Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:BearingPoint Talk:BeiGene Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Canada Goose (clothing) Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:Chime (company) Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EMarketer Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones User talk:JZimbalist Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Monero Talk:MP Materials Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Norwest Venture Partners Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Versapay Talk:Viatris Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Xaphoon Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Alice Zorn

User:Ryoung122 on Longevity myths

The editor declares on his user page that he is involved with Guiness World Records. He obviously has a lot of expertise that could be very valuable for the encyclopedia, but in his work on Longevity myths and related articles, he seems to be too close to the subject to see the wood for the trees. It is all just messy. There is a medcab case open, and I made a merge proposal. I came to it from WP:FTN, and am not the only person concerned about the quality of these articles. I'm hoping that the COI question can be addressed effectively but without completely alienating this expert editor. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually we see Itsmejudith canvassing on Wikipedia:

Longevity myths

What on earth do we do? The article is battled between two sides, and each seems to be as mistaken as the other. (tears at hair) Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, the editor she posted this message to (Grismaldo) ended up on the merge discussion.Ryoung122 15:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was frustrated, as you can tell, and this was a request and plea to work out what could be done. We had already discussed this on FTN on more than one occasion and I've asked for more eyes on the article. I'm genuinely looking for a solution. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

IMJ posted that comment after I was already engaged in the discussion at the FT/N. There was no canvassing there at all.Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the essay I wrote on Longevity Myths in 2005 preceded Guinness hiring me in November 2005, so there's no real conflict of interest.

As for my essay, it's been published online and won a national award as a thesis, and published as a book. But in reality it did little more than to more clearly state and merge in one place what had been said for years in separate accounts. We find articles about the myths of longevity in Russia, in Japan, etc. It's not simply the colloquial myth: the stories of Japanese longevity related to the emperors and the crypto-historical founding of Japan in 660 BC (when in was in fact closer to 420 AD). In Russia, the myths of longevity are collective, group myths, that are intertwined with religious and ethnic beliefs, just as are stories of extreme longevity in the Bible.

And if recent claims to be extreme age are also called "myths," there's a reason the word is plural.

I have a solution. Let's withdraw the merge proposal, and then we need a discussion between the "scientific" POV and the "Christian" point of view. It may be as simple as renaming the article "longevity myths and traditions" and then everyone can assume/presume whether Methuselah is a "myth" or "tradition" (or both).Ryoung122 15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that you want an article that covers everything from the Sumerian king lists to 20th century reports. I can't see that it can possibly be helpful. But that's for the article talk page, and perhaps needs to go to an RfC. I would be really grateful for uninvolved input on the COI question. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend interested parties view this and more particularly this about when Ryoung122 claimed a living person had died based on the word of an anonymous British government source, and was forced to retract it after complaints from her family. Considering we are quite often dealing with living people, the whole sourcing about supercentenarians is unacceptable in my opinion, particularly when a Yahoo group is being used to source people's deaths. O Fenian (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The second link it particularly dismaying. BLP information should certainly not be handled in this manner. I won't comment on the COI as I don't think I'm uninvolved at this point, but I get the feeling that articles related to supercentenarians need much more outside scrutiny than they have been getting. Apparently they are written and maintained strictly by members of that yahoo group who now appear (see above) to apply their own standards of sourcing to this area of the project as well.Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! An IP claims that Robert Young is blatantly breaking canvassing rules! If a user with access can confirm this, he'd better retract quick if he wants to stay on this IMHO. I'll chime in later with relevant history. O Fenian is right on point, but that is just one way that WP:WOP operates as an arm of GRG/OHB/GWR interests rather than WP interests. JJB 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved people may also like to note that Ryoung122 has been discussed on this noticeboard before. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Links?Griswaldo (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Previous appearance on this noticeboard

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32#Longevity myths, Longevity claims, etc.

He used to have his own article, now deleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_(gerontologist)

He's a suspected sockpuppeteer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Ryoung122

Discussions at ANI too.

I just did a search on Ryoung122 and then checked "Everything" to get the WP pages up.

In one case the arb Carcaroth said he could work with him, so perhaps we should drop him a line about it. I'm about to go off-wiki. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I improved Judith's first link above, because the evidence is almost all there. Basically I found Ryoung122 in Apr/May 09 doing exactly what he had been indeffed for, and what he promised not to do as a removal condition after 9 months of block, i.e., preserving his field POV as WP's, extensively and uncivilly. I was also going to add that last month he stepped back from the brink of edit warring after 3 reverts each on 2 articles, and agreed to mediation, which started well until our mediator disappeared on 1 Oct. That is, the last couple weeks he's (either been absent or) behaved much better than any time prior; but now I can't say that either, because there is credible evidence he's canvassing. IMHO, as long as all parties work to build scope consensus on these articles, it doesn't matter if he or other conflicted Yahoo-group members are blocked or not (see WP:WOP talk!); but I would really prefer guidance (please see my last graf on Judith's COIN link) about what to do with those who don't seek to build WP consensus but seek to bring unsourced, OR/SYN, POV consensus from Yahoo-WOP and preserve it at WP. So much evidence that I don't care to list it except for interested requests. Oh, the book Ryoung122 mentions sells for over $100, another COI, which is why I finally succeeded in pulling (or occasionally wikifying) much of the book's OR contents (about 70 sentences) from the article. JJB 21:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Board, is this well-formed, well-evidenced case going to go the way of the last one, where COI was found unequivocally and then ... nothing whatsoever happened? Thank you. JJB 14:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to drop a line to Carcaroth, on his (?her) talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, we really need some regulars on this board to provide uninvolved input. Pretty please. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Update He is now trying to use his own master's thesis as proof that the article discusses a viable subject matter. See here. There is a clear COI here.Griswaldo (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He's been trying that since three years before he wrote it as a thesis and began selling it for $100+! Perhaps, as my last sojourn here also shows, we should adjourn from this board to a heftier one, since there is no doubt expressed then or now as to the COI? JJB 20:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 Remark: Related case at Mediation Cabal located here Netalarm^talk 22:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but that is on a very limited question between two editors. Perhaps it is active again, was dormant for many months. Also see discussion on WP:FTN (passim). The COI question needs to be resolved separately from the content questions, still really needs uninvolved input. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I just commented that there so visitors will know that this is being (or related issues) at several different noticeboards. I'll look into this further later, probably over the weekend or something. Did the fringe theories noticeboard thread resolve anything, or is that also closed without resolution? Netalarm^talk 23:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The current FTN thread has run out of steam, no resolution, partly because people were waiting to see whether anything would happen here. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I propose a result of toothless board and a finding of an open door to a next WP:DR step. E.g., mediation cabal may have just reopened and I'll try that awhiles. Other prognoses invited. JJB 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ericmelse

• Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ericmelse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Melse is a teacher at a business college, and a subject-matter expert. He has been filling articles (particularly Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping) with links to articles he has written, YouTube videos he has created, etc. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Hi, yes, I teach at Nyenrode University, and yes, Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping is one of my focus areas (I did PhD research on the subject). As not many people are aware of either the theory or its potential, I thought I'd contribute to the rather empty wiki lemma on the subject (actually on the page is stated: This accountancy-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.). So, I first added references and video links that are of interest, and I intend to write more on this subject shortly. I hope this clarifies my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmelse (talk • contribs) 16:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Steven T. Murray

• Steven T. Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tiina Nunnally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Osobooks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As I mentioned at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive96#Steven T. Murray, user Osobooks might well be Steven T. Murray, whose article he has edited significantly without including citations (as well as reverting my own edits to the article which were well sourced). Osobooks has not responded to a COI warning placed by another user at User talk:Osobooks, or to the issue I raised at Talk:Steven T. Murray. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Odds are good that the user is Mr Murray, given that he has "signed" some edit summaries as "STM". If I go by that assumption, his removal of the NYTM citation as erroneous would carry some weight. It is surely possible that the author of that article misinterpreted some piece of an interview with Mr Murray, for example, thus making the NYTM article wrong on that point. This Article for example, says that Murray used the pseudonym because he was unable to vet out most of the final pages, so felt it best to leave his name off. Not quite the same as the NYTM's depiction. Arakunem^Talk 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing that an editor claiming to be the subject of an article should be granted more credibility than the New York Times. Surely an editor's contributions should be treated with more skepticism (not less) if the editor is the subject of the article. See for example the content guideline Wikipedia:Autobiography. I acknowledge that the New York Times can make mistakes, but on the other hand it is the classic example of a reliable source on Wikipedia, and in this case the NYT has not published any kind of correction or clarification about the point in issue. Does it not raise major COI alarm bells when the subject of an article has made the majority of edits to the article, including the deletion of sourced material? —Mathew5000 (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said his claim should "carry some weight", meaning don't dismiss it outright just because the subject is stating it. I am merely assuming that he is trying to improve the encyclopedia. So I went and actually looked at what other sources say regarding the removed text, and I found that sources do not all agree with NYTM on the minutia of the reasons that he did those translations under a pseudonym. The Seattle Times article was but one example. So what we have is a potentially contentious statement that reliable sources do not agree on. Under WP:BLP I have to agree with its removal until an acceptable version can be discussed on the talk page. Arakunem^Talk 16:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if the Seattle Times article expressly contradicted the NYTM article, the item sourced to NYTM should not have been deleted from Wikipedia, especially by anyone with a conflict of interest. (Rather, both sources should have been included in the article.) Mathew5000 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember, BLP is policy, COI is a guideline. When they disagree, BLP takes precedence. Removing potentially contentious material from a BLP can and should be removed by anyone. This includes the subject of the BLP IF the material being removed is not supported by sources. (I.e. they can't remove it because they don't like it, if it is adequately sourced.) In this case, sources agree on the "what" (used a pseudonym) but not the "why" (unhappy with editors vs insufficient time vs other). So until the "why" can be agreed on, it should stay out of the article. Including both would not be appropriate; it can be argued that since the sources disagree, one source is "wrong", and knowingly including wrong information in a BLP violates policy. Arakunem^Talk 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not disagree; they are just slanted differently. In any event, if Osobooks (or any editor) is going to remove sourced material from a BLP article, then he should provide conflicting sources at that time. Let's continue this discussion, about what wording the article should use, at Talk:Steven T. Murray. I do still have a serious COI concern over the article as a whole, not just this particular point. If Osobooks is the subject of the article, then he should not be adding unsourced information to it. For example, the listing of awards (including the most recent edit) includes several prizes that were not specifically awarded to him. Mathew5000 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Spiring

• Paul Spiring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 90.213.127.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.197.132.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.26.170.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 90.213.127.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 94.5.235.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TedSherrell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This has been raised before, but doesn't seem fully resolved. The article inflates the subject's notability - the guy is a schoolteacher who has written/cowritten a few niche books - and its editing is dominated by a series of single-purpose IP edits that have solely edited this article and ones pertaining to Paul Spiring's books (see these links :[1]. Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 86.141.82.111 (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'll watchlist it, and encourage other COIN'ers to do so if not already. Activity on the article is rather low/sporadic, and given that most of the editors are (likely dynamic) IPs, all we can do at this point is keep eyes on the article for any future puffery. Arakunem^Talk 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thx - I see the commercial links are starting to be re-added. 86.139.226.105 (talk) 12:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Dr. James Cantor's edit on hebephilia

Dr. Cantor was offended that I declared he has a conflict of interest on that article. As documented in his biography here, Dr. Cantor is a coauthor of the proposal to introduce hebephilia in the DSM-5. This proposal has received criticism from a number of mental health professionals, look here for a partial list. Dr. Cantor has personally removed one such criticism (sourced to forensic psychologist Karen Franklin) from the article on hebephilia, and added none. Is this edit a violation of WP:COI or not? Tijfo098 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• First, I edit WP quite openly, under my real name, and with long-standing disclosures on my userpage about any assocations I have that other editors might think relevant. Whether that is the behavior of someone trying to hide any conflicts is up to others to decide.
• Second, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with anyone criticizing anything I have written in WP or in the real world and covered by WP. I care only that WP policies are followed, as it is my experience that following the rules is all that is necessary for the truth to come out.
• Third, the criticism I deleted was from a blog, which does not meet the criteria for an RS[2]
• Fourth, I immediately posted on the talkpage discussing my edit and my associations [3]
• And finally, when the author of the blog (Karen Franklin) published her first peer-reviewed paper about hebephilia, her status as an expert (by WP definition) potentially changed, making her WP:SPS potentially an RS, I myself wrote that it made COI problems unavoidable on the talkpage[4] and I ceased editing the section.

Whether all of this is actually a stale issue is also up to other editors to opin.

— James Cantor (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

None of that is germane to whether you should be the arbiter of who else is allowed to have his/her criticism (published in WP:RS) included in the Wikipedia article about your proposed changes to the DSM-5, per WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, and WP:COI. The source you removed certainly met WP:RS. It was a two-page letter to the editor published in Archives of Sexual Behavior [5]; it was subjected to editorial oversight. (Ironically, you're on the board of this journal, are now telling us it's an unreliable source of irrelevant blather?) Let me paraphrase Alice Dreger ([6]): If you don't see a COI violation in that action of yours here, you certainly aren't managing your COI as well as you claim. (And for Pete's sake, since when do blog entries get a DOI?!) Tijfo098 (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also point uninvolved editors and admins to a series of edits James Cantor made to his rival Karen Franklin's article. Of note is his removal of the descriptor "prominent," removal of her notability for being the first to publish on a topic, downgrading her awards to "recognition," adding the word "activism" to her bio (while insisting he is not an activist himself), and his addition of proposed "hebephilia" age ranges to generate outrage among lay readers. Numerous studies by Kurt Freund and others have demonstrated that a significant portion of "normal" males are aroused by pubescent people, and that much of this arousal does not rise to the level of acting on that arousal or to the level of mental disorder. James Cantor and his friends are currently engaged in an activist campaign to get "hebephilia" declared a mental disorder in the DSM-V. Because these topics are so taboo and distasteful to lay readers, James Cantor has made a career of parroting popular opinion and presenting his POV as "science," while claiming his rivals are engaging in "activism."

This is part of a long-running pattern of multi-account POV-pushing by James Cantor's half-dozen single-purpose accounts. He wikilawyers with an "expert retention" defense in order to disparage his many prominent offsite critics in their Wikipedia articles (including me). He is the most conflicted editor I have encountered on Wikipedia since the Mywikibiz controversy; in fact, I'd argue James Cantor is the academic equivalent of Gregory Kohs, relentlessly puffing up his allies and disparaging his many critics to advance his career and POV regarding human sexuality via Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing us to the edits James Cantor made to the Karen Franklin article, downplaying her notability[7]. I'd like to add that those edits were without any form of disclosure[8]. James Cantor has a long history of self-promotion while downgrading those who disagree with him, with minimal or no disclosure. For example, when he was reported to COI/N for his personal comments against Lynn Conway, it was under the name "MariontheLibrarion."[9]"

I think James Cantor should refrain from editing articles that he has a professional and financial stake in, including pedophilia, hebephilia, and Karen Franklin. BitterGrey (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have warned Cantor to cease COI edits; if he continues then I suggest early recourse to arbitration (or simply a trip to the admin noticeboard to formalise a topic ban). Guy (Help!) 01:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The original question is whether this 2008 source should be used to criticize or "de-bunk" the mainstream opinion. If you'll click that link and take a look at the image, you'll see a gray bar at the top of the page that says "LETTER TO THE EDITOR". Letters to the editor, especially when written by a person who had never published professionally on the actual subject in question, fail WP:MEDRS. I think that any impartial editor would have considered this at least a very weak source, and probably an unacceptable one. Basically, if Franklin's opinion is actually a non-WP:FRINGEy criticism, then editors will be able to produce a much better source than a letter to the editor, and if they can't, then I suggest that this inability is itself proof that including the criticism is FRINGEy and WP:UNDUE. As a suggestion, this newly published paper by the same author:

• Franklin, K., "Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality." Behavioral Sciences and the Law, n/a. doi:10.1002/bsl.934

might make the same claims, and as a "research paper" in a peer-reviewed academic journal, it would very probably be an acceptable source.

Additionally, I don't think that warning a professor of psychology for "COI edits" by improving (or trying to) articles within his professional area is compatible with the community's goal of WP:Expert retention. WP:EXPERTs are allowed to edit Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the current version of hebephilia, your claim that Blanchard and Cantor's view is already mainstream, seem questionable. Feel free to improve the article to prove your point, but not by creating "mainstream consensus" by removing what those in the field not affiliated with the CAMH said about the proposal. By they way, you have implicitly declared Michael First fringe in your statements above. Good job for someone claiming to hold experts in high esteem. :-/ Tijfo098 (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

As for expert retention, some experts like Carl Hewitt are not worth retaining, it seems. I'm not making that claim about Dr. Cantor, but your undiscerning deference for experts needs refining. You should also check the recent arbitration case involving William Connolley, an expert who was nevertheless topic banned, especially for editing the biographies of his adversaries in a negative way. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If better sources exist -- ones that would support it as a mainstream view -- then why didn't you bother to cite them? It took me fifteen seconds to find Franklin's paper. How much time have you spent fussing about COI, when you could have directly addressed the stated complaint? Cantor's edit summary said, "Non peer-reviewed commentaries are not RS's; that author is not an expert on this topic (has never published an RS on it)." As far as I can tell, Cantor was 100% correct (the source named above hasn't actually been printed on paper yet), and any good editor should have said exactly the same thing.

The correct, encyclopedia-building response to being told that you've cited a lousy source is to find a better one, not to claim that the person who noticed the problem with your source doesn't have any "right" to notice that your source is lousy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a recent proposal to add something to the DSM-5. It's hard to talk of a "mainstream view" either way right now. Your framing of the issue in these terms denotes that you know even less than me what you're talking about. And none of this is germane to whether Cantor's edits violated WP:COI or not. I suggest we continue on the article's talk page if you have any constructive proposals for improving the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

My constructive proposal is that you stop trying to cite the weak Franklin source, and start citing the strong one (assuming that it says the same thing), or a strong source by someone else (if it doesn't). And in general, I advise you to respond to complaints about weak sources by producing strong ones, rather than by complaining about whether a given editor has a "right" to notice that you initially used a weak source. Additionally, I think you'd do well to assume in the future that whenever someone says "that's lousy source", they actually mean "that's a lousy source", rather than "I hate this POV and am actively trying to suppress it to advance my real-world interests". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) Whatamidoing, please do not edit policy to make it support your position during an open debate [10]. This is the second time I have asked you not to do so[11]. Coincidentally, both times involved discussions about James Cantor's COI. BitterGrey (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bittergrey, I suggest that you take a look at the talk page, where I proposed that change back in August. And I don't believe that adding practical information on how to identify the type of publication through PubMed really constitutes a "policy change" to "support my position". If you'll actually read the diff you link, you'll see that it says "Click here to figure out what you're looking at", not "Don't use this kind of source." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have also requested several times that User:WhatamIdoing stop her pattern of misusing policy pages to win arguments (i.e. here and here). I have also emailed her about this ongoing problematic behavior. I doubt she will stop until she faces formal COI sanctions herself on human sexuality topics (without providing any identifying information, her work as a researcher investigates a drug for a disease closely related to sexual activity). Jokestress (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be time for WhatamIdoing to voluntarily disclose her identity, before it becomes an issue on COI/N, as happened with James Cantor[12]. BitterGrey (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite Jokestress' ongoing claims, I am not a drug researcher. I am no more a researcher of any kind than any other Wikipedia editor should be. It is unfortunate that this error is being repeated.

If I were really "misusing policy pages to win arguments", I'd expect the community to stop agreeing with me. But so far, the community seems to favor more attention on getting good sources into articles, and lousy sources out of them, than on who, exactly, is making the improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And Whatamidoing's blanket dismissal of letters to editor or any other venues other that peer reviewed publications for criticism about a proposal is ridiculous. By that standard notoriously bad papers like that of Rind et al. or Spitzer's Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? would be almost impossible to write about in a WP:NPOV fashion because the open criticism in academia is often in the forms of letter to the editor and other venues like books that are subject to editorial oversight, but not prepublication peer review. WhatamIdoing confuses peer review (possibly just prepublication anonymous peer review) for a stamp of indisputable approval of a work/proposal, even by the reviewers. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What you describe as "my" dismissal is actually "the community's" dismissal of letters to the editor as weak sources. If you disagree with the community's guideline at MEDRS, then please start a discussion at WT:MEDRS about changing the guideline to support sources like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Letters to the editor should not be used to state medical facts as uncontroversial, but they certainly are reliable for the purpose of documenting the author's view on certain things, like public health policy implications of some findings. Furthermore, the original paper in this case counts as a WP:PRIMARY study, so by WP:MEDRS it's not really a good source either. Your faulty generalizations don't fly very far. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Further still, the medicalization and pathologization of sexuality are key issues in this debate. Not everyone thinks sexual diversity and gender expression should be considered diseases, and the expansion of disease models is the point of Dr. Franklin's argument about "hebephilia." I don't think WP:MEDRS applies at all, despite attempts to overlay a disease model onto human diversity. The rate of "paraphilias" being created outpaces the number of mental disorders being created. Activists like James Cantor who are pushing to expand these diseases further should consider their COI before adding their own publications and links to articles, and removing their rivals'. Jokestress (talk) 06:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can be statistically shown that gays prefer men as sex partners, and that and heterosexual men often don't. What does that tell us about whether homosexuality should be considered a mental disorder? (Hint: it tells us something about sensitivity and specificity, but that's that.) Franklin as well as the much more notable Michael First (don't judge him by the size of his Wikipedia page; it's often the obscure and controversial that have giant pages here), Richard Green, and others questioned a similar logic used to declare hebephilia a disorder. Blanchard & Cantor's paper shows that you can distinguish to some extent hebephilies from both pedophiles and teleiophiles, but teleiophiles still show a significant amount of attraction towards pubescent adolescents; see fig 3-4 in the paper.) Most of the negative reactions to the proposal to make hebephilia a mental disorder were of the O RLY? variety based on the above issues. (And I'm not exaggerating this, Green titled his letter: Sexual preference for 14-year-olds as a mental disorder: you can't be serious!!) This type of response often doesn't warrant a full paper. Only Franklin has gone to the length of writing a long peer reviewed paper so far Hebephilia: Quintessence of diagnostic pretextuality (quite apart from her initial letter to the editor), but plenty of other experts have commented. Excluding them from the article because their commentaries are not "peer reviewed" would be ridiculous. It is these responses from experts that are an open peer review of the Blanchard-Cantor proposal, albeit a post-publication one. Cantor's removal of the only of these present in the article at the time, but which wasn't by far the only one that had been published at the time of the edit seriously imbalanced the article. Further, I presume that Dr. Cantor reads letters to the editor about his own papers, and he surely didn't try to write for the enemy, but made only self-serving edits in that article, and also negatively edited the biography of one of those critics. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we're being lead off-track by User:WhatamIdoing. The discussion here should be about WP:COI edits. WhatamIdoing hasn't posted anything on the article's talk so far on this topic, or any other topic for that matter [13], but is filling this page with article content issues that are irrelevant on this board. Sorry for giving in to the temptation to reply to some of those, but the attempt to divert this discussion into a WP:MEDRS debate required a detailed rebuttal. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

True. The status of letters to the editor is academic, since the deleting party asserts that it was "a blog" [14]. It clearly was not. Except for WhatamIdoing, do we have a consensus to let Guy's warning stand? BitterGrey (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the reality is that James Cantor repeatedly edits wikipedia in conflict with WP:COI. See here for a preliminary list. I wish he would be more sensitive to this issue, because potentially, he could be a major contributor in this sometimes contentious area because of his expertise. What is required is striking a balance between the two. Unfortunately, I think for the moment, this might be a necessary action, which can easily be reversed once it is obvious that James is editing within the scope of WP:COI. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

BIPAC article and many external links added by representative of group

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

User Yudanashi, who identifies himself here as a representative of BIPAC, created an article about this political action group, which reads like pure promotional material for the group. In the past few days, Yudanashi has also begun adding external links to pages on a BIPAC-owned website to many different articles about politicians. A representative sample link goes to a page that promotes not only the candidate but also BIPAC. It seems to me these links violate WP:COI as well as WP:EL. betsythedevine (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yudanashi here, after reviewing the WP:COI and WP:EL articles I can see how the external links are a conflict of interest and agree that they should be pulled as the sites are mostly run through BIPAC. I disagree that the linking of those sites should cause our Wikipedia article BIPAC to be deleted by Athaenara for speedy deletion under [[15]]. That article, while created by me, doesn't represent a conflict of interest because it is simply the history of the organization. I took great caution while creating that page to not be promoting of BIPAC but simply supplying the historical time-line of BIPAC. I think that the article should have a deletion discussion while I rewrite it from an even more neutral POV. Yudanashi (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It was deleted per {{db-g11}} as unambiguous advertising and promotion in and of itself, not because of your linkspamming activity on other articles. – Athaenara ✉ 21:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Restarting the indents: I found some reliable sources for a story about BIPAC, whose treasurer turns out to be under federal indictment for vote-buying in Alabama. Yudanashi, who has re-created the deleted article with a bit less puffery than the original version, deleted this less-than-flattering information as well as other BIPAC stories currently making news in Alabama. Since the article is a new one, and Yudanashi and I seem to be the only 2 people editing it, I would like help and guidance from some experienced editor. Yudanashi claims on my talk page that the news stories of Alabama candidates being criticized for donations they got from BIPAC really refer to donations from BIPEC, a different group. I have yet to see a reliable source for that claim. I also take issue with Yudanashi's repeated claims for BIPAC (as it claims for itself) that it is "non-partisan"; check out the list of candidates they support and see how non-partisan you think they are:[16]. betsythedevine (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What we are talking about are 2 separate organizations. This has already been hashed out on the web at the | LeftinAlabama site

The first is BIPAC incorporated in August 1963 in Washington DC.| FEC PACRONYM Database, pdf The Second is "BI PAC" Incorporated in 1989 in Alabama (found by visiting the Secretary of State site and searching for the treasurer's name "Geddie"). These are 2 completely non-related organizations. The confusion has come in because some Alabama newspapers have had a typo in using "BIPAC" (sic) instead of BI PAC. [17] [18]Yudanashi (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the non-partisan angle, I submit our own separate press release wherein BIPAC recognizes pro-prosperity democrats.[19] Also this Bloomberg article which states the same [20]Yudanashi (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As for the non-partisan angle, you are supporting 68 Republicans and ZERO Democrats in 2010. Having a separate listing where you "recognize" some conservative Democrats does not make you bi-partisan. betsythedevine (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In 2010 BIPAC is supporting non-incumbents, what pro-business, non-incumbent, Democrat is out there? Over the course of the organizations history (which is more encyclopedic than just the 2010 cycle), BIPAC has contributed to candidates regardless of party line. As a pro-business group, many see that as ONLY GOP candidates, but this CQ Politics article notes the fact that this is not true.74.96.186.205 (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

BIPAC is entitled to support whatever candidates it want. It makes little sense to call your organization "bi-partisan" or "non-partisan," terms implying an even-handed approach, on the basis that it has on rare occasions in the past supported a Democrat while spending millions to help Republicans. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subjects of its articles; it should not be subverted to give respectability to inaccurate claims that organizations make about themselves. Let me add that disputes such as this are precisely why editors with a WP:COI are discouraged from editing their own articles. Your loyalty as an editor should be to the goal of informing readers.betsythedevine (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing [nonpartisan] with bi-partisan. non-partisan means not affiliated with any political party. BIPAC is not affiliated with any political party. BIPAC is non-partisan. It doesn't care about party line which includes social issues. It only cares about business issues and is thus non-partisan. Wikipedia is meant to convey accurate information about the subject of its articles, so don't muddle the definition of bipartisan and nonpartisan which are two separate things. Countless articles have echoed the claim of non-partisanship without dispute, you are the only one raising complaint that those claims are inaccurate and I think it comes from a misreading of the words bipartisan and nonpartisan, just like the misreading of "BI PAC" and BIPAC in which you claimed the Alabama Secretary of State had the typo in the official paperwork, not the Decatur daily news. Yudanashi (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be content to see the article say that BIPAC has no affiliation with either political party, but has given much more support to Republicans to Democrats. I think this gives a more accurate view of the matter than calling it "nonpartisan." betsythedevine (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

non-partisan means "has no affiliation with either political party" So does The group is non-partisan, but has given much more support to Republicans than to Democrats in the 2010 Congressional races work for you betsythedevine? Yudanashi (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The word non-partisan can mean http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nonpartisan a lot of things] -- its implications include "free from bias" or "supporting the interests of no political party", neither of which applies to BIPAC. Either "has no affiliation with either political party" or "refers to itself as nonpartisan" would be OK. From the Wikipedia article nonpartisan: "Some nonpartisan organizations are truly such; others are nominally nonpartisan but in fact are generally identifiable with a political party." betsythedevine (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You state that non-partisan means "supporting the interests of no political party". BIPAC in its giving does NOT support the interest of a political party. If it did, it would only contribute to 1 party. Period. Has BIPAC only made contributions to 1 party? No. BIPAC has made contributions across party lines which means that BIPAC is NOT affiliated with a political party. by definition "non-partisan".Yudanashi (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

More promotional language: cherry-picking from a very critical Mother Jones article the throwaway comment that BIPAC is "a powerful force" is promotional and misleading. There is an ocean of "nonpartisan" money drowning US elections from major players such as the Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove's American Crossroads, American Future Fund. I appreciate that Yudanashi is new to Wikipedia but I would like some consensus here that BIPAC currently rates maybe two paragraphs describing its origins and efforts, paragraphs that should be in NEUTRAL language. betsythedevine (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The language is not mine, but Mother Jones' who starts the article describing BIPAC as such:"For much of the past decade, the Business Industry Political Action Committee has been a powerful force in helping tilt elections for corporate-friendly candidates. The blue-ribbon business group, made up of more than 400 companies and trade associations—from Lockheed Martin to the American Petroleum Institute and the Financial Services Roundtable—maintains the "Prosperity Project," which includes a state-of-the-art database to track candidates' stands on issues from regulation to taxes to health care. Many of BIPAC's members circulate this analysis (PDF) to their employees. In the past, that's all a company could do—provide employees information it hoped would prod them to vote for pro-business candidates." None of that is a "throwaway comment" in the article. Yes it goes on to talk about Citizens United, but that is not an expose on BIPAC but on what could happen in a post citizens united world which belongs not on BIPAC's page but on theCitizens United Criticism article.Yudanashi (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The article then goes into detail

It is quite clear that Yudanashi and 74.96.186.205 should cease editing the article in question. Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Petersen

• Patricia Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 111.220.231.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.220.197.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.220.238.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.220.227.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 111.220.249.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Anonymous editor editing from dynamic IPs has been continually inserting and re-inserting information favourable to the subject of the article that is not supported by the sources. They have ignored a number of efforts to discuss concerns (see User talk:111.220.249.29 and Talk:Patricia Petersen). The article history, particularly the edits around the 5th of June (which led to the page being semi-protected) may be particularly illuminating.  -- Lear's Fool 03:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have done some editing which ended up making the article very similar to your last version. I will notice any further editing. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Julio Robaina

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

Julio Robaina is being edited by new account Juliorobiana (talk · contribs)...repeated additions of obviously POV material, with concomitant loss of wiki formatting, hasn't been stemmed by reversions and WP:COI/WP:NPOV warnings. — Scientizzle 02:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The version he's posting is a copy-and-paste of his official biography at http://www.hialeahfl.gov/dep/mayor/biography.aspx --CliffC (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I left some detailed, non-templated advice on the problems, including the copyright problem, on his talk page. Arakunem^Talk 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Scott Rhodes (stuntman)

• Scott Rhodes (stuntman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Teel James Glenn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• RGriff1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Scott Rhodes (stuntman) (Robert G. Griffith) appears to be an autobiography of RGriff1935 (talk · contribs). Also possible coi with Teel James Glenn. Continues to remove coi and other maintenance templates without resolving many of the articles' issues--these are essentially press releases for performers whose notability may or may not be established. Possible afd candidates? JNW (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

KAET

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

The two IP users listed above removed details on KAET's recent financial crisis on, without stating any reason ([21]), and continued to do so even after their edits were reverted ([22]).

The original section was well supported with sources from Phoenix newspapers. A WHOIS check of these IPs reveal that they belong to Arizona State University's network. These two IP addresses also have not edited anything outside of KAET.

Since KAET is a part of ASU, it is almost certain that whoever is behind the section blanking works for KAET in some capacity.Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 00:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Greenman

• Ben Greenman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Anton Chekhov‎‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Porfirio Rubirosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goldman Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.65.226.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A review of this IP's edits shows the majority are devoted to shining up the Ben Greenman article or dropping a mention of Greenman into other articles, recent example here. --CliffC (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Kresimir Chris Kunej Enforcement please

I had posted a request for help on COIN on September 7 this year here [23] There is a dispute concerning this article that currently has a COI tag. Several involved authors insist on placing this tag as dissent over article not being deleted as they wished and voted at AfD. Anyhow, many COIN participants contributed to the article at the time, and participant Atama contributed a lot to the talk page discussion. Atama stated “could someone outline the exact problems in the article that need to be addressed in order to remove the COI cleanup tag? The tag isn't supposed to be a permanent mark of shame for an article, nor is it meant to warn about behavioral issues, it is meant to help cleanup the article" Those addressed by that did so. The COI tag proponents’ concerns were addressed, arguments refuted. Atama has since that time not been contributing to WP, I do hope they are ok. Accordingly, the COI tag still stands, as does the impasse. It has been a month and a half. Would someone please uphold the policy and the civil discussion and work done there and remove the COI tag? Thanks in advance. Turqoise127 23:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)