Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gerry Ashton (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 28 November 2007 (→Silanis: back again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Articles tagged for COI that need to be cleaned up

• Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest - Please pick an article from this category and decide whether it satisfies WP:N. If not, nominate it for deletion via one of the articles for deletion, speedy deletion or proposed deletion processes. If you believe the article should be kept, review the text to ensure that it complies with neutral point of view. After you have made any necessary edits, remove the {{COI}} template.

Princess Diana: The Evidence

• Princess Diana: The Evidence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Death of Diana, Princess of Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paperbackrighter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Paperbackrighter's only contributions have been on the subject of one specific book which makes claims about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. He has created an article about the book which reads like the publisher's blurb, and added mentions to the main article about the death of Diana even though the book may not be significant. Given his user name, I think there is more than a chance that he may be connected to the authors of the book. Sam Blacketer 09:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that Paperbackrighter has acknowledged the conflict of interest on his user talk page. Sam Blacketer 19:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

but still seems to be adding his book... --Fredrick day 12:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Princess Diana: The Evidence. -- Jreferee t/c 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yunkyung_Ashleigh_Cho

• Yunkyung_Ashleigh_Cho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Enter_the_studio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yunks77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Ego Pharmaceuticals

• Ego Pharmaceuticals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - While the article was created by someone apparently associated with the company, I and another editor have cleaned it up. Unfortunately a 3rd editor thinks that the stub still has NPOV issues (see talk page discussion). Would appreciate another pair of eyes. Thanks Golden Wattle 03:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (not associated with the company)
  • Still looking for another pair of eyes please Thanks Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing "List of Mind Mapping Software"

List_of_Mind_Mapping_software

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

I believe you have a conflict of interest for the very links that you've added, and have asked you to respond to this concern. It's probably best to do so now and here.

The article is in my opinion a failed experiment to present additional information than is normally found in lists. Best to discuss those issues on the article talk page. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned not only about links I've added, but also about all other software that you have deleted from that list. It doesn't seem like a reasonable action to me, I think what you've done simply robs people out of their choice to try and decide. Julia sova (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This list has faced a long struggle over the issue of allowing direct links to vendor's web sites where the package in question is not notable enough to have its own Misplaced Pages article. I have seen many such links removed in other articles such as List of search engines, and to me it seems a sensible application of the WP:EL policy. This issue does not qualify as a normal COI posting which requires (a) an article name, (b) the name of a problematic editor who has a COI, and is not staying within the rules. I think Julia sova needs to give a more convincing argument why the issue should be here. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

EdJohnston, thank you for comprehensive answer, I now see why this issue shouldn't be here. I thought Ronz was being prejudiced against particular software, because his first cleanups of the article didn't have any system, so when Ronz deleted all software that doesn't have its own Wiki article, I decided that Ronz didn't want to bother thinking about which software is worth having a link and which is not, and simply deleted all of them. Now I see that it has been done in other articles, which makes it reasonable for me. Thanks again and I'll stick to Wiki policies (it's just that sometimes they should be articulated better...) Julia sova (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology article being edited directly by an advocate for an association promoting parapsychology

User:Annalisa Ventola is quite an active editor at Parapsychology and has a definite conflict of interest as she runs "Public Parapsychology", which she states is the 'official blog' of the "Parapsychology Association." () Part of this work includes solicitations for donations to support parapsychology. She is also a paid parapsychology advocate as is quoted below:

Annalisa Ventola, CV

Page 2:

Grants and Scholarships

2007 Skeptiko Media Monitor Grant

Awarded for monitoring and improving the accuracy of information about parapsychology on the web in various ways.

This kind of advocacy is very problematic considering she is being paid by an organization to portray a controversial subject in a particular light. I have no problem with her commenting on talkpages, but I don't think that edits to articles on parapsychology should be done by this individual. I suggest a notice placed at talk:parapsychology indicating that this particular user should not be editing the article directly.

Thanks,

-- ScienceApologist (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Paid to promote a topic and rewarded for accuracy on a topic are two different things. You're framing a grant or scholarhip award for accuracy as a reason to support restricting a user from participating in an article about a subject -- not an association, organization, or biography. WP:SCOIC doesn't even call for blocking from editing an article where there's a strict conflict of interest, much less a topical subject matter where they have a professional expertise. It's like asking someone who has an affiliation with the Republican National Committee not to participate in politics articles. It'd have more merit if this were the Parapsychological Association aritlce, and it's not. --Nealparr 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem here either. The fact that Annalisa Ventola belongs to an organization related to the article or has received grant money should not make any difference. The policy states that "Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) a close connection with a subject are recommended to disclose this, and should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven." as well as "Editors proposing to write about themselves, their own organizations, or matters they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors." This means that Annalisa should be allowed to edit the article if her ties aren't so extremely close to the subject of the article (which they don't seem to be) or she should be prohibited from making "controversial edits" to it. Wikidudeman 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

From looking at Annalisa's website I think no one can disagree that she operates a Parapsychology advocacy site. IMO, soliciting donations, urging readers to join the PA, and presenting material which highlights only one side of a controversial subject is a bit more than "having an affiliation" with the subject. It certainly isn't a neutral informational site. Rather than deny one has a COI, a person involved in such activity "should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven." Questions raised as to the nature of Annalisa's editing are quite legitimate. - -- LuckyLouie (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a burden of proof in establishing that edits made are "controversial, promotional or agenda-driven". That's a requirement of the policy. And the request is that the editor not edit the mainspace at all, which isn't even part of the policy. ScienceApologist is posing her -edits- as advocacy. That's not established. On the parapsychology talk page he stated that it's not about "content disputes". It is completely content-related, per the policy. Every edit Annalisa has made recently is to re-establish the FA consensus article similarly to what it was already before ScienceApologist stepped in. Those aren't controversial edits, by the definition of prior consensus. A disruptive COI editor is one who actually edits in a manner that is promotional, and they must be disruptive for the COI to matter. ScienceApologist must first demonstrate that he is right on his content dispute before he has a legitimate COI complaint. --Nealparr 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you are paid to teach science. If parapsychology is for real, it will blast your form of science out of the water: causal relationships, for example, will have to be re-evaluated. Thus, it is quite obvious that you have a vested interest in defending your form of science, and that you have an interest in bashing anything which would undermine your job and your vested interest in the subject. I suggest that you not edit the Parapsychology article any longer, because it is a conflict of interest for you. You are paid and make a living for your COI, while Annalisa merely has parapsychology as a hobby- if she nets any money at all from it I would be rather surprised. ScienceApologist, a person involved in such activity as yourself should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven- as your editing has continually been relative to the Parapsychology article and paranormal articles in general. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think saying a teacher has a conflict of interest is a little bit of a stretch and not very fair. Outside of research projects, a teacher or professor doesn't necessarily "create or shape" the subject that they are teaching. Rather they convey the general and present knowledge of that subject. In theory, if some tenets of Parapsychology became verified and accepted applications of Science it is quite likely that ScienceApologist would be teaching that subject as well.Agne/ 21:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is why Annalisa teaching parapsychology through her blog, or doing a little unremunerative research on the side, is not COI. SA, since he makes his living teaching a science which would go out the window (making his knowledge obsolete) if parapsychology were true, has a far greater COI. They are both teachers, but one makes his living at it, and the other doesn't. Or, would you say that SA would have a COI if he did research? You know, he does edit conventional science articles. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a conflict here. Annalisa's edits are not pushing a point to an extreme and seem rather balanced to me. She's writing on a topic she's knoweledgeable about. By the logic ScienceApologist presents here, he should stop editing science articles. Now if Annalisa were the rep for a certain organization and only wrote how great they were and ignored their weak points, that'd be COI. ScienceApologist needs to stop grinding his axe on this topic and get on with happy editing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of Annalisa removing a source that is critical of her POV as stated at her webpage: . ScienceApologist (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A check of the page revisions shows there were 11 works listed, three of them by Randi. The editor simply removed one of them and left the other two. And it looks to me like it deserved to be removed: it's a link to a self-published bloggish criticism of a chapter in a psychology book by somebody that isn't even mentioned in the main article. The link doesn't warrant a cite in any scholarly sense. How much room in the reference list needs to be reserved to the same guy? He's already given plenty of coverage in the article, including his picture, and cited twice more in the footnotes. All of it left intact by this same editor. You can be pretty sure any of Randi's other published material on the subject would largely cover the same tracks. This evidence is pretty weak. It's curious that you raise these issues now, since this is an old edit, and the same editor appears to have demonstrated quite well the ability to work cooperatively with others since together they succeeded in taking this article to FA status. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Context is everything, ScienceApologist. Here the diff is from August 2007, during the major rewrite that earned parapsychology its FA status. During this rewrite, the article was being structured and cleaned up. The edit summary "one of these things is not like the other" is your tip off to assume good faith. Look at the Further Reading section and then look at the part that was removed. It's an online essay where all the remaining items are books. Literally one, and only one, of these things is not like the others. You'll note that An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural, also by Randi, was not removed by Annalisa. You'll note that all the other references to Randi in the article weren't removed either, not then, not ever. --Nealparr 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

He has no chance of making anything like this stick. Why with all the wds? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have always been upfront about my interests and affiliations, as you can see by my user page. Science Apologist has not uncovered any information that I haven't volunteered myself at one point or another. The Skeptiko grant was awarded to me for my work on Public Parapsychology and it was only $500 (enough to pay for a few professional memberships and journal subscriptions). The only thing that I get paid to do regularly is teach little kids how to play the piano. My activities at Misplaced Pages are purely volunteer.

Additionally, Public Parapsychology is not the official blog of the Parapsychology Association (this was a misunderstanding of mine at the time), it is the official blog of the Center for Research on Consciousness and Anomalous Psychology (CERCAP) at Lund University, Sweden as you can see here. Note also that the blog was something that I was doing voluntarily before that grant was awarded and before the head of CERCAP requested affiliation with my work. It is incorrect to portray my blog as an advocacy site for parapsychology since as it says clearly at the top it is also devoted to public scholarship for anomalous psychology (a field that looks at paranormal phenomena and experiences in purely psychological terms). The blog reports on the activities and research of those who publish research on parapsychological topics in peer reviewed journals, regardless of their conclusions about the reality of ostensibly paranormal phenomena. I have a reputation in both fields for being fair and even-handed in how I interpret their activities to the general public.

And to save Science Apologist the trouble of doing more supposed detective work on me, I was once reprimanded for posting a link to my own blog during my first week at Misplaced Pages. That's when I became aware of WP:COI and retracted the link without further argument. Science Apologist has also failed to point out that I am an associate member of the Parapsychological Association, but as you can see, I have never edited that article. My own particular research has to do with apparitional experience but I haven't edited that article either.

Science Apologist has characterized me as a 'true believer' to strengthen his own arguments against me at Talk:Parapsychology. What he has failed to investigate is the fact that my own research studies paranormal beliefs and experiences, and which factors (i.e. priming effects) may lead people to interpret ambiguous stimuli as paranormal (in other words, skeptical research). He has also characterized the Parapsychological Association is an advocacy group, which is also incorrect. The PA is an association of scholars and scientists with common interests in particular research areas, but as a group they do not have a particular point of view. (In fact, a number of members of the PA characterize themselves as unbelievers in their personal lives.) If physicists can edit physics articles, and psychologists can edit psychology articles, then I see no reason why parapsychologists should not be allowed to edit parapsychology articles.

The request on this noticeboard is Science Apologist's bad faith attempt to silence an editor who has stood up to his recent disruptive editing behavior (behavior that is currently being investigated by the Arbitration Committee) at a featured article on parapsychology. This article was brought to FA status through the efforts of myself and several other editors. I think that Science Apologist will be hard pressed to prove to that I am a disruptive or aggressive editor. Rather, I am here to lend my expertise and I am committed to portraying research on parapsychological articles neutrally with the cooperation of others. I've been at Misplaced Pages for less than a year, and I do make mistakes, and being somewhat entrenched in academia, my perspective can be a bit narrow sometimes, but I try make sure that my contributions are approachable to the general public.

I will be out of town for the weekend. My ability to respond to further comments will be limited.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious bad faith attempt. His own COI is much greater. Be sure and click Annalisa's link. Here are some more: . And that doesn't even count the previous ArbCom findings against him. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is my take: (1) Annalisa runs the blog Public Parapsychology. (2) Annalisa has stated on-wiki that this is the official blog of the Parapsychology Association. Taken together, these implicate Annalisa as a public mouthpiece of this group, presenting a potential conflict of interest with regards to the fringe subject of parapsychology. Great care should be taken in writing the parapsychology article, especially by those who have a conflict of interest. I do think it is worth notifying the community about this, as ScienceApologist has done. As an involved editor, I would greatly appreciate insight from uninvolved parties. Antelan 22:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(1) I don't just run the blog. I founded it.

(2) I explained above that statement was a mistake. It is NOT the official blog of the PA, rather it is affliated with CERCAP (see the link above). The person who requested this affiliation was both the director of CERCAP and a PA member, which is why I misunderstood him. If it was 'the PA's blog', there would be a link from their site saying so, but there is not. There is a link from CERCAP, which I provided above.

None of this really matters though. The important thing is that Public Parapsychology is my site. It was a self-started venture that attracted the attention of people in the fields of parapsychology and anomalous psychology, some of whom rewarded my efforts with grants and affiliations. I am nobody's mouthpiece and I am the sole person who decides what gets published at my site.

Now that we're clear on that, the concern shouldn't be over who recognizes my blog, but the fact that I am an associate PA member (an association that was granted rather recently) and an active researcher in the field. I have always been upfront about my interests and affiliations and I have not been aggressive about my edits. And great care has been taken in writing the parapsychology article. Since I started collaborating here, the article has quickly risen to FA status. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being forthcoming. I would call ScienceApologist's inquiry successful in that it has resulted in your provision of a more accurate and complete picture of your vested interests than had been previously provided. Had you not stated earlier that the Public Parapsychology blog was the official blog of the PA, I don't think there would have been so much concern (and I'm not faulting you for this misunderstanding, just saying it was probably the root problem). Antelan 00:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist didn't make an inquiry, he made a request that Annalisa be blocked from contributing in the mainspace. That requires a demonstration that her edits were promotional. ScienceApologist was not successful in doing so. --Nealparr 01:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. But it doesn't take a request at a noticeboard to resolve this sort of thing. It's a lot simpler to just ask me on my talk page ;-). I thought I did a pretty good job of providing a complete picture of my interests at my user page, but perhaps it is time to update it. --Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, please read the section before commenting. And your continual harassment of editors over COI is just tiresome. Since you're a medical student, I really should have remembered to report you here for your disruptive and highly POV editing of Psychic surgery. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I expect a retraction of that claim calling my editing "disruptive and highly POV." Antelan 23:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt very much that you actually expect such a thing. For one thing, you know that I usually consider what I say. For another, you know that anyone can go see the diffs. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I expect a retraction because your claim is false and highly offensive. (1) You didn't make this claim months ago, while the incident in question was actually occurring. (2) I believe that no reasonable user would consider my editing "disruptive and highly POV," as evidenced by the fact that the article, as currently implemented, uses much of the wording that I advocated, and it even uses entire blocks of material that I wrote for it. (3) This is an out-of-place attack on me for the inappropriate purpose of hurting my credibility, not for the appropriate purpose of asking for community input to see if your allegations require a community response against me. Yes, your allegations will still be in the diffs, but I expect you to remove them from the page. Antelan 00:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"You didn't make this claim months ago, while the incident in question was actually occurring." Yes, I said that was my mistake- You and SA hadn't taught that these false harassment claims are the done thing. Not that I really would have done it, because that's not me, but I could have. I think it is entirly appropriate to note that you are here supporting ScienceApologist's attack on Annalisa (without reading the secion, BTW), while you are quite willing to make, as I said above, highly POV edits to articles which involve medicine. placing fraud above history sectionPOV pushing ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ——

01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Beating a dead horse deserves a little attention for editors here in need of something better to do. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Andre Douzet on Misplaced Pages

→ See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/André Douzet.

• André Douzet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is an ongoing problem - Andre Douzet is a recognised hoaxer and charlatan in France in relation to Rennes-le-Chateau and writer of pseudohistorical books - his supporters in the UK who have websites promoting him are the ones responsible for placing the article on Misplaced Pages - meaning that it cannot be written from an unbiased and neutral POV. Does Misplaced Pages have its article on L. Ron Hubbard arguing that Dianetics was a "scientific fact"? The same difference applies to Douzet.Wfgh66 (talk) 09:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Andre Douzet article on Misplaced Pages is contributed by his Supporters Corjan de Raaf, Filip Coppens and Andrew Gough who also run websites that promote him - therefore the Misplaced Pages article cannot be Neutral or Unbiased in nature. My comments in the article that he is a writer of pseudohistorical books and my comments in the Talk Page about who contribute the article get blanked out by his supporters. Can something please be done about this? Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Dsine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote original stub
• 194.74.202.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed categories and other information
• 194.178.111.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similar
• 194.73.124.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similar, removed {{POV-check}} template, removed content from article talk twice
• 81.154.106.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similar
• 86.132.238.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similar
• 86.132.162.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similar, removed content from article talk

I don't know who the people Wfgh66 mentioned are. I added article links and user links above. — Athaenara ✉ 11:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been deleted.--Slp1 (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Marina section at Greystones

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

The user (full name Basil Miller) is a member of the Greystones Protection & Development Association (he personally added their link here, and a Google search of their website brings up his name 14 times), which is a group vehimently opposed to plans to build a marina at the town of Greystones. He has not declared this association, but continues to edit the section in question.
The user is continually adding POV statements and information he claims to have heard at 'oral hearings', which he cannot provide any references for. When I challenged him about this on the talk page, he replied "'Citation needed': Yes, in the same sense as the medieval scholastics required 'citations', condemning Europa to centuries of ignorance. There is no official textual source for this."
His current problem is with the fact that a landfill on the site is 'inert' (meaning non-toxic). Even though there is a valid citation for this fact, the user has twice removed it, here and here. On the talk page he has tried to argue that the citation is not from a "reputable" source. Any help would be appreciated, as I feel there is a clear COI here. Thanks. Schcambo (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Greystones marina issue seems to goes back to at least April 1996: Godson, Rory; Woods, Richard. The Sunday Times (April 14, 1996) Beer and food key to Irish super-rich;Ireland. Section: Home news; Page IR (writing, "Yet another retailer with Irish connections, Albert Gubay, is worth Pounds 275m. He is developing a marina in Greystones, Co Wicklow.") To keep the Greystones, Ireland article relatively free of trouble, you may want to create a Greystones marina article so that such matters may be debated there rather than on the coastal town article. Also, there is plenty of reliable source material for an article on Greystones Protection and Development Association going back to atleast March 1998. Creating an article on Greystones Protection and Development Association may further help protect Greystones. -- Jreferee t/c 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions; I'm not sure if splitting the main article is what is needed, we don't have a problem with edit warring because the user actually only comes online every few weeks, it's just that when he does he changes what he likes and adds some more pointless arguement to the talk page, which gets a bit frustrating. I think perhaps just a strong-worded warning from an admin might make him think twice before he does it again? Thanks. Schcambo (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if splitting the main article is what is needed

Agreed. I don't think it's the general practice here, or desirable, to deal with problematic editing by creating sub-articles as ablative armor (Greystones is anyway such a small place that I doubt Greystones marina, and even more so Greystones Protection and Development Association, are separately notable). More useful to deal with the conflict of interest, which looks very clear. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Highgate Vampire

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

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

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

I added some further reading and moved some of the external links. -- Jreferee t/c 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It also has a flavour of WP:SYNTH; the whole article is very authorially-framed (e.g. "The growth of its reputation is a fascinating example of modern legend-building"). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Digital Entertainment Network and The Digital Entertainment Network

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

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

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

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

User:Tdenusa has disclosed he is Ralph Press, President of TDEN, USA. — Satori Son 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• Just to note, Mr. Press has indicated that he plans to restore the disputed information once 24 hours has elapsed, so as not to be in violation of 3RR; and has threatened to "report" me for vandalism if I remove the advert information again. --Mhking (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't revert again. Even though the information is clearly not appropriate, there is no need for you to risk a block for possible edit warring as well. WP:3RR is a touchy area. — Satori Son 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood; I'll stand apart from it, but when I note it, I'll report such here. --Mhking (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If http://www.den.net and http://www.tden.com are separate companies with no overlap, then it's reasonable we should have two separate articles, and use a DAB or a hatnote to distinguish them. Putting unrelated material into a single article seems mischievous. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I kind of thought so - I thought I was being reasonable. I did note to him that the advert-related info would certainly be subject to possible removal under WP guidelines, but I thought I was being reasonable (at least I was trying to be). I know I can be heavy-handed at times, plus I needed some guidance in the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhking (talk • contribs) 21 November 2007

• I have created the separate article with a dab link at the top of both of them.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 23:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If you have references from the New York Post it would be good to list them here. We can use published sources but we can't use your correspondence with attorneys. I suggest that you not make any edits to the articles yourself, since you have a conflict. If you see a change that needs to be made, ask for it on the article Talk page and neutral editors will address the matter. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Archives search of New York Post did not come up with anything for me . I found the patent registration under 2347797 (filed 22 May 1998 and live). I also found 2 dead registrations to the other comapny though they weren't for the Wordmark Digital Entertainment Network but rather the wordmarks DENMART and CHATDEN to a company of that name. Further also at the patents office -  : A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of default. ... Digital Entertainment Network, Inc., Santa Monica, CA, Registration No. 2366329 for the mark "DIRECT DRIVE", Cancellation No. 92045801. I found no record in the patents office website of a trademark dispute but that might be my poor searching skills although I did search the Decisions of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and I think the matter must not have been tested there eg . --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

See this link for the current status of a service mark #2347797 on the Digital Entertainment Network. It was granted on 5/22/2000 and is now owned by a company called TDEN USA which is based in Plantation, Florida. The service they provide is called Computerized on-line ordering and retail services in the field of digital audio recordings, featuring previews of the recordings. However, the original Digital Entertainment Network is reported to have gone bankrupt in May of 2000 so the timing doesn't work out for the trademark issue to have played any role in their demise. There is apparently a successor company that still runs http://www.den.net and maybe *they* have had dealings with TDEN USA. However our article doesn't say anything about them. So unless the New York Post has something to report about the trademark issue it's not yet obvious that anything about the trademark belongs in the original DEN article.

Our additional article called The Digital Entertainment Network has these sentences:

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

So far I see no case for keeping those sentences, since no evidence has been provided, and the date of bankruptcy of the original DEN doesn't fit. I'd like to see User:Tdenusa comment on the situation, though. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Although registered (granted) in 2000 the application was filed in 1998 and thus the time period does overlap. I was unable to find evidence on the web of negotiations (there was less on the web then). Obviously cites from newspapers or other reliable sources that are not online are fine - but there need to be cites and correspondence between attorneys would not meet our guidelines - wouldn't be encyclopaedic.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle 05:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Rick Cesari

• Rick Cesari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• Cesaridirect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -

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

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

Cayra

• Cayra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about beta, freeware
• Zabriski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - creator and main editor to the Cayra article, who claims to own the copyright to the product logo  : mistake
• Julia sova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be Julia Sova, the PR manager for Cayra

I had previously warned Julia sova with a uw-coi. Discussions on my talk page led to her report above: WP:COIN#Editing_.22List_of_Mind_Mapping_Software.22. I'm also concerned that there may be a language problem here causing confusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronz should give some thought to nominating this article for deletion. Notability has not been shown from reliable sources. There is a real COI here, but not yet any troublesome violation of the COI guideline by the affected editors. All I noticed was a bit too much indignation at the noticeboards and on Talk pages (e.g. ) over what seem to be to be clear Misplaced Pages policies. If the article creators had cooperated fully, Ronz wouldn't need to come here to get support, the editors involved would have understood the policy issues themselves. It shouldn't be hard to understand our reliable source policy, which excludes the web sites these editors were using to reference Cayra. The site http://killerstartups.com is an internet popularity poll, not a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm neither the creator nor main contibutor to Cayra, copyrighting the logo was a mistake (simply haven't found other suitable options that will not grant access to the logo editing).

I don't see where advertisement can be read in Cayra article, I tried to make it as neutral as possible. What concerns reliable sources, what's wrong with mind-mapping.org or mindmap-software.com? I have read WP:RS and it says WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy, am I wrong?

Also please compare Cayra article with FreeMind article. Are there any differences? Any reliable sources there? The reason why I'm pointing to FreeMind article is that it was the one that inspired me to create an article about Cayra, as these two mind mapping applications seem to have a lot in common: both are free and practice no advertising.

Please show me what's the weak link in my judgement and how can I improve the article, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabriski (talk • contribs) 2 November 2007

Since Zabriski doesn't have a coi, this comes down to WP:N and WP:RS issues that are best addressed on the article talk page. I think this is resolved here. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Human trafficking in Angeles City

See also: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive282#User:RodentofDeath resumes personal attacks.

• Human trafficking in Angeles City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - article about human trafficking in Angeles City, Philippines.
• Susanbryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - creator and main contributor to the article. Claims to have founded charity in Angeles and is a political activist using wikipedia to distort and fabricate claims of human trafficking and other social problems.

Susanbryce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been accused by the Senate of the Philippines of running a smear campaign against Angeles, see http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2007/0726_revilla1.asp . She has used other internet forums to spread lies about Angeles City. She claims it has 150,000 prostitutes (out of a total population of 280,000) and that a woman or child is raped or killed every 6 seconds.

There has never been one arrest for Human Trafficking in Angeles City. Susanbryce makes unfounded claims this is because of some wild government conspiracy. RodentofDeath (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

If soapboxing is an issue, please consider the accuser's stated agenda, and his edit history. RodentofDeath's tendentious edits to various Angeles City-related articles, notably Human trafficking in Angeles City (edits), consistently remove well-sourced information that is not flattering to Angeles City (which has some problems). After 100's of kb of Talk page discussion on various articles, RodentofDeath resumes deletion of source material for specious and highly disputed reasons (see Talk), and sustains a near-constant campaign of personal attack against editors who challenge him. This WP:POVPUSH has been raised repeatedly in WP:ANI, and dismissed as a content dispute. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found the ANI thread and it appears both sides (i.e. RodentOfDeath and Susanbryce) have engaged in POV pushing. I was suggesting a community review of the article to make sure that no soapboxing by either party survives.

I'd file a user RFC on RodentOfDeath with the possibility of bumping it up to arbitration in the future. (Note that the arbcom doesn't rule on content issues, you'll need to produce evidence of user misconduct.) MER-C 13:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Started Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/RodentofDeath. Am currently awaiting more Users certifying the basis for this dispute before submitting the request. This may be problematic because many of the editors who have tried to resolve these disputes are no longer contributing to Misplaced Pages, and a certification from Susanbryce (talk · contribs) might be dismissed due to partiality. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You've got three now, which is more than the prerequisite two. I guess we're done here, further comments should go to the RFC. MER-C 01:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

R Family Vacations

• R Family Vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

It may well be inaccurate, but I don't see any reason to think a COI is involved: the editor, Benjiboi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has a track record of edits on varied LGBT topics. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously having a track record of edits is no guarantee of accuracy in those edits. Perhaps his other contributions ought to be scrutinized for accuracy, the incidence of LGBT topics notwithstanding.71.127.226.19 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, and as I wrote on the LGBT project page , the greater concern was suspicion of conflict of interest in the creation of the article and the way the article's first reference was structured to make it easy for the reader to make reservations with the company. The factual inaccuracies, etc., were secondary to the COI concerns, but were presented to give a complete picture of the author's "work." 71.127.226.19 (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Obvious bad faith nomination from an anon IP who has been stalking Benjiboi for over a month now. Please see Talk:Hot House Entertainment#2007 David Awards to see how he was following Benjiboi there. That is only one example. This has been happening to Benjiboi across many articles and has been taken to ANI twice. I can provide more diffs if required. Jeffpw (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Nobody's stopping you improving the article. An anon account created entirely to diss one article and its editor is more troubling. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, sir, it is more troubling when an editor raises legitimate concerns over perceived impropriety and he is accused of stalking, and the very discussion in which he enumerates his concerns is deleted from the LGBT project page. What have the people at LGBT to fear? Have you seen how they scrambled to correct the factual errors in R Family Vacations, and to remove any material whereby the author could be suspected of COI? If those were not legitimate concerns, if there was no impropriety, then why did they hasten to change the article? No, the group at LGBT and how they've conducted themselves in this matter is what's troubling, not my reporting of it.71.127.226.19 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And, despite the extensive changes made in the article, there should still be an investigation to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article. 71.127.226.19 (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You show up from nowhere, with no previous record of constructive edits, to start complaining loudly (in the wrong places) about perceived errors that you take no steps to fix yourself, and assert that an established editor edits in defiance of a conflict of interest, on evidence that it would be charitable to call tenuous. And after the errors you complain about have been fixed, you consider that to be evidence of wrongdoing and demand an "investigation" of your own flimsy accusations? Obviously you're not interested in improving your encyclopedia; you just want to see somebody punished for, um, it's not really clear what they did to anger you so. However. Vendettas such as yours are not appreciated here. Please go away. You can think of it as boycotting us, if that makes you feel better. –Henning Makholm 02:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Sir, your reasoning of the facts of this matter is spurious at best, perhaps abetted by indignation. There were not perceived errors, there were errors. What was perceived was a possible incident of COI, and for that reason, the concern over COI along with the errors were brought here and to the LGBT project page; it has already been stated quite clearly that the article talkpage was bypassed for that reason. The removal of errors is not evidence of wrongdoing. The removal of material that suggests the incidence of conflict of interest -- and the rapidity with which that material was removed -- indicates the presence of impropriety at the very least. The removal of the discussion thread at LGBT is also telling, of impropriety. I would hope that well-intentioned and genuine good faith editors here will undertake an appropriate inquiry to determine the extent of the author's conflict of interest in creating the article.71.127.226.19 (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The "errors" that the stalker saw were not really errors at all. Benjiboi had the right website, but used the wrong page He used the mainpage instead of the appropriate when filling in his reference. That is a mistake many make when entering multiple references, and was corrected. The only conflict of interest I see is this stalker bringing articles of Benjiboi up for review. Jeffpw (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Reservations page does actually provide citation for the physical location for the company, so no sinister motive there. To claim ref 2 doesn't support the citation for the slogan is simply untrue: it's there, top right of the home page. And so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Please see Mangojuice's talk page and archived ANI discussions for more documentation of this anon IP's stalking behavior. This is on ANI again, by the way. Jeffpw (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently on ANI here, and I've tagged 72.68.125.254 as a probable sock. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Begone and take your own agenda with you. We don't need people who have an axe to grind against a specific subsection of humanity here. Can we close this as a bad-faith thread? (And before you say I'm a member of WP:LGBT, the only projects I am affiliated with are WP:D&D (member) and WP:PCP (lurker and unofficial member). -Jéské 05:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have raised legitimate concerns over conflict of interest. One need only look at the evidence presented. Reporting incidences of conflict of interest is not having an agenda. The author of this article has a clear conflict of interest in creating the article and in the ways he has edited it.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 05:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then explain to me why you're targeting an article Benjiboi has edited, as you did with Hot House Entertainment and Sister Roma? -Jéské 06:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The suspicions and accusations to which you allude, posted here and elsewhere are, as I've said previously, intended to quash this discussion and are a smokescreen meant to mask the real issue here: that the author of this article has a conflict of interest both in creating the article and the way he's edited it.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You have a beef with User:Benjiboi, which you're trying to avoid discussing here and which makes you incapable of accusing him of wrongdoing. Could we get someone to close this thread, please? -Jéské 06:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I had read the article and found it to contain multiple errors. Upon further examination I found evidence of conflict of interest and I reported it here and at LGBT. I would rather that the matter be attended by others who can reason from the evidence presented, and not simply from emotion or speculation.--72.76.8.217 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence - you need to provide it rather than letting the people here hunt it down. Further, your IP originates from Paterson, New Jersey - the same place all the other IPs who have harassed Benjiboi come from. Just ask the RDNS link in your Contribs page. Stop harassing Benjiboi - we can contact Verizon. -Jéské 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Anti-stuttering devices, Stuttering

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

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

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

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

Are most of your problems coming from a user, or from IP's? - Jehochman 13:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One user, with a conflict of interest. The IPs and the new account appeared briefly, recently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, so not logical order!) I actually don't have much to add to the descriptions listed above. And I must apologize that some of the links below may not be the most informative I could provide. I have extremely limited and very sloooow internet access!

On the plus side, User:Tdkehoe has since June been upfront about his business interests on his userpage, has sought advice on various occasions , and I honestly think hasn't understood some WP policies and guidelines. On the other hand, he hasn't readily followed through with recommendations made to him,, , or chose to interpret them to allow what he would like to include.

I find the editing here and on wikibooks disconcerting, in part because of the criticisms the manufacturers of another anti-stuttering device have received (in a peer reviewed journal no less) for grandiose claims of treatment effects on shows such as Oprah, without the scientific data etc to back them up. I feel that a similar approach at diffusion is being used here. Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

uSwitch

• USwitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — After the previous edits to the article uSwitch caused a big fuss here, I recommended to my colleagues that we propose the changes on the article's Talk: page. These proposed changes have been listed there for over a month now. Can someone please make these changes for us, so the article is actually neutral and accurate? OwenBlacker (Talk) 09:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

American Apparel

• American Apparel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Leftcoastbreakdown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sav Remzi

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

Brightcove

• Brightcove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Eddroid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 65.15.24.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

brightcove.com Linksearch current

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

Perry Institute for Marine Science

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

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

Silanis

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

http://spam.silanis.com

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

http://spam.esignrecords.org

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

Spammers

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

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

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

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

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards