Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
→Conversion therapy: spurious. closing
Line 435: Line 435:


== [[Conversion therapy]] ==
== [[Conversion therapy]] ==
{{resolved|no credible evidence of COI presented; almost considered just removing this and still might. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)}}

This should really be on the NPOV section, but I can't edit the NPOV section because I'm an IP. Plus, [[User:Roscelese]] appears to have conflict of interest. But, if you have access to the NPOV noticeboard, feel free to post it there.
This should really be on the NPOV section, but I can't edit the NPOV section because I'm an IP. Plus, [[User:Roscelese]] appears to have conflict of interest. But, if you have access to the NPOV noticeboard, feel free to post it there.


Line 443: Line 443:


I think that the term "fundamentalist" and the pseudoscience category and the pseudoscience template should be removed from the article. Just because somebody doesn't like conversion therapy doesn't mean it's pseudoscience. A lot of people don't like to go to the dentist either, but that doesn't mean dentistry is pseudoscience. Any other suggestions, on how to improve the neutrality of the article, would be welcome. [[Special:Contributions/70.128.120.202|70.128.120.202]] ([[User talk:70.128.120.202|talk]]) 23:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that the term "fundamentalist" and the pseudoscience category and the pseudoscience template should be removed from the article. Just because somebody doesn't like conversion therapy doesn't mean it's pseudoscience. A lot of people don't like to go to the dentist either, but that doesn't mean dentistry is pseudoscience. Any other suggestions, on how to improve the neutrality of the article, would be welcome. [[Special:Contributions/70.128.120.202|70.128.120.202]] ([[User talk:70.128.120.202|talk]]) 23:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
:spurious. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:57, 14 April 2015

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:Ada Aharoni
    Talk:Alameda Belt Line
    Talk:Australian Maritime College
    Talk:Madeline Bell (hospital executive)
    Talk:Black Hawk (Sauk leader)
    Talk:Cohen Milstein
    Talk:Creative Planning
    Talk:Dell Technologies
    Talk:The Donkey Sanctuary
    Talk:Stephan DuCharme
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Darnell Edge
    Talk:Empire (magazine)
    Talk:Globe Life
    Talk:Golden State Foods
    Talk:List of Harvard University people
    Talk:Jacob Helberg
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Insteon
    Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones
    Talk:Kennedy Center Honors
    Talk:KieranTimberlake
    Talk:Kathleen Kingsbury
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Leviton
    Talk:List of compositions for flute
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:MongoDB Inc.
    Talk:Moroccanoil
    Talk:Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation
    Talk:Oneok
    Talk:Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation
    Talk:Ornge
    Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician)
    Talk:Principal component analysis
    Talk:Rivulis
    Talk:Rakefet Russak-Aminoach
    Talk:Roger Steare
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Xsolla
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation
    Talk:Zyn

    Brice Stratford

    Accounts that appeared in AfD, fresh users, other edits pretty much limited to acting/theater

    A small army of similar accounts with an obsessive interest in one person, Brice Stratford, and his doings, his awards, his family and his achievements. Not all the edits are intrinsically bad (we needed an article on John Counsell (theatre director), for example) but the intention appears everywhere to be to promote. All of which serves to obscure the fundamental question: is this person notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? More eyes, please.

    In putting this together I have come to realise that an SPI is also justified here. Off there now. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BriceStratford. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, 'tis I, Brice Stratford: I'm afraid I've only just become aware of all this mess, and only just now saw the notification email (which had gone to my junk folder). To be honest, it's all a little overwhelming: I'm currently accessing wikipedia from a shared connection in the large warehouse conversion that acts as the offices for our theatre company, and living space for a few members of it. We all share internet (as do a few people who have no connection with the company), and have a tendency to use each others computers without really thinking. Obviously we do have a team of people here who are dedicated to and passionate about promoting and making a record of our work, many of whom are young interns - I think perhaps that a combination of eager, competitive arts professionals, over-enthusiasm and general inexperience/ignorance of wikipedia's rules has all lead to something of a situation. I can only apologise for any problems caused, and assure you that there's been no malicious intent or intentional disingenuousness, only misplaced good faith and naivety. Do please do whatever you see fit with whichever pages are in question, and once again: apologies for any complications. BriceStratford (talk) 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    Some of the edits are quite good . But the mentions in articles only vaguely relevant to the subject are overdoing it. John Nagle (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to try to move this forward: BriceStratford, can we then take it that all of those accounts are some manner connected to you? If so, they all have a conflict of interest in topics related to you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I haven't the foggiest! I reiterate; this building is, essentially, a theatre space, cafe, offices and living area for many, many connected and unconnected people. Internet is shared by the lot, public and private. I've no idea who's here doing what. I'm perfectly happy for everything to be considered a COI if that makes things easier for you? I'd really rather not be involved - I had no idea about any of this until you brought me into it, please conclude it however you prefer! Best of luck to you. BriceStratford (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds kinda like "my little brother did it". Each editor is responsible for integrity of his/her account. - Brianhe (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry i haven't given this any attention yet. this is a mess, yes. will try to look at this today or tomorrow, to add my thoughts, fwiw. Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    added new one. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • listing out promo edits:
    • QualityEngli edit summary first edit Mar 4, 2015. 2 edits to date, two promo. WP:SPA. no declaration of COI. has never used a talk page.
    add promo language
    add content about company
    • CalfLiver edit summary first edit Jun 2, 2014. ~55 edits. every one related to BriceStratford. no Talk discussions. SPA.
    created category that is up for deletion
    uploaded one image to Commons related to coat of arms, used in Stratford family article, described as "own work" See images made by Personofi described below. File was uploaded 19:18, 2 June 2014; was added to article minutes later. note that prior edit was by another member of this group, BishopRick9, 6 hours before, and that user was writing about the coat of arms.
    promo
    promo
    promo categorizing
    promo categorizing
    promo categorizing
    promo categorizing
    promo categorizing on promo article
    etc.
    • Theehnwor edit summary first edit Mar 29, 2015, 25 edits, every one related to Stratford and the "dynasty" SPA. no Talk.
    created article with promo title Windsor rep acting dynasty after adding content about that to several articles, all edits after are more of the same.
    • LlowCro - edit summary first edit 27 March 2015. about 60 edits. every single one related to Stratford and the "dynasty" SPA. has never talked. created four articles all related to this stuff.
    Elizabeth Counsell 2015-03-27
    Jean Miller 2015-03-28
    John Counsell (theatre director) 2015-03-28
    Dee Ocleppo 2015-03-28 (wife of Tommy Hilfiger and... maternal cousin to Brice Stafford. all in same breath. oy.)
    • Personofi edit summary first edit Aug 2014. ~116 edits, nothing on Talk except for one AfD discussion. SPA for Stratfords and Brice etc. with a very few exceptions like this and this)
    uploaded 2 files to commons - pic of stratford and putative stratford coat of arms
    one of those is:
    described as "A publicity shot of Brice Stratford in character as Ralph Roister Doister, from the Owle Schreame theatre company's 2015 production of the play at the Bread & Roses Theatre (London, England) - the first full, uncut, professional performance of the play on record." (so WP:PROMO)
    source is "own work" (!)
    author is named as Simon Bendix Borregaard - seems to be true per this article
    used only in Ralph Roister Doister in WP:PROMO edit for Stafford's company
    NOTE in that article, Persofi removed the old image in this dif, and in the next edit, which happened 20 seconds later, another of these accounts, TheFrontDeskMust, uploaded the image to the article. very clear evidence of sock or meat puppeting
    other uploaded image is Stratford coat of arms
    described as "freehand, then computer edit", and
    NOTE was uploaded to Stratford family article by Personofi in this dif, a few days later, another of these accounts, MarlovianPlough, added another iteration of this image and added a bunch of content about it. Also clear evidence of meat/socking.
    created category,
    • MarlovianPlough edit summary: 48 edits, starting August 2, 2014. 6 AfDs included 2 related to this sock/meat farm. !votes are keep, of course.
    has written on their user page: "Hello! I am the Marlovian Plough. I am committed to truth, neutrality, and history." uh huh.
    More diverse than other members of this group
    some random/unproductive things like this)
    has done some desultory Talk series of diffs at Shakespeare article
    cleaned up a different theater award article
    contribs to AfDs are desulory "delete per x" here, here, here, here in fast succession.
    proposed to delete 3 other family categories in fast succession, here, here, here
    next edit was adding categories to Stratford family
    as discussed above, sock/meated with Personofi to add image to Stratford family
    removed COI/sourcing tags from Brice Stratford article about COI, etc. and added promo content: "Historically significant work has included his 2011 Measure for Measure (which contained the first Stage Jig in over 400 years on the archeological site of the Elizabethan Rose theatre)...." (zoiks)
    one file uploaded to Commons (award for Owle Schreame Awards
    description is quite detailed: "The engraved glass skull of the Owle Schreame Award, this one presented to Passion in Practice for their work in Original Pronunciation at the inaugural award ceremony in 2014"
    described as "own work" but author is "James Thompson"
    uploaded to commons at 18 September 2014; added to article by same user a few minutes later (no socking there)
    • PeggyMa edit summary: 20 edits, starting Aug 11, 2014. Pure SPA. (edits on other theater award categories too)
    adding badly sourced content to Owle Schraeme award
    removed copyvio tag placed by bot here - article had been created by BriceStratford here with the copyvio content. and BriceStratford edited the article 2 minutes later. Terrible.
    added promo content to Brice Stratford article
    added unsupported category to Brice Stratford article
    more promo to Brice Stratford article
    • TheFrontDeskMust edit summary: account opened Aug 10, 2014. 101 edits.
    7 articles created - note the classic SEO strategy with redirects.
    John Counsell 2015-03-28 log · page history · topedits
    Secret Cinema · (redirect) 2014-12-15
    Francis Fulford (born 1953) · (redirect) 2014-10-29
    The owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
    Owle schreame award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
    The owl scream awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
    The owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
    Owl Scream Awards · (redirect) 2014-08-11
    Owl scream award · (redirect) 2014-08-11
    per contribs you see some classic editing around (mostly tagging) to get started, then a series of AfDs in quick succession ("delete per x", etc)
    Aug 11, makes first on-target edit, to theater awards category, and notably, the edit note says, "Removed tautology - as Softlavendar says elsewehere: "'Winners' of this award (singular) are only the first prize winners". surprising with full-blown knowledge of past discussions. and seems to refer not to softlavender, but rather to edit by other sock, whose earlier edit note read "Reduced list of award winners on this page to just the First Prize Winners, moved the exhaustive list to the pre-existing List of Ian Charleson Award winners"
    then a bunch of edits to that award and the Owl award, adding bad sources, more categories. here and here
    removed COI, tone, etc tags here with edit note "Edited with an unbiased, objective, encyclopaedic perspective and tone". while adding SPS sources. argh.
    moved article about a current guy named John Counsell and created a disambig page for John Counsell (head of "dynasty" ) So clearly tied to BriceStratford's interests.
    • RichElph edit summary: first edit Nov 20, 2013, 3 edits. That's all.
    created Brice Stratford article did nothing else here.
    • Cremlo89 edit summary: first edit Mar 11, 2015. 19 edits. everyone is about Owl awards
    one of them was creating Owle Schreame Awards
    added content about that two to other articles.
    two weeks ago, added ref (that may be bogus and that these socks have been using a lot) to another article related to "dynasty"
    whole run here - adding tons of promo. ugh.
    voted !keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty in very elaborate diff
    other 4 are to related articles, more padding/promo
    started with edits to other theaters. seemingly significant contributions to Blackfriars Theater were reverted for copying from another article
    first major contribution was elaborate ~vote to "keep" at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty
    7 diffs that did little to [[Francis Fulford (reality television)].
    (NOTE - TheFrontDeskMust also worked on this article, moved it
    see also this sequence:
    series of edits by Gabby to Secret Cinema (company)
    5 minutes later, edit by TheFrontDeskMust
    20 minutes later, another run by Gabby begins
    then finally, looong !vote to keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty, in conjunction with adding a chunk of unsourced content to the subject article.
    • WalkingOnTheB edit summary: first edit Sep 20, 2014; 24 edits. contributed to 12 AfDs, including the one on Windsor dynasty. One of the edits is also a comment at his own SPI.
    nominated Solvent Thashers for deletion (group project; see below)
    did some random football editing (like others of these accounts)
    keep !vote at Windsor AfD
    comment at SPI, "Hey, just seen that this is a thing. Full Disclosure: I work in an office which is in the same building as the owl scream company's office. Occasionally I say hello. That's it. No COI." With the edit history, not likely.
    • Elephantbronze edit summary, created 03:07, 30 March 2015, 26 edits
    note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
    Special:Contributions/Elephantbronze - first edit is ridiculous; next few are to other AfDs.
    largest contrib by miles is to AfD on Windsors.
    • Feast is Feast edit summary, created 2:47, 30 March 2015, 7 edits
    note that the AfD for the Windsor dynasty article was created 00:08, 30 March 2015
    Special:Contributions/Feast_is_Feast - first edit is to AfD; others are desulotory


    • Group efforts at AfD
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solent Thrashers (2nd nomination): WalkingOnTheB, TheFrontDeskMust, MarlovianPlough, Personofi. Only non-sock vote is Dirtlawyer1. This was a railroad job.
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty Feast is Feast, Theatre Royal, Windsor, WalkingOnTheB, RoodEnd, Gabby Road. That is most of the !voting there.

    OK, I spent way too much time on that. Will copy this over the SPI case as well. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    are they listed anywhere? Jytdog (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all together, and not all in list form. Y'all are on the right track, but need to check both SPIs (there are two of them, one was unfortunately and precipitously closed and archived almost instantaneously) plus the comments therein. Plus this conversation. Plus all the COI AfDs any of them have ever voted on (where extra members pop up). Plus at this point, any article that any of them has edited that isn't obviously diversionary will likely turn up new members. Softlavender (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note about essay on COI that is up for deletion

    Resolved
     – - close was delete Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrew West (linguist)

    The user editing the page is connected to the subject of the article and the organization he is heading. The username also has the issue of being promotional (which should be resolved in some other manner). The article was previously marked as vanity and the links which were added by User:Evertype (and was used to remove vanity template) are all refer to material which are not resolving the issue of vanity and also creating the impression that User:Evertype and User:BableStone basically cross-editing each other pages. Also, curiously, the initial comments on page creation by User:Kaihsu mentions that the initial text of the article was written by User:Evertype on a personal sub-page.

    IMO, this article has serious issues of CIO.


    BabelStone if what you say is true, I am sorry for the personal grudge aspect of this; was not aware of that. have to pause this, to deal with that. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "beef" with BabelStone except his abuse of community rules on Wikpedia and accepting favours from other editors connected to him for a personal article about him. His abuse of other rules of other communities off-wiki—including abusive language-is unrelated to this issue. --Shervinafshar (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, Shervinafshar, if you are having a real world dispute with BabelStone outside of WP, you have a conflict of interest with regard to claims you make about him here. It does not make those claims invalid (I am not considering them yet), but if you have a conflict, you need to disclose it. So do you, or not? Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If it helps you with processing this issue fairly, the answer is yes, I had an off-wiki dispute with BabelStone, but I do not have a conflict of interest regarding my objections to these articles. I did not make any claims outside of WP regulations and guidelines about quality of these articles. My request for COI investigation of these articles does not have anything to do with my RW dispute with BabelStone. I think this case has enough substantial and objective evidence for making a decision. Finally, can you please point me to the guideline which mentions that any off-wiki dispute brings me to the position of COI in such a case so that I can not ask for checking the socking and advocacy editing? I could not find such a guideline in WP:COI. -- Shervinafshar (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks loads for being upfront about the off-wiki issues. it would be bizarre to have one party saying that, and the other party not. so.. whew. OK, I need to look at diffs and think. WIll try to get back to you all tomorrow. Hands full tonight, sorry. Thanks again. 22:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

    If I recall correctly, as a courtesy we will delete a bio of a low profile person who doesn't want a bio. Does that apply in the case of Andrew West? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hroðulf i think it would have to go through AfD. i am not sure it would survive. you could take a shot, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Re editing of Michael Everson article. I do not have a professional relationship with Michael Everson, but I have co-authored some Unicode proposals with him (as have dozens of people, including Shervinafshar)‎‎, and he is a personal friend in real life, for which reason the page is on my watchlist. In seven years of editing on Wikipedia I have edited the Michael Everson article a total of 9 times, the most recent occasion being a flurry of 6 edits over a year ago when I attempted to clarify that Evertype is a publishing company run by Everson. I do not intend to make any further changes in content to this article, but will keep it on my watchlist, and revert any vandalism or BLP issues I see. BabelStone (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Re editing of Andrew West (linguist) article. I freely admit to having occasionally edited the article, but rather than argue about whether my edits were appropriate or not, I am happy to promise not to edit the article directly again, other than to revert vandalism or BLP issues. I would be even happier if the article disappeared but I cannot take it to AfD myself, and no-one else seems willing to do so. BabelStone (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    BabelStone! Be civil! This place has rules and regulations. --Shervinafshar (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I just looked at the "BabelStone" issue and agree with user-BabelStone's assessment. the domain is owned by West, but there is no "babelstone" company that i could identify, no trademark registered, and the software available at http://www.babelstone.co.uk/ is owned by West (not assigned to a company) and available as freeware. this isn't commercial activity.
    BabelStone i appreciate your offer - that makes a lot of sense. thanks. I consider the COI issue raised about you to be resolved. (btw, i looked at this edit and you added a lot of unsourced stuff there, based on your own familiarity/authority, i guess. that was not a good edit in my view, both on the COI side and on the basic editing side, and you should have been extra careful to reliably source everything there, given your personal relationship there) Please do consider using the "edit request" function for both articles - I have added a box to the bottom of the yellow/brown box at top of the Talk pages to make that easier. Would you please let me know if you agree to what i propose below with regard to Shervinafshar? Jytdog (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Jytdog, thank you for your evenhanded handling of this situation. I am happy to agree to your proposal, and will use the "edit request" function if ever I want to make a change in content to the Andrew West (linguist) or Michael Everson articles. As to Shervinafshar, I think your proposed resolution is reasonable, and in my turn I will do my utmost to avoid interacting with him. BabelStone (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Shervinafshar per WP:COI, the heart of conflict of interest, is "When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest." Because you are in conflict with BabelStone and Everson in RL, you have a conflict of interest in WP with regard to them, and you should refrain from directly editing the articles about them. I have added you as a party above. Would you please agree to refrain from directly editing the articles and instead use the "edit request" function? also, do you accept the resolution with regard to BabelStone above? Jytdog (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I will "edit request" if need be, but it doesn't mean that my RW COI should affect the handling of the existing COI in this article. Hence, I do not accept the COI resolution you provided. I believe this is a vanity article with high level of COI. What was resolved was that Andrew West is free to use BabelStone on WP. That article had issues from day one (I mentioned above that the draft was written on user page of Evertype and was moved by another connected user to an independent article. There are issues of COI and notability on this article. Since Andrew West, IMO, is not a notable person to have a WP article about him and the article has issues of COI, WP:AfD seems like an option which people might want to consider. --Shervinafshar (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Jytdog, here's another edit reflecting the COI state of the article and how connected users are escalating the promotional bias. --Shervinafshar (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaihsu is not a "connected user" and has no COI with me that I know of -- I do not know him in real life or on the internet, and I have never interacted him in any way that I can remember. The question of whether those links should be there is an editorial issue not a COI issue, and should be discussed on the article's talk page, not here. I trust that you have notified him/her that you have mentioned their editing behaviour on this noticeboard. BabelStone (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That mere edit is a COI issue. Also on talk page of the article in question, I discussed and provided evidence on how Kaihsu is connected to you and Evertype and how his recent edit is making things worst for the COI state of the article. --Shervinafshar (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    so Shervinafshar it happens sometimes that claims of COI turn into harassment. I strongly suggest that you really reflect on how fixed you on this issue here in WP - it is really clearly related to your outside dispute with BabelStone because the things you are bringing up are not major. I do intend to work over the article - there is unsourced stuff in it. I may nominate it for deletion but per Wikipedia:Notability (academics) the bar is not high. We'll see. I haven't decided yet.... Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry if you get that impression. It's certainly not my intention (and I've been attacked and called a "troll" couple of times in different contexts here on WP by West which knowing his usual abusive attitude I preferred to ignore). But interestingly, the outside dispute is a similar case of abusing guidelines of a different community which has lesser guidelines to prevent the types of abuse such individuals can commit. Since I've been involved with WP community for a long time, I feel very strongly about people abusing WP for self-promotion and tooting theirs or their friends' horns. If the article is to be worked on to reach NPOV and verifiability and its notability is proved, I eagerly agree with your disposition on COI issue here. Obviously, connected users should not edit the page in future to prevent further issues. --Shervinafshar (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i am sorry that you have been called a troll elsewhere and i am not calling you that. but i have seen articles for academics that really are violations of WP:PROMO and the one on West was really not bad. like i said some unsourced stuff that should go per per BLP and VERIFY but no puffery like "genius linguist" nor was it all glow-y about his software. have a look at this for example and notice the editor of the diff there. now that is some ugly PROMO COI crap editing... right? btw looks like the West article has been nominated for deletion by Hraldulf as discussed above. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly it's not as bad as the example you provided. As I mentioned above, I'd be totally fine with keeping this article if notability of the subject of the article is proven and some work is done on the article to make it acceptable according to common criteria of WP. Unfortunately, the article in current state doesn't have much substance even for a stub and there is not enough material at hand to improve it. My goal was to bring this low-quality article which was created and has only been edited by a closed circle of (more or less) connected users (and IPs) to the attention of the community and those editors to right this wrong. If this would have been just based on personal grudge or vendetta (as West claims), I probably could have taken it through notability and had it deleted without much commotion. The point was to alert both BabelStone and Evertype about the nature of their edits while they are at COI and inform the admins about this issue so it can be recorded and addressed. At this point if those users which are not at COI regarding this article care about the content, they can improve it and it will stay. I also previously pointed out my criticism of the article content in its talk page and if I see good faith from the editors of the article, I'd continue to do so. I also thank you for your time and effort, Jytdog and apologize for any inconvenience. --Shervinafshar (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ok so we are done til Evertype checks in. Most of what you write above, is dead-horse beating and I would appreciate it you would not do that going forward. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be beating a dead horse, but I gladly take my chances any day to ensure the case is clear and to prevent such issues from happening. Your skepticism is much appreciated though. Keeps an admin sane. :) --Shervinafshar (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this much enthusiasm is dedicated to highlighting another editor there is usually an underlying cause unrelated to a desire to improve the encyclopedia. This noticeboard is for pointing out actual problems—I see one diff above where someone added five external links to extremely reasonable and non-puffery PDFs, but any other claimed problems above are lost in the noise. An argument about the applicability of WP:EL could be mounted, but ranting about COI misses the point, namely that there are many articles where paid editors manipulate the text to puff-up positives and eliminate negatives, but there is nothing in the OP or anywhere else I can see that suggests that has happened in this case (I checked all the links in the OP—none of them are a problem. There is a claim in a PROD on the article that the subject wants it deleted—I urge BabelStone to wait a while before confirming that because the excitement seen here will dissipate and if no actual COI editing occurs there is not a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks johnuniq but i think that while the matters with BabelStone and Shervinafshar are settled (they are both aware of their own COIs now and have promised to remain mindful of it, the matter with Evertypw is not. I agree that the edits made under COI have been minor the principles are important. I anticipate that things will go smoothly as well with Evertype and this will be quickly closed once he checks in to edit again. That is my intention. Others may disagree of course. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that you have developed an interest in COI issues and are very active at the moment, but how long can such vigilance be maintained, and for what purpose? I sat through exhausting debates and saw all attempts to introduce the mildest form of "paid editing is discouraged" be shot down—it turned out that one of the chief advocates for the no case was both a troll and a paid editor (indeffed more than four years ago for socking, not for being paid), but discussions still conclude that paid editing is wonderful, and experts should not be discouraged from contributing. My opening question refers to my claim that there is no evidence of any unhelpful editing, let alone unhelpful COI editing, and everything at Wikipedia should be based on pragmatic principles that work towards improving the encyclopedia—we don't try to stop certain editors from editing without a reason based on the belief that such action would improve the encyclopedia. I have not seen a suggestion that anyone here might be violating the ToU, so what is this all about? Are there any diffs of unhelpful edits that warrant attention? Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    there is so much important work be done on this board, and the matters above have been handled swiftly so far. I'll pause here to deal with your (somewhat grandstanding) questions - it is not ambiguous that both BabelStone and Evertype have edited their own articles and the articles about each other. It also not ambiguous that Shervinafshar brought this case under an undisclosed COI and has edited those articles with an undisclosed COI and actually had the more severe issue. I agreed already above that nothing was terrible. There is only one matter to be addressed, and I anticipate it will be handled reasonably and quickly. We absolutely love experts on WP, but they need to be mindful of COI - every paper an expert submits for publication requires disclosure of any COI; we have no process here where every submission (or as we call it, edit) to WP requires disclosure. It is not a terrible thing for experts to be reminded of it from time to time in a collegial (and not nasty at all) way. Again, I agree that nothing horrific has happened here (i gave an example above of one of many, many egregious COI edits by academics that I have come across). If you want to really dig into larger issues, please do so on the associated Talk page. But there is work that I want to do, both with unaddressed things here and plain old editing I want to get done. I am glad to have meta-discussions but i feel you are making a lot of friction over something minor that has been handled as such. How about working on one of the open, but not yet fully resolved cases here? Jytdog (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but I guess that means there is no diff of a problematic edit. As you know, I proposed in the section just underneath that these two sections be closed, and I'm not sure why there are still attempts to discuss something. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks but i provided a diff of an actual problematic edit by BabelStone above. Is your issue, that you think this board should be Only For Really Egregious Things? Jytdog (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not going to say anything, despite being extremely irked by this edit, where Jytdog said that I "added a lot of unsourced stuff there, based on your own familiarity/authority, i guess" with these six edits to the Michael Everson article. I think that if you look carefully at the diff you will agree that this is a gross misrepresentation. The edits removed an unsourced statement about Evertype being a pseudonym (an internet search confirmed to me that Everson never uses "Evertype" as a pseudonym in books and articles he writes or edits); removed an unsourced statement about Everson's religion (probably added by Everson in the first place); moved the mention of him still holding American citizenship; added that his Irish books were published by Evertype, which is covered by the immediately following existing ref; added sourced information on the number of books he has published (ref is not ideal from a WP perspective, but adequate for this fairly innocuous fact I think); and summarise the number of books published in the lede, with no ref per WP:CITELEAD. In short, not a lot of additions, no unsourced additions, and nothing based on my personal knowledge. BabelStone (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    oh for pete's sake why does this keep stirring? BabelStone i hear what you are saying. the only really unsourced thing is the citizenship matter. yes, you removed unsourced content. the rest of it was shifting stuff around. you are right, and i am sorry about my characterization. (looking closer, the stuff you moved around is not that well-sourced, but that is not what you did). Thanks for pointing out my mischarcterization. Again nothing here is a huge deal. The biggest problem from my view, which I think I made clear, was Shervinafshar's undisclosed COI in bringing the case. This is getting too much like academia, where there are huge blowups over minor things. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Everson

    The self-confessed background on this article being a vanity article is mentioned here. Although the user is notable, but COI should be clearly marked hence the edits from him and some people connected to him. See another COI entry filed regarding User:BabelStone and Andrew West. -- Shervinafshar (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Few of many edit diffs: [9], [10], [11], [12].

    -- Shervinafshar (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Shervinafshar while we are waiting for Evertype to login to WIkipedia, does your RL argument with BabelStone that you acknowledged here extend to Michael Everson as well? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Same rules applie to this article as well. Although Evertype has lots of good contributions to WP, but the article about him should be off-limits to himself and his professionally connected users to edit and add content for the sake of COI. This is the essence of this request. --Shervinafshar (talk) 15:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    see above. Jytdog (talk)
    Johnuniq, using WP to promote the work of friends is not reprehensible? I did not attack anyone. If I wanted to get rid of that vanity and low quality article on West, there would have been easier ways (e.g. academic notability of him according to guidelines). I brought a case about COI to the attention of the admins. Was I at COI myself doing that? Probably. Should the issue objectively matter to WP, IMO? Certainly! --Shervinafshar (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Pick2heal

    Resolved
     – :user has been blocked and article deleted, per User_talk:Pick2heal. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User created a page with the same name about a random website. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    user has been blocked and article deleted, per User_talk:Pick2heal. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Lajosgents

    User history and overly promotional tone of his/her creations (example) strongly suggest COI editing. Asked user Lajosgents directly if they were working for hire. Several suspicious abuse log triggers might be relevant. — Brianhe (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Starting to think there's a sockfarm at work here on related jewelry and diamond business articles. Added above. - Brianhe (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hsbc jintrust

    Resolved
     – User Randykitty (talk · contribs) already blocked the user and speedy deleted the article. -- intgr [talk] 09:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Suspicious user. His username is similar to the article name, and the article itself is written using words like 'our' and, in general, an advertisement. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    LinkedIn Economic Graph

    Resolved
     – done by Smallbones. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I've proposed an update to the "Economic Graph" section of LinkedIn based on developments since the section was first added last June. I'm not editing directly because I have a COI; I work for a communications firm that represents LinkedIn. I would really appreciate it if someone could take a look at my Talk page posting and provide feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    done by smallbones here. thx! Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    NuScale Power

    Just a quick notification that I have disclosed a COI here and offered a draft on Talk. @Bluerasberry: has a pre-existing interest in the page in their volunteer editing and may be the one to review my proposed draft. Bluerasberry and I are friends/acquaintances and both paid editors (he does GLAM-type work with Consumer Reports). There is nothing actually unsordid going on and I will bring the page up to GA per my usual, however to avoid any kind of remote speculation that I am relying on a buddy to review my proposed edits, I wanted to also post a notification here, allowing for broader scrutiny, in case anyone feels it is warranted. CorporateM (Talk) 16:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Heather Bresch

    This page has made its rounds at BLPN, ANI, COIN and Jimbo's Talk page, but @Nomoskedasticity: is still the only volunteer editor that has really shown a sustained interest in the page. He is also the page's original creator and top contributor.[13] I'm a little concerned that there isn't a more diverse range of editors involved. Let me provide some context.

    Nomo was the exclusive author of the original version of the article that was written almost exclusively about a controversy that reflects negatively on the BLP. There have been numerous efforts to address the undue issue dating back to 2011[14] and more recently after my having flagged the issue[15][16], however it wasn't until the third time that Nomo stopped reverting it.[17][18] When Collect tried to make edits that added sourced content about other topics or balanced the article more favorably to the article-subject, he was consistently reverted by Nomo about four times.[19][20][21][22] Nomo shows contempt for PR people in his edit-summary here and is basically trolling me here. More context at ANI here.

    When I ask for outside input on the article, Nomo accuses me of canvassing and bullying; he highlights editors that agree with him (one of which showed suspiciously similar behavior as him) and dismisses or reverts editors that disagree with him. The Talk page is filled with accusations that I'm attempting to add PR spin or whitewash the page, whereas we are suppose to assume an editor is trying to do the right thing when a COI is disclosed. Furthermore, as is proven with diffs at the ANI post, I have repeatedly argued against the article-subject's best interest, despite my COI, so I find the ABFing difficult to justify. I feel like I am being punished for complying with WP:COI; it took months and Jimbo's Talk page just to get the most obvious BLP issues addressed over Nomo's reverts.

    Editor's are not forbidden from contributing to articles where they have strong views, just as editors are not forbidden from contributing with a COI; though both lead to bias, they are common motivations for editing. But balanced articles are achieved by editors with a diverse range of opinions working together constructively. I don't have a specific item to point an editor to, except that I'm hoping generally that an editor or two will step up and be willing to invest a significant amount of time getting involved in the article and editing boldly, as oppose to a passing comment or two. CorporateM (Talk) 07:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC) (in case it wasn't obvious - I have a COI on this page)[reply]

    This is a strange post to make at COIN. It's almost as if CorporateM is trying to say that I'm the one with the COI on this article, when in fact it is CorporateM that is being paid by Mylan to work on this article on Bresch's behalf. CorporateM tries to draw an equivalence between him and me with the insinuation that I have "strong views", and I naturally reject that perspective. Apart from that -- I have no objection to the involvement of other editors, and I'm not interested in getting into a back-and-forth re the tendentious accusations above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    CorporateM, what is exactly is the issue that you want addressed here at COIN? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think it should have been posted at a different board? It is hard to say which would be most relevant. I just want more editors involved that will evaluate NPOV based on whether the sources are reliable and accurately represented (our definition of NPOV), rather than who the content is coming from. I don't think there is a WP:OWN board, which would be most on-target. CorporateM (Talk) 16:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Corp, as you know I have expressed concern in the past about the portion of the article devoted to the MBA controversy, which appears to have been rectified. However, this is not the place to post concerns about another editor who does not have a COI, as you point out. Coretheapple (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Senpion

    This has to do with all of this user's edits, mainly on Google Glass, but one on Asperger's Syndrome as well. Given the focus of the edits on one researcher, and an uploaded photo credited that researcher, coupled with no other edit focus whatsoever, I think it's a pretty good assumption that the editor is the researcher publicizing himself and his company. I have notified the editor, but the edits are stale, and I don't expect the editor to return. I'd like someone simply to police the edits, because no one else seems to consider his work notable. MSJapan (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your feedback. There are a range of technologies being used in autism, and Google Glass is simply one of them. Please feel free to check all my references. They include Autism Speaks, the worlds most prominent autism charity, and TechCrunch, one of the most prominent technology reporting websites. Also, I would have liked to have been messaged directly about your concerns, as recommended by Wiki guidelines. Thank you.

    David Laventhol

    I am closely related to the subject, a newspaper publisher (LA Times, Newsday) and editor, who has just died. He is clearly notable, and there were existing red links, so I created the article from the many recent obituaries, asked for some criticism on the help chat, and created the page. Declarations of closeness are on the article talk page and my own user page, so it's fully transparent. Adding it here per WP:COIDEC. Not intending to do much further with the article; trusting the many wiki editors. Regards all. Jonathan Laventhol (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Phoenix Global

    An IP user, 203.45.237.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is making radical changes to the article and also blanking other editors comments on the articles talk page. Their motive is very clearly to remove any negative comment regarding the company. The article has issues for sure and could do with some Admin eyes on it. 79616gr (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    reported at AIV, Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    have added Alloduckie as a SPA with a negative POV. The IP has claimed to be son of the owner. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    here Alloduckie has claimed to have no COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, warned the user for advocacy here. Jytdog (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Esproenko

    Having a bit of a weird situation here. Here's what the user said on my talk page: "I need to create a page about my company with the field of oil and gas. The name is : ESPROENKO INTERNATIONAL. I did it before even I upload some picture in wiki file uploader and use it to complete my article every time I was just viewing by show preview to check last changes but suddenly all my picture gone. I fear to create article and wiki remove that. My company forced me to create one." -- I kind of feel sorry for them, how are they going to explain Wikipedia's rules to their boss when even they don't understand the rules?

    Anyway, I encouraged them to create that article in draftspace (Draft:Esproenko International), and they uploaded some images that probably shouldn't be here, but I've gone through and tagged those images on here and on Commons.

    I'm thinking I should probably... stop encouraging them, because everything they're doing is going against WP:COI, and that article itself will most likely not become a thing because the notability is lacking. I'm not 100% sure but some shallow googling tells me that this company may not be notable enough so we'd just be wasting our time trying to create it.

    Posting here in case anyone has any thoughts about this, or any suggestions to add for the user (User_talk:Cyboy110#Images). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Latin Mass Society of England and Wales

    User:Dr_Joseph_Shaw has been editing this article in recent days. Going by this editor's user name this would seem to be someone who is very closely associated with the Latin Mass Society. Despite leaving a message on his talk page about the WP:COI policies this editor is still continuing to edit the article. Afterwriting (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy to out myself as the Chairman of the Latin Mass Society. I have updated some factual aspects of the page, added some historical material, and added citations. Please note I am unpaid and most of the material relates to a time before I was born. There should be nothing controversial about my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talk • contribs) 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)
    Thanks for your honesty. I suggest that you should not make any further edits to the article at present and instead wait for responses and discussion by other editors on whether or not your editing of it is a clear violation of COI principles. Afterwriting (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice job everybody involved. New editors with a COI often don't understand that they are harming Wikipedia, and Afterwriting, you did a nice job escalating to the point where Dr Joseph Shaw realized there was a problem. Thanks Dr Joseph Shaw for disclosing your COI.
    • Dr Joseph Shaw's first edit added loads of unsourced content in violation of WP:VERIFY, and it is kind of promotional. The second edit did the same, but a source was used, which is better. The last two (this and this), however, added sources, which the article is very much in need of.
    • Afterwriting, I'd suggest you review those content changes and take out any promotional content, and anything unsourced, and keep what is good (the sources, if they are useable). Once you have reviewed Dr. Shaw's contributions for NPOV and VERIFY, please remove the COI tag and make a note on the article Talk page that you have reviewed the article.
    • Dr Joseph Shaw, it is great to have you here, and again, great that you disclosed your COI. Three things:
      • first, please do not edit the article directly going forward, but instead, offer suggestions on the article Talk page, for others to implement. That is how we manage COI in Wikipedia, to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. I hope you can see the sense of that. I have added a box, to the bottom of the yellow/brown box at the article's Talk page - the text in the box says "Individuals acting on behalf of this person or organization are strongly advised not to edit the article. Click here to request corrections or suggest content,". If you click where it says "click here" it will set up an "edit request" where you can offer suggestions for article content. You are new here, and there is a lot to learn about our editing policies and guidelines. If you are just asking questions on the article Talk page and not proposing content for the article, you don't have to use the "edit request" - please don't use it for that, as it will clutter up the Talk page.
      • Second, editing Wikipedia is pretty complex -Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and we have lots of policies and guidelines that govern what we do. It is going to take some time and effort to on your part to learn them. I hope you put that time in. But be patient with yourself and with those talking with you.
      • finally, i have added a disclosure of your COI to the article Talk page, so that is covered, but you would do well to disclose your COI on your User page) here: User:Dr Joseph Shaw, so that you disclose your COI to the community. If you choose to edit other articles (and I hope you do), if you edit other articles related to Catholicism, please limit yourself to their talk pages, and introduce yourself. If you edit articles related to other things (say football) there is no need to make a disclosure when you start editing. I hope that all makes sense.
    everybody good with that? (note, I am not an admin, but i work here a lot) Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely fine by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Joseph Shaw (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

    Conversion therapy

    Resolved
     – no credible evidence of COI presented; almost considered just removing this and still might. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This should really be on the NPOV section, but I can't edit the NPOV section because I'm an IP. Plus, User:Roscelese appears to have conflict of interest. But, if you have access to the NPOV noticeboard, feel free to post it there.

    On the Conversion therapy article, it labeled conversion therapy as "Pseudoscience" and placed the article in the pseudoscience category. I thought this was inappropriate, because there are a number of reputable individuals who believe that conversion therapy works, and a number of studies, like this one that find that conversion therapy has worked in many cases. Also, the conversion therapy article labeled supporters of conversion therapy as "fundamentalist Christians". This is name-calling, since many Christians find the term "fundamentalist" to be pejorative, and many Christian supporters of conversion therapy would not call themselves fundamentalist. So, I deleted the pseudoscience category and the pseudoscience template from the article, and removed the word "fundamentalist."

    Roscelese didn't like my edits, and she reverted them. Because Roscelese identifies as an LGBT Wikipedian, Roscelese has an obvious conflict of interest. Roscelese also claims that the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse study (which I cited, above, in support of the effectiveness of conversion therapy) was a "weak source." In fact, the Jones and Yarhouse study was the most extensive study ever done on the results of conversion therapy. Roscelese also called my edits "disruptive." My edits were not disruptive.

    I think that the term "fundamentalist" and the pseudoscience category and the pseudoscience template should be removed from the article. Just because somebody doesn't like conversion therapy doesn't mean it's pseudoscience. A lot of people don't like to go to the dentist either, but that doesn't mean dentistry is pseudoscience. Any other suggestions, on how to improve the neutrality of the article, would be welcome. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    spurious. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=656528770"