service, based in Lisle, Illinois that provides weekend transport services for students at six universities in the American Midwest. It is a "virtual" bus company, contracting buses from other carriers. The company was founded in 1983 by Dennis Toeppen, a student of the University of Illinois. It challenged the local monopoly of Greyhound, leading to price wars and reduced fairs for both companies. The bus service has had more than 200 legal disputes with passengers and competitors and has gotten into conflicts with students that post criticisms of the company online.

That would address the metaphorical language and include the price wars, while restoring some balance to the Lead given the controversy's weight in the source material. In the prior discussion there were three editors saying "UNDUE" and three editors saying "DUE WEIGHT" and I think the updated Lead was not quite on-target as a compromise between both perspectives. CorporateM (Talk) 12:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please support your claim. Who are the three editors who argue UNDUE weight and who are the three editors who argue DUE WEIGHT? Your proposed edit eliminates two novel attributes: virtual company, started by student.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

N2e got it right: price wars in the 1980s are notable (and what make/made Texas Air Corporation highly notable) and his single-sentence paragraph best captures that the article has a section devoted to "public disputes" and given their diversity (court/threat/reddit/mean things said), no specific number is possible (so "many" is preferred). This is so because, the "Lawsuits" section has morphed beyond its title into a catch-all, it should be re-titled "Public Disputes" since it devotes only 35% "200 Small Claims", about 25% "bus driver said/ and 1 legal threat"; 25% Reddit/Streisand; and 15% juvenile side-chatter (things with any legal implication are barely 40% of the "Lawsuit" section)KevinCuddeback (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

KevinCuddeback—a portion of your paragraph relates to the subject/scope of this BRD (price war), but much does not. I suggest you take the discussion of the lede section on "200" vs. "many" to a new section. Articulate your view, and proposal; then see what happens in the great emergent blender of Misplaced Pages. If you do so, I will try to get over there and provide my view on your proposal, as I'm sure many others will. Cheers. N2e (talk) 06:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ari, why don't you just stick to content instead of grilling people on sidebar items? It would be more productive and less nasty. For your last post that would mean leaving out the "who are the three editors" stuff and expanding on what you think should be in there and why (virtual company, started by student etc.) North8000 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask an editor to support a claim. I notice that CorporateM just changed the lede of the article to his proposed language, although the discussion above had not converged on a mutually-agreeable solution. CorporateM reverts other editors for not engaging in discussion on the talk page, yet he often does precisely that. Please take a critical look at CorporateM's behavior rather than reflexively attacking me. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just recommending more focus on specific content in discussion here. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey @user:N2e. The lead now includes all three proposals (the price wars, a separate paragraph and the wikilink), but with some tightening and balancing. Let me know if you'd like my input on something else, but also feel free to edit boldly. I will do my best to avoid reverting you accidentally. The article keeps coming up on my watchlist from all the Talk page comments and each time it does I tend to look at the article and make quick edits on things that jump out at me. CorporateM (Talk) 18:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow, things are flying fast and furious on this page, and much discussion in this section seems to be rather unrelated to the subject/scope of this section: a very narrow WP:BRD discussion on three (relatively minor) points I articulated, above.

I don't know exactly what changes were made by who in what order, and I don't have the time to research it all, but as the proposer of the BRD, I would say we now have resolution on each point of the BRD. I proposed three (minor) changes to the way the article had been changed (in a minor way, and perhaps rather inadvertantly) by CorporateM. All three of those changes—new para for the legal disputes; keeping the "price wars" concept (per sources) in the lede; and linking price wars to the Competition (economics) article to help the less-economics savvy reader—have now been changed back to the way they were prior to CorporateM's edit. Moreover, CorporateM has said s/he is fine with each of those three changes.

There will, no doubt, be many other issues to discuss in the future as this article is improved. But those can be, and really should be in order to make the discussion of each point be most productive in a rather highly-charged Talk page environment, handled in other Talk page sections, on other specific topics.

So I consider this BRD discussion  Done! Thanks for everyone's engagement on the questions I put forth. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposing inclusion of complaints to Illinois Attorney General

I think the complaints made by students to the Illinois Attorney General constitute an important detail of the controversy and hence should be included in the article. It is mentioned in several sources in the Links related to Controversy section above, including:

1. Source #1 (The Daily Illini) says: "... University attorneys can only represent students who have cases in or originating in Champaign County. Although Betz cannot represent students in this situation, he said he is advising them to submit complaints to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan."
2. Source #3 (Paxton Record) says: "Knudsen said the Student Senate discussed the lawsuit issue at a meeting Wednesday and plans to send a letter to Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to explain the situation and to ask for assistance."
3. Source #4 (The Daily Illini) says: "Student Body President Damani Bolden responded with his current progress on this issue. “I am drafting a letter on behalf of the student body to the attorney general (Lisa Madigan) addressing this issue,” Bolden said."
4. Source #14 (Paxton Record) says: The Illinois Student Senate was preparing to send a letter to the Illinois Attorney General’s Office to explain the situation and ask for assistance.
5. Source #15 (The News Gazette) says: "The Illinois Student Senate was preparing to send a letter to the Illinois attorney general's office to explain the situation and ask for assistance."
6. Source #16 (Chicago Tribune) says: "Scott Mulford, a spokesman for Attorney General Lisa Madigan, said Madigan's office had received about a half-dozen calls or consumer complaints about Suburban Express in the past week."
7. Source #22 (The Daily Illini) says: "Scott Mulford, press secretary for the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, said after receiving about half a dozen complaints against Suburban Express, his staff recently began looking into the issue."
8. Source #24 (The Daily Illini (Editorial)) says: "... when there are multiple students pursuing legal services for the same problem, why is advising students to submit their complaints to the Illinois Attorney General the only thing the University can do?"
9. Source #26 (American Bar Association Journal) says: "Following outraged calls to the office of the state attorney general and others, the company withdrew all of its Ford County suits..."
10. Source #28 (Ars Technica) says: "Toeppen became the focus of much Internet anger and earned the attention of activist attorneys and the Illinois Attorney General after threatening to sue a reddit moderator."
11. Source #33 (Ars Technica) says: "The case attracted the attention of angry reddit users, the media (including First Amendment law blog Popehat), and (according to a report from The Daily Illini) the Illinois Attorney General's office." AlmostGrad (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose #4 only says that they will draft a letter and the writing of a letter is not significant. #16 is a quote and a half-dozen complaints is not a significant either. Same with #22. For #26, it might be worth a minor clarification, because the current article I don't think states why the lawsuits were withdrawn. And for #28, "becoming the focus" is not anything for us to cover. If the Attorney Generals actually initiate a lawsuit or take action, we can cover it. CorporateM (Talk) 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really follow all your reasoning, and some of it is your subjective opinion ("writing of a letter is not significant", "a half-dozen complaints is not significant"), but you think that a statement from the spokesman/press secretary of the state's chief law enforcement officer, published in the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper which has the second-highest readership in the state, is just "a quote" to be dismissed, especially when it is regarding an otherwise barely-notable company? AlmostGrad (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In general we don't include individual quotes, unless they are the subject of sufficient analysis. For example, the current article contains some quotes where the comment itself went viral on social media or sparked a dispute. Another example would be that I just added commentary to the Edelman (firm) page recently, but the source was The New York Times and it suggested the commentary represented an industry-wide consensus. We also don't cover plans to do things, unless they are unquestionably notable. The US government's plans for its space program might be something where we would expect the content to be more forward-looking than we would normally expect.

If for example, there was an article from the local paper with the title "Attorney General says they are 'looking into' complaints about Suburban Express" then there would no longer be a weight issue and we would want to include it. Because the company is barely notable is a good reason for a small article as oppose to exaggerating its significance by including every detail available in the sources.

Lets see if anyone else picks up on this string. CorporateM (Talk) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

AlmostGrad, it should be noted that so far the only feedback is someone opposing use of 1 of the 12 sources that you noted. And I agree with them and so that just means folks don't like using #4. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

My own feedback is that in general such should be covered but that you have yet to get to the stage of a specific proposed addition / change. And given that this is a contentious article, I think that that stage is needed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I concur with North8000, in that it is difficult to discuss this without a specific proposal being made. When it is, I'll weigh in on the discussion. Until then, I'm agnostic on the idea.

As a general note, I read CorporateM's concerrn to be the potential for WP:UNDUE. I would tend to share that, as a potential concern; but again, without a proposal, difficult to say. For example a single sentence that mentions IL Atty Genl office being invited to get involved would be one thing; a meaty paragraph on this particular/narrow aspect of the case, with a bunch of quotations of people involved, would seem rather to be rather undue. N2e (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

AlmostGrad, just clarifying, you did fine on the first stage of the discussion. In this case stage #2 is needed. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Specific changes

It would go something like this me thinks:

"116 of the 126 lawsuits were dismissed with prejudice after the Illinois attorney general got involved in response to complaints from students"

CorporateM (Talk) 14:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that is entirely accurate, since the media backlash had more to do with the company withdrawing its lawsuits than the complaints to the Attorney General. AlmostGrad (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposing text to be added

I propose that he following text be added to end of the first paragraph in the Disputes with passengers and competitors section:

Since attorneys from the university's Student Legal Services were unable to represent the students sued in Ford County, they advised the students to complain to the State Attorney General instead. The Student Senate resolved to send a letter to the Illinois Attorney General and seek her assistance, and her office confirmed that they had received about half a dozen complaints in a week and were looking into the issue. AlmostGrad (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for putting forth a proposal. Seeing it, I'm going to OPPOSE the proposal and suggest we boil it down to a single sentence or so. Misplaced Pages is not a news source for current events, and this administrative action (not a legal action at this time) is a pretty small fish in the grand scheme of things for a company-specific article on Misplaced Pages. Would suggest a single sentence for the whole Atty Genl matter, to avoid WP:UNDUE weight, perhaps with all or as many of your suggested sources as you think appropriate. Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Revised proposal for text to be added

On the basis of comments and suggestions above, here is a revised proposal for the single-line of text that was recommended:

The State Attorney General's spokesman said that their office had received about half a dozen complaints about Suburban Express in a week.

Or, even shorter:

The State Attorney General's office received about half a dozen complaints about Suburban Express in a week.

AlmostGrad (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So we might want to say what the AttyGenl's office is doing what it is doing, something like:

"In Month Year, the State Attorney General's office is following up on the situation after having received several complaints about Suburban Express."

If reliable sources support that, and it's covered in the news, then it would seem Misplaced Pages might mention it too. The concern I have here, and I have it about a lot of this article, is that once a matter moves into the political sphere (who said what and what political constituencies are unhappy about that) it is quite possible that the political drama surrounding a relatively small part of the total 20+ year life of this company supplying economic services, voluntarily undertaken by ten of thousands of customers, gets overshadowed by the legal disputes surrounding a few hundred of those, and the political constituencies that stand to gain, or lose, from the political disagreement. I just hate to see Misplaced Pages get all embroiled in that. N2e (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"The Controversy" Defined: Three Elements

For anyone new to this article, I'd like to clarify what some users are broadly defining as "The Controversy", since several issues keep getting mashed into one:

1) A Suburban Express driver is alleged to have been rude to an international student. A student who allegedly witnessed the interaction posted his account on facebook and undertook to widely distribute the story, at one point receiving assistance from an employee of the University of Illinois who works in the Office of Public Affairs. The employee provided media contacts.

2) In spring 2013, Suburban Express filed a number of collection suits against purchasers who were indebted to Suburban Express for cheating the system or for dishonored payments. A significant percentage of the suits named individuals who are not students, ie they are parents of students.

3) Suburban Express noticed that discussion of 1 and 2 on Reddit included a great deal of wildly inaccurate information and that the Reddit moderator was altering the course of the discussion, often by deleting messages which argued the side which the moderator did not support. The moderator also posted a banner ad on the site which contained a false statement. In response, Suburban Express attorney demanded (http://murph.cc/subex/subex-letter.pdf) that moderator remove the false statement. Moderator ran to free-speech bloggers and got their attention. Blog posts were then regurgitated by other blogs.

Conventional media ignored the puerile online discussions and blog posts, but covered the collection lawsuits. Some examples cited in conventional media were a bit sensationalistic and inaccurate. For instance, a parent was subject to collection action for reversing a credit card charge after her daughter missed the bus one Sunday morning. She told the credit card company that the bus did not show up. But that was a false statement, and it facilitated getting a refund for a non-refundable ticket. One newspaper article incorrectly stated that she was pursued even though we admitted the bus never ran. That is one example.

A handful of students then engaged in tireless efforts to discredit Suburban Express, and they recieved support from free-speech advocates. Some of the support is rife with conflict of interest, though. Reddit and ARS technica, for instance, have common ownership. It's in their mutual best interest for Reddit to have the support of an Ars Technica blogger. Downstream bloggers benefit by injecting themselves into anything controversial. More controversy = more clicks.

It's misleading to characterize recent events as a single monolithic controversy.

Some Misplaced Pages editors have proposed that Misplaced Pages article content should be in proportion to article count. In other words, if there are 5 articles about Suburban Express about history, competitive battles, etc., and 20 "articles" (blog posts, mostly) about the recent newsy trash that 80% of the article should relate to the recent newsy trash. One big problem with that is the fact that many of the blog articles are simply regurgitated from one seminal article or two. In other words, if there are 20 blog articles, there may be 18 that are essentially copied from the initial two. If the body count method of assigning weight is accepted, duplicate/regurgitated articles should probably be ignored.

Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please Do not edit my content, it was put in the correct section. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

None of your content was edited. A heading was added. I apologize if this caused offense.Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

How is #2 possible if you only cater to students like you said in this section: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Suburban_Express#Relevant_Content_Removed.2C_Suggest_Restoration

Here is the complete list of lawsuits: http://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_search.jsp?court=IL027015J&sort=full_name&order=ASC&case_number=&litigant_name=suburban+express&charge_text=

IP user stated elsewhere that he would refrain from posting messages to talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A24.15.78.1&diff=580331612&oldid=580331570. Arri at Suburban Express (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Once again, you are attempting to out an editor from discussing on this talk page. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

For #3, the letter (as seen here http://imgur.com/a/OYasT) never mentions anything specific relating to the claims of libel made. Not even once. Everything is 100% generalized. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 20:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Edit

Could someone without a COI consider this / make the change?

The article currently says "According to Ars Technica, 'internet vigilantes' took down the Suburban Express website, stole the founder's identity and hacked into his Reddit account in response.".

The identity theft part is a mistake. If you read the linked source, it does say "stealing Toeppen's online identity" in the intro paragraph, but later goes on to clarify that what happened was his Reddit account was hijacked. There's no indication that any additional identity theft occurred, and surely it does not warrant being listed twice.

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a COI because all I care about is neutrality, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Given your previous, and potentially current, email communication outside of Misplaced Pages with the subject of discussion, I believe a COI still exists and should be noted. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I was mostly referring to my own COI. I didn't mean to imply anything about you, Biosthmors. NegatedVoid (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

However, Biosthmors accepted Suburban Express' paid editing offer and hence does have a CoI. AlmostGrad (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is everyone in this thread using the Misplaced Pages definition of COI, which is outlined at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest? By the way, talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article per the Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In no way am I suggesting you refrain from participating on the talk page. Everyone is always encouraged to give input. I'm merely saying that because your participation on this page originated from communications off-wiki with the owner of Suburban Express and a reward of $300 (regardless of whether this is still in effect), you have a COI. The wiki community now has no way of determining if you are still communicating with the owner (off-wiki) and/or if you will still be receiving payment. That is all. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So when you use the term COI are you using the definition at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest or an external definition that has no relevance here? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that you are referring to the bolded definition at the beginning of the guideline. It is the jewel in that patchwork randomly-wide-ranging mess that follows. Because adding in that "mess that follows" would tend to indicate that you (and about 80% of all Misplaced Pages editors) have a COI. And that "gold standard" definition is hard to judge. IMHO, to outsiders who don't know you, (like me) at first glance this looks like a "COI is highly likely" situation. Not saying what you should or shouldn't do, but IMHO as a minimum, be cautious. North8000 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Subtle POV in lead?

I would perform the minor edit of creating one paragraph out of the lead in the current version, but I'd rather someone else do that (even though that is quite silly, because it's just a minor edit). I think it was a peer review for deep vein thrombosis I went through that asked that one sentence paragraphs be avoided if possible. It can be avoided here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it for a while and see how it evolves. I think it is highly unlikely it remains a single sentence for long, although it should remain still a brief high-level summary of the controversy and legal dispute. The reason I say this is that the Talk page consensus that was just worked in the section above dealing with the BRD, there was a consensus to make the legal dispute a new paragraph, as it clearly is not the main descriptive item for a company that has been around for a couple of decades.

Should it remain a single sentence for a month or so, we can revisit. N2e (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can see at Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive1 where I was told to avoid one sentence paragraphs. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, this awkward formatting contradicts our aims to Misplaced Pages:Be neutral in form because the dangling sentence attracts eyeballs. Wouldn't it just be a minor edit? I've never heard anyone suggest anyone wait a month to make a minor edit that is what I would consider to be a neutrality issue. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:30, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd vote to restore N2e's sentence as part of 1 lede paragraph. N2e's read "The company has had many legal disputes with competitors and students."--it was short and general, and could be included in the first paragraph rather than called out. But I'd also note that section titled "Disputes with passengers and competitors" no longer mentions competitors (!). Knowing how bitter/notable/surprising competition was (worth, at least to Greyhound, bringing action at the ICC for simply providing service and lowering fares to the public) I'd like to see either more at the end of the section before, or more at the start of the "Disputes" section.KevinCuddeback (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Copy edit

Just noting here that I've copy-edited this to tighten it so that we're not over-egging the pudding. I also removed blogs, per WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS, and refs that were purely repetitive.

I also think we should look at whether two articles are needed about essentially the same topic, namely Dennis Toeppen and Suburban Express. Might be better to redirect one to the other and merge content. Where there are BLP issues, the usual thing to do is merge the BLP into the other. SlimVirgin 00:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Slim!! It looks better(ish) I think, though probably a bit too far the other way. The Ars Technica blogs are written by Sean Gallagher, who has a long career in professional journalism working for most of the major names in tech media (CMP, Ziff Davis, TechTarget, etc.). However, I think some of the most POV-laden material was sourced to TechDirt, which is a pretty trashy publication in general. There are some slight synth issues, like saying they are "known for" or "have a reputation" but these exist on most articles and I don't see them as pressing issues. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, these are huge edits without any discussion on the talk page. I think the proposed edits should be discussed prior to them being made. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @CorporateM: I did keep the Ars Technica sources, but removed the TechDirt ones, which seemed just to repeat the main points. SlimVirgin 02:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops, I see them now. I think the reason it comes across as the pendulum swinging too far is because it only covers "enforcing their terms of service" but the other half of the controversy is over allegations that they troll internet users that criticize them online on Facebook, Reddit, etc. The whole Steissand effect bit, leading to the appearance of internet censorship, which is why it was covered by a lot of tech publications. CorporateM (Talk) 03:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That last thing gets tricky because we can't know who is posting that material. For a serious allegation about a living person, we'd need excellent sourcing, e.g. that someone admitted having done it, or that someone had taken action against them convincingly, or a high-quality mainstream source had repeated the allegations. That's particularly true of a borderline notable person, because the negative quickly overwhelms everything else.

Also, the Streisand effect thing becomes circular. Someone mentions Streisand effect, so someone else adds it to WP to make it true. I think we should not get involved in the meta stuff, or the minutiae, but should just stick with the broader brushstrokes. If you look at the article before April 2013, none of this was there (even though there had been lawsuits before 2013), so this is all RECENTISM. SlimVirgin 04:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

• As the one who wrote the Dennis Toeppen article, I already checked for the very same issues before starting the article; whether he was notable without the bus company. The answer is a distinct yes, as shown by the AFD on Toeppen's article, and any merge of the two articles would be unviable I think, because neither article would be able to cover all the points of the other. Hence the best option that I see fit is to leave both the articles as the way they are. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposing Sections

I think the current version should be reverted prior to SlimVirgins edits (until there is discussion)... I also believe there needs to be 2 different types of dispute sections. There are disputes initiated by competitors (ie Greyhound) and disputes initiated by the company (lawsuits against competitors, customers, online critics, forum moderators, etc). I think these need to be differentiated. 24.15.78.1 (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment

SlimVirgin has whitewashed the criticism parts, keeping Suburban Express' version of the events and statements made by them ("We have a few very simple rules..."), while removing anything that others said, and deleting the online trolling and astroturfing parts completely, along with the parts about suing online critics, and mention of the Streisand Effect. And of course there is plenty of WP:SYN, along with obfuscation of context and background in a manner that favors the company. On a quick glance, some issues:

• "The company has become known, particularly on social media, for legal disputes arising from alleged violations of its terms of service."

"particularly on social media" - Says who? The lawsuits have been covered in newspapers like the Chicago Tribune, News-Gazette, Paxton Record, Kankakee Daily Journal, The Daily Illini.

• "The case triggered discussion among students on Facebook and the UIUC subreddit, a threat by the company to sue the subreddit's moderator"

"a threat by the company to sue the subreddit's moderator" - Why? What's the context? The moderator was threatened out of the blue?

• "116 of these were dismissed with prejudice, though some of the dismissals were overturned."

"116 of these were dismissed with prejudice" - Who initiated that? Why?

"some of the dismissals were overturned." - Who initiated that? Why?

• "In the 12 months prior to April 2013 it carried around 100,000 passengers, running up to 75 buses a day."

The source only says that the owner claimed that, and thus this should not be stated as fact in the article.

• "The company advertises that it hires only non-smoking drivers, and there is free Wi-Fi on all its Mercedes-Benz Sprinters and on most of its buses."

This is essentially an advertisement for the company (sourced to the company's own website), which, according to the lead section of the article, apparently doesn't even own its buses, and contracts them from other carriers.

• "The company has acquired a reputation for pursuing alleged violations of its terms of service"

How did they pursue? The fact they legally pursued is not evident, and this vague sentence could mean anything.

I am also interested in knowing why SlimVirgin is allowed to make unilateral changes like these, to a contentious article like this, without discussion or consensus. Is this because they are an admin? Is there any policy that grants admins special powers to do this, overriding consensus that was reached after lengthy discussions on the talk page? Calling their edits "copy edit" is a gross understatement, and is misleading. It was already demonstrated that there were no significant inaccuracies in the text. Copy editing says:

Copy editing is the work that an editor does to improve the formatting, style, and accuracy of text. Unlike general editing, copy editing might not involve changing the substance of the text.

This does not describe SlimVirgin's edits. AlmostGrad (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is free to be bold, as are the vast majority of editors. Other editors are free to request reversal of the change, per WP:BRD. I believe only a very few editors, those with conflicts of interest are proscribed from directly editing the article. I'm interpreting the comments of (someone's edits, above; don't see the original comment signed, so am unclear on who is presenting the argument) to be a rather indirect and unclear request for a BRD discussion on this Talk page (only a lot of other stuff has been added that is unrelated to the potential BRD). If that is what you want, I would make the request more clear, and provide a diff of the specific edit you would like to see reversed. I'll do my best to come back here and weight in on any substantive points of the BRD. I imagine other editors will do the same. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

No, SlimVirgin is not "free to be bold" on contentious articles, if I understood the WP:CAREFUL section of WP:BOLD correctly:

"... changes to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories... should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a latent conflict, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit—not just a simple copyedit—to an article on a controversial subject, it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes..." AlmostGrad (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussions at boards

For anyone interested, I had not realized how controversial this issue had become on Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages:Bounty board has been marked as historical after being nominated for deletion by user:DGG in response to Suburban Express's post offering compensation for creating a more desirable version of the page. I just noticed that Suburban Express' offer was also cross-posted on the Reward Board, which also led to a deletion discussion of that board nominated by User:Sven Manguard, but with a KEEP outcome. All the humbah might explain a few things and I figured it was odd no one provided a few links to other areas where the article is being discussed, though there is probably not much there in terms of discussion relevant to improving this article. CorporateM (Talk) 14:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Miniapolis was the one that nominated the board for deletion, and I was the one that closed the nomination. As an extension of that close, the Suburban Express thread on the reward board has been closed. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

First off, full disclosure. I did not even know of the existence of either the Misplaced Pages:Bounty board, the bounty process for getting a donation made to the Wikimedia Foundation, nor the Misplaced Pages:Reward board, until I saw CorporateM's comment above, just a few minutes ago. Further, I expressly state I do not have a WP:COI with respect to Suburban Express.

Having said that, there could be an (unintentional) misimpression by the comment CorporateM left that

• the board had been "marked as historical after being nominated for deletion by user:DGG in response to Suburban Express's" offer; and that
• that SuburbanExpress, or the owner of the Wiki-ID that put forth the offer, was somehow doing something duplicitous, or outside of Misplaced Pages policy.

I'm reading it to be quite the opposite, and thought I should make that clear here on this page since the Talk page has been so darn controversial. I just read both pages (the bounty and reward pages, now historical of course), and I do not see that the overall bounty/reward policy was affected by the specific Sub Express offer. And I do not think that an officer or owner of a company, believing their company to be maligned on Misplaced Pages by insufficient attention to the details of what is in specific sources, and that those sources are being cherry-picked or used unevenly to harm the company, is in any way doing a bad thing by offering a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation for other Misplaced Pages editors to go in a try to clean it up.

From what I can tell, the offeror had disclosed a WP:COI, and was working entirely within wikipolicy. Moreover, the editor who had accepted the challenge (before the boards were shut down and therefore became historical) also explicitly stated they had declared a COI, per policy.

So it looks to me like, per policy, a company wants to be treated fairly, not unevenly or better than sources indicate, and had used correct (then extant) process to possibly help achieve that. Any interpretation to the contrary, on that point, does not seem supported by the facts I just reviewed. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

edit req

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Suburban Express. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Please change

<ref name="oli">{{cite news|first=Will|last=Brumleve|url=http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html |title=Judge allows bus company to refile some claims against passengers |work=The News-Gazette |date=July 31, 2013}}</ref>

To

<ref name="oli">{{cite news|first=Will|last=Brumleve|url=http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-07-30/judge-allows-bus-company-refile-some-claims-against-passengers.html |title=Judge allows bus company to refile some claims against passengers |work=The News-Gazette |date=July 31, 2013 |archiveurl=http://archive.is/H43YS |archivedate=2013-08-11}}</ref>

To fix the dead link. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I skimmed the page last time, now I see it isn't exactly a dead link, but has issues (requires you take some odd survey). 135.0.167.2 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

News Gazette

I tried to fix up the legalistic language with that edit. I hope I didn't introduce any inaccuracy. The article needs to be clarified a bit using the News Gazette, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to read the News Gazette sources to see if I can make sense of things, then I plan to be back with ideas on how to improve the article, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

That one seems to be the most recent (July 30th) that I've found thus far. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 03:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• Start-Class bus transport articles
• Low-importance bus transport articles
• WikiProject Buses articles
• Start-Class WikiProject Illinois articles
• Low-importance WikiProject Illinois articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates