Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wctaiwan (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 6 April 2012 (→‎Tony Lama: explain). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch
Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the 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 Time Called You
    Talk:A&P
    Talk:Access Industries
    Talk:Advanced Research and Invention Agency
    Talk:American Water Works
    Talk:Florence Ashley
    Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals
    Talk:Avia Solutions Group
    Talk:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Bank of Greene County
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:William Bolcom
    Talk:BP
    Talk:Brookfield Properties
    Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes
    Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy
    Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz
    Talk:Change Healthcare
    Talk:Character.ai
    Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange
    Talk:Chime (company)
    Talk:Citadel Securities
    Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol
    Talk:The Culinary Institute of America
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment
    Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker)
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Ed Dodds
    Talk:Dowa Holdings
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Energy Capital Partners
    Talk:ESAB
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Scott Farquhar
    Talk:Fastly
    Talk:Randy Fine
    Talk:Anne Finucane
    Talk:Florida Power & Light
    Talk:Bryan Fogel
    Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather
    Talk:John Freund (business executive)
    Talk:Bradley Fried
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:Judy Genshaft
    Talk:Geotab
    Talk:GetYourGuide
    Talk:GLX Digital
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:Colin Goldberg
    Talk:Rene Gonzalez (politician)
    Talk:Grail (company)
    Talk:Green Line (TRAX)
    Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin
    Talk:Grove Collaborative
    Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School
    Talk:Shashi Gupta
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Holly Ham
    Talk:Arlene Harris (inventor)
    Talk:Henley & Partners
    Talk:Heterodox Academy
    Talk:Eric Hippeau
    Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Industrious
    Talk:Institutional Venture Partners
    Talk:International Churches of Christ
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Simcha Jacobovici
    Talk:Valerie Jarrett
    Talk:Jawaharlal Nehru Cancer Hospital & Research Centre
    Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service
    Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Amitabh Kant
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:King School
    Talk:King the Land
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Dion Lee
    Talk:Jeffrey Leiden
    Talk:Martin Lewis (financial journalist)
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Robert Luciano
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:Metlifecare
    Talk:Christos Metskas
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Moody Nolan
    Talk:MP Materials
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0
    Talk:Oasis Management
    Talk:Omaha Steaks
    Talk:Operating system
    Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting
    Talk:Karen O'Rourke
    Talk:Orphan Train
    Talk:Orphanage
    Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel)
    Talk:Joseph C. Papa
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker)
    Talk:Matthew Pittinsky
    Talk:Plinabulin
    Talk:Polymarket
    Talk:Programming language
    Talk:Pure Storage
    Talk:Qiagen
    Talk:Quantitative storytelling
    Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership
    Talk:Revel Transit
    Talk:Jarred Rome
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Roland Rudd
    Talk:Jay Ruderman
    Talk:Scandia (theme parks)
    Talk:Schott AG
    Talk:Joanna Shields, Baroness Shields
    Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:SoundExchange
    Talk:Subway (restaurant)
    Talk:Sysco
    Talk:Joseph Tabrikian
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:The Peninsula Hotels
    Talk:The Red Sleeve
    Talk:Titmouse, Inc.
    Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire
    Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United Launch Alliance
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Veris Residential
    Talk:Versapay
    Talk:Dan Wagner
    Talk:Terry Wahls
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Washington University Medical Center
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Thomas Albert Work
    Talk:Sam Yagan
    Talk:Zearn
    Talk:Zero-day vulnerability
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs

    User:Toimad's Talk page indicates he's Imad Farrah, a PASSIA employee. Yesterday he vastly expanded the PASSIA article without any secondary sources.—Biosketch (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    …and with a lot of copy-paste from the organisation webpage - I've removed a load on the way past but not had a chance to properly look… Fayedizard (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FortressCraft (2nd report)

    This issue was already posted about here on the noticeboard, but nothing was ever done. Here's the original posting. Basically, as DarthBotto had stated in his report:

    • 87.194.139.68 has revealed himself to be the lead designer of FortressCraft (see this diff).
    • KingFredrick VI runs the FortressCraft Wiki and has been removing the Video game clones category from the articles.
    • HereticKiller6's only edits have been reversions about information that might portray FortressCraft in a less than favorable manner. Basically he's pushing his own personal POV about the game.


    Here's some diff's of various issues I've touched on above:

    I could also go through a ton of diffs relating to edit warring on the FortressCraft article, by HereticKiller6, but I think you guys should really just check out the page history.


    As for myself, I don't have any conflict of interest with any of the three articles whatsoever. Yes, I've played all three games on my XBOX. But that's not really pertinent information. I'm not a member of any Wikis for any of the three games. The only reason I'm bringing this discussion back up is because this edit warring has continued and something needs to be done about this, and because the original posting that DarthBotto had started went unnoticed and is now archived. As DarthBotto stated in his report, "I think that after ten months of this, we need some administrative attention to this page". However, it's now been over 10 months of this, and despite editing slowing down on the three articles, I still think that something needs to be done.

    Now, I'm not 100% sure on how to notify the people who have been named that there's a discussion here that they are a part of, so if someone can notify them for me, that would be greatly appreciated. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also note that I believe one of the editors of the CastleMiner article could potentially be the creator of the game, or someone involved in creating it, due to the statement in the "Reception" section of the article. "CastleMiner Z was the #1 downloaded Indie of 2011. It is widely considered the best XBLIG, and it has received a lot of awards because of this." Seems very biased to me. Personally, I think that either all three articles should be locked so only admins can edit it, or users such as KingFrederick, HereticKiller6, and the IP of the creator of Fortress Craft (87.194.139.68) should be blocked from editing due to their obvious COI issues. 209.159.183.132 (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if "bumping" things is "kosher" here on Wikipedia, but I'm gonna bump this to prevent the bot from archiving it. This still needs attention. 173.238.166.40 (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stephen Dalton (photographer)

    User has same surname as the subject of the article they've created. The article uses lots of promotional words and all but a small section is unsourced. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Slight clarification - Lee is Stephen's son. [1] Fayedizard (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    California State University, San Bernardino

    User:Csusbnews has identified itself as the public affairs department of the university here. Unsourced information has been added to the university article by the university. 72Dino (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs studious depuffing - all I did was remove one of the many brochure images - I do not think Wikipedia is supposed to be a college recruiting brochure? Collect (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Inside Edition

    User name indicates user might work for the subject of the article. Edits made have been promotional in nature. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Depuffed a bit more Collect (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Kelly (British politician)

    There have been several attempts to remove material relating to a scandal about Chris Kelly and his use of his Parliamentary email account to find a job for his sister. These edits are all from IP addresses registered to the Houses of Parliament. I have proposed the material is retained in the article on the article talk page but I would prefer several eyes on this case as Jayen466, who has been published as recently having meetings with the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party has decided to also get involved and remove the same material. Thanks Fæ (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The "scandal" is, as far as I can see, one article in the Daily Mail, and a complaint from a Labour MP that Kelly used a parliamentary e-mail address for a private matter. I can't see that any reputable biographical dictionary would devote 20% of a parliamentarian's biography to something like this, and neither should we. --JN466 19:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The DM is a reliable source in this instance. It was originally sourced to my beloved Private Eye. The 20% figure may reflect the fact that he has had a not particularly interesting parliamentary career. I am disturbed by the HOP editing, wherever it occurs. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you have a link for the original Private Eye story? I think you may be confusing this with another story that was in the article once, and removed by Scott Mac. And while it's a bit daft to have the same conversation in two places – this seems to be something that only the Daily Mail took an interest in. There is fairly wide consensus that The Daily Mail should not be used for controversial information in BLPs; recent discussions at RSN have tended to conclude that its reliability is borderline, that it's better to cite other papers, and that if there aren't any others reporting on a particular Daily Mail story, the material probably has little business being in an encyclopedia article in the first place. The Daily Mail is at the bottom of our reliability and relevance scale. In my view, inclusion puts too much weight on a very minor episode which the Daily Mail very much tried to make something of, but which no one has claimed broke any laws or parliamentary rules, and no one else seems to have taken much interest (unless you insist on counting the Stourbridge News, a local free newspaper). Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Cheers, JN466 21:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my original addition to the article. It was PE issue 1280. [2] Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So the e-mail thing was in Private Eye as well, was it? Looking at your diff, with respect, that was a pretty weaselly addition. "Following his election it was revealed that Kelly had emailed all Conservative MP's asking if they would give his sister, Nicola, a secretarial job. Kelly was accused of abusing his position." What is that doing in an encyclopedia? I could understand if it had been something discussed in multiple broadsheets, or had had any significance whatsoever, but as it is, it is just petty, and an example of what I called WP:ADAM here. Also see [3]. JN466 08:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayen466, in consideration of your meetings with senior Conservative Party members, could you confirm you have no possible conflict of interest when it comes to removing negative material from Conservative party biographical articles for active politicians, or if others might later judge that you do have a conflict that ought to be declared and managed? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Herewith confirmed. No conflict of interest whatsoever. This is not about party politics, Fæ, but about BLP quality. I make no difference based on whether it is a LibDem, Conservative or Labour MP. JN466 08:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Outside view: No COI exists here. Collect (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Woodforest National Bank

    User Woodforest80 has made 11 edits, all to Woodforest National Bank, most recently about 9 months ago. The article doesn't get much attention from editors, but its prose has a distinct COI glow about it. It got about 100 views a day last month.[4] I have flagged the article as COI and warned the user. ke4roh (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Article depuffed. Collect (talk) 14:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could do with a bit of careful handling this one...

    So I've no idea what to do about this promotional edit, given that there appears to be some school project run by Rhona_McEwen which some students are working hard - if it were a lone user I'd revert as promotional but this looks like I might be getting myself into a little trouble… any expereinced hands want to jump in? Fayedizard (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    And one of the reasons it might require careful handling is that one of the groups of students appears to be charged with creating an article about the course leader? from Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Courses/The_Rhetoric_of_Digital_and_Interactive_Media_Environments_(Rhonda_McEwen))

    <START QUTOE>

    Group 3

    Group name: CAST
    Topic: Rhonda Nanette McEwen

    Spokesperson & Designated Sandbox: (User:sherry.yuchengr/sandbox) <END QUTOE>

    So year - would be good to get other people comments on this… Fayedizard (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Faye. Unquestionably a COI. I actually know the parties involved, so I'll send them a line. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an online ambassador for that Wikipedia:Canada Education Program. I don't actually remember signing up for this course, but it did appear on my watchlist so I'm following up on the concern. I sent an email to the professor (McEwen) and the instructor listed on the course page notifying them of the COI guideline and asking for them to direct the students to alternate articles. maclean (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As a follow-up, the professor responded positively. She understands the conflict of interest now. She says she will integrate some of it into her userpage profile. I will try to bring the article up to standards. I have no objection if someone wants to see if it would survive an AfD. maclean (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Maclean :) much appreciated, and it's great to find out that the students have had their work looked at - I think that the Rhonda McEwen article isn't going to pass Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) so I've AfD'd it - but certainly if it survives I'd be happy to come back and give it a bit of work with you :) Fayedizard (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    David E. Henderson

    Could an uninvolved editor look this over please. The articles subject is editing the article and attacking me for asking for citations. Theroadislong (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I am now being accused of slander and I am extremely concerned at the continued personal attacks.Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    and now this... http://www.davidhenderson.com/2012/03/30/looking-behind-the-veil-of-wikipedia-and-who-is-pulling-the-levers/ where I am mistakenly named as another user.Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloomberg Markets Article

    Hello. I introduced myself here a while ago to acknowledge my activity with Bloomberg L.P. Recently I have been working on a revised draft of the Bloomberg Markets article, as the current article lacks any significant information. (My draft is here: User:RivBitz/Bloomberg_Markets_Sandbox}. I discussed revisions for the article with User:Mrmatiko in the Help Desk live chat and he said he approved of the revisions. I do not feel comfortable posting the revisions myself because of my conflict of interest. Would anyone here be willing to take a look at the draft, and if the article revisions seem appropriate, posting the edits into the actual article? Thanks --RivBitz (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Article style and references look good. There appears to be a complete absence of negative coverage. Has no article has ever been withdrawn or criticised? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. The magazine is relatively new (hit newsstands in 2000), and I have not come across any reliable sources that criticize the magazine. However, I'm definitely always open to adding critical sources if they arise.--RivBitz (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kirsty Lang

    A new user with the name Kirstylang has made two edits to the article on Kirsty Lang. Both were constructive, but there is a clear conflict of interest. Uvghifds (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've dropped a note on her talk page [5]. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The Widowmaker – Ian Easton

    User name is the name of the subject of the article. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Push Girls

    New account of Sundancechannel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sundance Channel being the channel the show will appear on. Edits have been reverted as unsourced and promotional in nature. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hunger Games (film)

    This article is highly unbalanced with many favourable edits coming from IP addresses (unregistered users).

    Just random examples (there are more if you look): 1 2 3

    Genjix (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is very common with recently broadcast TV shows and released films in the USA. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Being biased is not the same as having a conflict of interest. If the POV pusher gets no real-world benefit for the biased edits, then there is no COI violation. You could consider a trip to WP:NPOVN, which is the place for garden-variety biased editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Focusanddetermination08

    Articles created
    1. Ahmed Samerai
    2. Sahara Communications
    3. Kevin Pho
    4. Ryan Messick
    • Account appears to have been used for single purpose of spam/promotional/publicity purposes, possibly by some sort of public relations firm.
    • Large gap of edits between December 2011 and March 2012, then this, diff.
    • Could use a bunch of editors looking into the above articles, as well as other stuff from Special:Contributions/Focusanddetermination08.

    Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meghan.reilly/Archive may be helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    James Cantor

    While researching an answer for a previous COI/N discussion, I found a pattern of old COI edits that was surprisingly extensive: Of the times James Cantor has been written into or cited in Wikipedia articles, roughly 68 of 79 were by James Cantor, an IP, or a login that was permanently blocked for suspicious edits. I've assembled a preliminary list of details and diffs for the refs to Cantor and CAMH. (Please feel free to add any instances I missed and correct any mistakes.)

    To summarize: James Cantor has been written into the bodies of Wikipedia articles at least 11 times; 7 by Cantor, with 5 of those anonymously as "MariontheLibrarian." Some of these included edit wars (eg [6][7][8]...[9]). 3 were added by IPs or now-permanently blocked logins. Of the 11, only one was added by an account without a COI, permanent block, etc.

    James Cantor has been cited at least 68 times; 45 by Cantor, with 39 of those anonymously as "MariontheLibrarian." These sometimes replaced citations to rivals (eg [10]). Another 13 were added by IPs or permanently blocked logins. Of the 68, only ten were added by accounts without a COI, permanent block, etc. (To isolate this from a separate issue, two articles were excluded from these figures.)

    Since James Cantor's recent edits haven't been that bad, new disciplinary action might not be warranted. However, it seems likely that James Cantor's past edits as a whole have placed undue emphasis on himself and possibly his colleagues. Perhaps it would be best to post a comment about this pattern on the talk pages of the affected articles. This would provide those maintaining the articles with the big picture. They could then decide what adjustments, if any, to make to the article content. BitterGrey (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Every single one of those citations are from 2008, and Cantor's latest post on COIN (from the archives) pretty instrumentally demonstrates that he understands COI on wikipedia. This very much looks like there was a problem of selfcitation in the past, but is no longer an issue. The issue may be that Bittergrey objects to the use of any citation by James Cantor. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd invite everyone to go to the list, click on the first dif attributed to Cantor, and see that it is clearly not from 2008[11]. Obviously, WLU's claim "Every single one of those citations [is] from 2008" is untrue. That written, this is a matter of old content, not recent edits, exactly as I stated in my original post.
    As usual, WLU is both wrong and is hounding me. The more recent example was at sexology, escalating to EL/N. I had questioned one EL, and WLU reacted by removing all the other ELs, leaving that one. WLU hadn't checked the ELs. If he had, he might have known that I was arguing to keep an EL that James Cantor had added some time before[12], but that WLU had removed. (Technically, Cantor re-added it, but that is beside the point.) This actually wasn't the first example of me defending a position which turned out to be Cantor's against WLU. I could give more, but I think the point is made. He's been hounding me for a year, and has picked a lot of fights. WLU attempted to hijack that EL/N discussion, including declaring it resolved twice[13][14], just as he is trying to hijack this one.
    I wish I could write that WLU's practices have improved as much as James Cantor's. BitterGrey (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have a problem with my behaviour, you are welcome to bring it up somewhere appropriate. All the links on this page are from 2008, and the most recent discussion on COIN was from James Cantor alerting the community of a new peer reviewed article he authored - which he did not add himself. The apparently new link is from April 2010, two years ago. Again, his latest COIN shows that he is well aware of conflict of interest issues. I see no reason to bring this up here, there is no recent activity indicating a problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, WLU, as you can see by the section title, this is about James Cantor, not you. You are the one who is butting in here, as you do most everywhere else I edit.
    I specifically left the two articles affected by WLU's hounding of me out of the above figures. (The actual reason I made the list was to learn this: WLU appears never to have named or cited Cantor before WLU started hounding me, and never in any article that I either had not edited or had given him free reign to edit. Apparently, he only mentions or cites Cantor when he thinks it will cause a fight.)
    Now back to the subject of James Cantor, if WLU will stop butting in.BitterGrey (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am grateful for the consensus that I have been editing quite appropriately for years. (I would add, however, that I believe that my earlier edits also followed both the spirit and the letter of WP:COS.)
    But, despite that even BitterGrey says my editing has been fine for years, he is nonetheless making this report at COIN. Indeed, he has been making such reports at noticeboards, edit warring with multiple other editors about me, for a long time. (I stopped participating in such discussions myself also a long time ago.) Also of note is BitterGrey’s usersubpage, tracking anyone who might be part of the conspiracy to promote me, anyone I know, any topic related to anyone I know, and so on. Clearly, WLU is not hounding BitterGrey. Rather, BitterGrey is hounding me, and WLU is simply the most recent editor to have gotten caught in the conspiracy theory.
    I study some very controversial issues, and being hounded just comes with the territory for me. But other editors should not have to bear the consequences.
    Whether the representation of me, my colleagues, etc. in WP is disproportionately large (because of my editing) or small (because of BitterGrey’s) is, of course, for other editors to decide.
    — James Cantor (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to me that JC has used Wikipedia to promote himself and closely-related people and topics. I can't say I know what to do about it, but it appears to me that BG wants a mass deletion of Cantor-related material. I would like to get a sense of what sorts of changes/deletions are being considered by BG. Binksternet (talk) 05:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    re Binksternet: While I'm open to other ideas, my suggestion was to provide those maintaining the affected articles with the big picture and let them decide what adjustments to make. A mass deletion of Cantor-related material wasn't my intent. Over ~10% was added by other established editors in good standing, so it makes sense that more than 10% should remain. I hadn't planned on deciding how much more myself. I thought it best to post here, in case others had better ideas.
    re Cantor: I wrote that your editing had improved, not that it was fine for years. For example, since you work with the person who's name is on the autogynephilia article, you shouldn't have called for the deletion of the (non-auto) gynephilia article in 2011. Perhaps if I were paying closer attention to you, I would have some more recent examples. Your claim of a "consensus" based on only one editor doesn't inspire confidence. BitterGrey (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My name shows up 17 times in that section. 13 of those mentions are by you, Bittergrey. You are bringing up my behaviour, not me. My two comments to date focus on James Cantor's behaviour, my sole discussion of my own was to note that this is not the place to discuss my behaviour. So if you want to talk about James Cantor, do so.
    It's never appropriate to say "X author/source is used too many times". The gross numbers never matter. What does matter is how each specific reference is used. A controversial source could be used to cite uncontroversial information like definitions, dates, names and the like. What is needed is an example, or list of current uses of citations by James Cantor that are problematic. Though, since this is COIN and not NPOVN, the real issue is specific examples of current behaviour by someone with a conflict of interest. I would venture that there are no such examples for James Cantor. The most recent diff I've seen so far is two years old, while the COIN discussion I linked to is from January, 2012, and was started by James Cantor to demonstrate that he wasn't engaging in conflict of interest editing.
    The idea of paring back all citations to 10% of what is currently there is also inappropriate. Each citation's use and presence stands on its own merits - not on who added it. So what current and specific citations are problematic?
    I simply can't see why this is being discussed on COIN when James Cantor obviously understands that citing himself is inappropriate (he may consider his self-imposed restrictions excessive, but that doesn't matter - what matters is that he edits in compliance with the COI guidelines). Since there is no current conflict of interest issue to be resolved, why is this discussion here? Why not take it to individual talk pages? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The bigger problem with BitterGrey's anyone-connected-to-Cantor worry is that it's an incredibly small field. In the end, basically every mainstream pedophilia researcher is "connected to Cantor" directly or indirectly. That's because there just aren't that many of them. You could seat them all in a single room.
    Here's a simple illustration: If you go to Pubmed and search for "pedophilia", you'll get a list of 300 papers published in the last ten years. More than one-eighth of those papers are either written by Cantor or written by someone he's co-authored a paper with. Far more of them cite a paper he's written or that one of his close colleagues has written. Cantor has one paper that (according to Google Scholar) has been cited more than 100 times. Several others have been cited fifty to seventy times. These are not minor papers by some fringe-y outfit that are being ignored by the academic researchers in the field. If Wikipedia isn't citing papers by Cantor or someone connected to Cantor at a fairly significant rate, then we're not doing our jobs right.
    Naturally, an activist like BitterGrey will have his own opinions about whether Cantor is right, but I doubt that even BitterGrey would try to claim that the work by Cantor and his colleagues doesn't represent the mainstream "establishment" view of pedophilia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The three categories were 1)Cantor or logins that he is now open about having used, 2)IPs or blocked users, and 3)other logins. I have no "anyone-connected-to-Cantor worry," contrary to WAID's misrepresentation. Please note that WAID and WLU have a long history of joining to argue against me, with EL/N being a recent example. A difference there is that I was arguing for an EL which happened to have distant connections to James Cantor. BitterGrey (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you believe that James Cantor is currently abusing multiple accounts, the appropriate action is to start a sockpuppet investigation. None of my comments are in any way a personal attack and they stand unrebutted - problems from 2010 that do not occur now are irrelevant. There is no point in criticizing an editor for mistakes they used to make. An editor who made mistakes and improved is a laudable memeber of the community whose continued presence should be encouraged. Again, I see no issue relevant to COIN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "currently abusing multiple accounts?" It seems WLU and WAID are intent on putting accusations in my mouth, in hopes of distracting from what I really wrote. This tactic only seems rational if they have already accepted that what I wrote is correct, and are hoping to misdirect others from that truth.BitterGrey (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth: I have never abused any account. For the first eight weeks of my four years on WP, I edited under a pseudonym, which is very much my right. I then decided to start editing under my own name, even though that is entirely optional. I linked my old account to my new account, and I linked my new account to my old account. (The notices are still there.) I have never switched back, even for single one of my several thousand edits. If there is any rule, guideline, or optional suggestion that I failed to use in order to be as transparent as possible, no one has said what it was.— James Cantor (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bittergrey, if you don't believe James Cantor is currently abusing multiple accounts, then what is the purpose of this section? Particularly given James' current practice of suggesting inclusion on talk pages and seeking input from COIN rather than editing the article directly? If you have problems with how individual citations are used, isn't the best way forward to deal with them on a page-by-page basis? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A link to the COI/N discussion about MarionTheLibrarian, initiated by another user. While not outing James Cantor, this did remove his option of continuing to edit under an undisclosed COI. Of course, that is history. At issue now is what we should do with the residuals of those edits, as well as more recent ones. BitterGrey (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If in the 3.5 years between that board posting and this one, nobody has raised any concerns, what is the current issue? And what edits, specifically, are currently problematic? COIN is about conflict of interest, you appear to be suggesting there are weight issues on those pages and that's a different noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To try to counter efforts by involved editors to sidetrack this, I'll highlight the one comment (and so far only one) by an editor who isn't involved in some way: Binksternet: "It appears to me that JC has used Wikipedia to promote himself and closely-related people and topics. I can't say I know what to do about it, but it appears to me that BG wants a mass deletion of Cantor-related material. I would like to get a sense of what sorts of changes/deletions are being considered by BG." I hope that I have responded to his reasonable concerns - I'm not asking for a mass deletion, just testing out the idea of some talk page comments[15].BitterGrey (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Many paid for articles with problems

    Expewikiwriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked per WP:SOCK and WP:SPAM) has created many articles this year, many of which are on subjects of questionable notability and which contain advert-like content. The most recently created ones have been dealt with, but if anyone has the time to go through older contribs and deal with them it would be helpful. SmartSE (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've PROD'd about half-a-dozen article to which he has been the main contributor. They have varying levels of non-notability. One or two of the articles I didn't may actually be notable, so I didn't touch them. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    William Looney

    I have a COI with this article so I cannot add it, but the subject now has an official website so could someone please determine if it is appropriate to add http://www.exceedingexpectationsinc.com/?--v/r - TP 21:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than search for it myself, do you know if the website claims somewhere that it's the official website of William Looney? If it is, I see no problem with linking it in the external links section as the official website, even if the website's purpose is to sell his services. OlYeller21Talktome 21:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find that it's official, exactly, but the copyright listed on the page is "Copyright © 2009, 2011 William R Looney III.". That's good enough for me.
    Reading through the website a bit more, it does feel very promotional. I wouldn't use it to support opinions in the article but I think it's obviously the official website of the subject of the article and has a place in the external links section. OlYeller21Talktome 21:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks very much. It is very much promotional for his speaking and leadership seminars but it is definitely his official and only website.--v/r - TP 21:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Student assigned to update Analytic Hierarchy Process for professor and creator of AHP

    Sava magda (talk · contribs) is a student of Thomas L. Saaty [16] and doesn't see how updating Analytic Hierarchy Process as a school assignment from Prof Saaty would be a conflict of interest [17]. --Ronz (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't see the problem of updating the Wikipedia with the information regarding professor Saaty work. I'm a PhD student and part of my tasks is to help the professors with their work - even this means updating the Wikipedia website with useful information regarding the AHP/ANP models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sava magda (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:COI - because of your close connection with the subject matter you have a clear conflict of interest. Your professors should understand this and not ask you to carry out this task. Also note that the updates you were trying to make were more suitable for an academic paper than for an encyclopedia.--ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be worth contacting User:Lou Sander on this - he was also a student of Saaty and is the major contributor to the page...[18] Fayedizard (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good suggestion! I've left Lou a note. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As long as we are promoting projects which involve students, we will have students who are learning rather than being expert in editing Wikipedia. Look to the edits and see if they are NPOV . If they aren' t, this is a student , give then some guidance, help them understand. If after that the student is still having problems that's another issue. If we want to hold on to new editors and students, we have to treat them like new editors and students, not like experienced long term editors.(olive (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    Is a way to find editors who've offered to help with such endeavors? --Ronz (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Stourbridge College

    Although I have amended the page as of present, there have been a couple of recent edits to the Stourbridge College page, by the same user, that appear to have replaced cited, verifiable content with information that clearly appears to have been written by someone with a close connection to the subject, some of which even reads like an advertisement of sorts. I'm not sure whether this is appropriate to report on this board (I'm pretty new to Wikipedia), but I'm just wondering if another editor would be able to keep an eye on the situation? --LivingInMediocrity (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Keurig

    User's edits to the named article and K-Cup indicate they may work for the company that is the subject of the article. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Science Friday

    Ira Flatow is the host of the radio program Science Friday. It seems reasonable that User:Iflatow is the same person, and he contributes to both articles. I put the appropriate warning on his talk page and flagged both of those articles with {{COI}}.ke4roh (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anaman Yogiji

    User notes: "I am an official representative for Anaman Yogiji. I was able to update his page."[19] I tagged the article talk page with {{Connected contributor}} and tagged the user talk page with {{Uw-coi}}. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Lama

    This IP editor appears to be someone from Justin Boots. They've created two drafts at AfC and recently added some puffery to Justin Boots (at which some attempts at a cleanup has been made), aside from this article. Their additions seem to be a copyvio of http://www.tonylama.com/en/heritage.html, and looking back, some of the additions to the Justin Boots article appears to be copyvios as well. I reverted all of their changes at the article, but I would appreciate it if someone can look at the situation and maybe guide them along or take appropriate actions. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=485835110"