→No: r |
→No: spa |
||
Line 725: | Line 725: | ||
* <span style="font-size:0.9em">''(as CAM professional)''</span> '''Not enough of one to trigger Wikipedia's COIADVICE,''' same as my !vote [[Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_20#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners|in the first RfC]]. COI isn't like being pregnant: you ''can'' have it a little bit, or some, or a lot. (See my [[User:Middle_8/COI|signature link]].) My preference is to disclose, proceed with care, and -- hopefully -- let my edits be judged solely on their merits. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] | [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|acupuncture COI?]])</small> 21:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
* <span style="font-size:0.9em">''(as CAM professional)''</span> '''Not enough of one to trigger Wikipedia's COIADVICE,''' same as my !vote [[Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_20#RfC_on_COI_for_alt-med_practitioners|in the first RfC]]. COI isn't like being pregnant: you ''can'' have it a little bit, or some, or a lot. (See my [[User:Middle_8/COI|signature link]].) My preference is to disclose, proceed with care, and -- hopefully -- let my edits be judged solely on their merits. --[[User:Middle 8|Middle 8]] <small>([[User talk:Middle 8|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Middle_8|c]] | [[User:Middle_8/Privacy|privacy]] • [[User:Middle_8/COI|acupuncture COI?]])</small> 21:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''No''' - See below. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
*'''No''' - See below. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''No''' No more than an MD has a conflict of interest writing about medicine. This is yet another attempt to silence anyone who doesn't tow the skeptical line about complimentary medicine and in particular a witch hunt against [[User:Middle 8]]... 4,3,2,1 "But acupuncture is pseudoscience and its evil!" See [[Talk:Acupuncture]] for background on this. [[User:Morgan Leigh|Morgan Leigh]] | [[User talk:Morgan Leigh|Talk]] 22:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC) |
*'''No''' No more than an MD has a conflict of interest writing about medicine. This is yet another attempt to silence anyone who doesn't tow the skeptical line about complimentary medicine and in particular a witch hunt against [[User:Middle 8]]... 4,3,2,1 "But acupuncture is pseudoscience and its evil!" See [[Talk:Acupuncture]] for background on this. [[User:Morgan Leigh|Morgan Leigh]] | [[User talk:Morgan Leigh|Talk]] 22:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC) {{spa|Morgan Leigh}} |
||
*'''No''' Not inherently so. I think {{u|Graeme Bartlett}} nailed it. Specialists have specialist knowledge and this is not a COI. Certainly people in the field of alternative medicine are no more COI than an MD writing about their specialty or a PhD writing about the topic where they teach. I favor balance and NPOV, but the MEDRS and SCIRS gang need to remember that not all "alternative" medicine consists of quack remedies promoted by hucksters. It's all about balance and accuracy. [[User:Montanabw|<span style="color: #006600;">Montanabw</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 00:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
*'''No''' Not inherently so. I think {{u|Graeme Bartlett}} nailed it. Specialists have specialist knowledge and this is not a COI. Certainly people in the field of alternative medicine are no more COI than an MD writing about their specialty or a PhD writing about the topic where they teach. I favor balance and NPOV, but the MEDRS and SCIRS gang need to remember that not all "alternative" medicine consists of quack remedies promoted by hucksters. It's all about balance and accuracy. [[User:Montanabw|<span style="color: #006600;">Montanabw</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Montanabw|(talk)]]</sup> 00:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC) |
||
*'''No''' {{u|Graeme Bartlett}} has good points. Saying an editor has a COI just because of their profession is a mistake, by this logic MDs should not be able to edit articles about energy healing, because if energy healing was real(which it's not) it would be a threat to doctor's livelihoods. Do we really we want to go down the road of restricting editors from editing the topics they know the best? This proposal appears to be an attempt to stop POV pushing by twisting [[WP:COI]]. Given that we have a [[WP:NPOV|policy against POV pushing]], and discretionary sanctions that can be enforced against POV pushers editing alternative medicine, this proposal is completely unnecessary |
*'''No''' {{u|Graeme Bartlett}} has good points. Saying an editor has a COI just because of their profession is a mistake, by this logic MDs should not be able to edit articles about energy healing, because if energy healing was real(which it's not) it would be a threat to doctor's livelihoods. Do we really we want to go down the road of restricting editors from editing the topics they know the best? This proposal appears to be an attempt to stop POV pushing by twisting [[WP:COI]]. Given that we have a [[WP:NPOV|policy against POV pushing]], and discretionary sanctions that can be enforced against POV pushers editing alternative medicine, this proposal is completely unnecessary |
Revision as of 01:31, 1 January 2019
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
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:
|
FYI
Jytdog appears to be leaving: User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- My guess it's a "you can't fire me I quit" situation in light of the Arbitration case that's about to be opened to look at what he's been doing offwiki. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 19:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well not quite, as he says "I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me." So I think it's more a case of "you can fire me, but I will have already quit". A shame really as this was, as far as I can see, a big mistake rather than something really malicious. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Meprolight
- Meprolight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- MeproUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cadlaxer23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Extra eyes on this article would be appreciated, MeproUS was warned about COI with no response and then another new user Cadlaxer23 shows up and starts making edits. shoy (reactions) 14:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- Cadlaxer23 blocked for promotional editing. MeproUS hasn't edited since 12 December and has a {{uw-coi-username}} warning on their talk page. Might get blocked for WP:CORPNAME or might not if they've gone stale. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Draft:Leonid Afremov ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Scm5791 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Leonid Afremov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pages on this artist are being spammed. I can't see what account has been doing the previous spamming because the articles have been deleted. The account is probably a sockpuppet, but I need admin help to identify the sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Not spamming at all. Just one article was created two days ago. Since it was deleted we responsibly created a DRAFT to be examined by Wikipedia. It was deleted too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm5791 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Scm5791 - Who is "we"? You say that you "responsibly created a draft", but creating copyright violation is not responsible. Anyway, in Wikipedia, one account should belong to one human. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Scm5791: The draft was removed because it was an "Unambiguous copyright infringement of https://afremov.com/Leonid-Afremov-bio.html". See WP:COPYVIO. General Ization Talk 18:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Scm5791: As were previous versions of the article, going back to 2013 in both draft and mainspace, for the same reason. General Ization Talk 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with 2013 version. I'm just a fan of Leonid Afremov trying to post an article of him. I'm from Argentina. What has to be done to use that excellent biography? https://afremov.com/Leonid-Afremov-bio.html scm5791 (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- The "excellent biography" is copyrighted. What can be done to use it is that users can view it on the web. If you think that its subject is passes artistic notability, you can rewrite the biography in your own words. The question about how to use an excellent biography shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- You apparently have something to do with the most recent version, which was deleted as a copyright violation, as I stated above. See the guidance at the link I posted above. General Ization Talk 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I will try to post a draft of Leonid Afremov with my own words. Not Copy/Paste from other websites. Thank you. scm5791 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bazadais created an article in mainspace on December 15, 2018 - about the same time as Scm5791. None of the accounts in the deleted history appear to be blocked; Special:Contributions/Bob Roberts created the original article and Special:Contributions/Afremov appears to be the oldest coi account who says he is the son of Leonid Afremov. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Rjensen
- Military history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Rjensen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rjensen is involved in a discussion regarding the External Links section at Military history. They have a close connection to two of the links: Web Sources for Military History and H-War. Rjensen's conduct and editing seem to be entirely appropriate, however I have encouraged him to disclose his COI when discussing these sites, which he disagrees with. This is a very minor issue and there's no need for sanctions, but I'd like to get input from a few uninvolved editors. –dlthewave ☎ 18:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do own "Web Sources for Military History" and americanhistoryprojects.com. the possible COI issue was not hidden-- another editor already raised COI about the website and they dismissed COI as not an issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=873954699 As I told Dlthewave, I think I am following the COI two guidelines: a) = WP:EXTERNALREL Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise and b) from WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. On the second point, H-War. No. I have no "close connection" with H-WAR--I am a subscriber like thousands of people & I posted a few messages in recent years. It is one of 200+ academic discussion lists published by H-NET-- i was one of the leaders of H-Net when 130 new lests were created in the mid 1990s. Richard J. Jensen covers my permanent departure from H-Net in 1997. (I did remain active on some lists until a few years ago, but not H-War). I suggest that "close connection" is not a useful criterion here regarding ne & either H-War or H-Net. I did complain that the guidelines on COI are very vague --they seem to be specific only on paid editing (I was never paid to edit) and I hope the folks here can make some improvements. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think this is a non-issue. It would be one thing if Rjensen was editing articles on those sites, but participating in a discussion on a related article about a list of external links which includes them? Come on. A formal disclosure would be completely over the top. – Joe (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I do own "Web Sources for Military History" and americanhistoryprojects.com. the possible COI issue was not hidden-- another editor already raised COI about the website and they dismissed COI as not an issue http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=873954699 As I told Dlthewave, I think I am following the COI two guidelines: a) = WP:EXTERNALREL Subject-matter experts (SMEs) are welcome on Wikipedia within their areas of expertise and b) from WP:SELFCITE Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. On the second point, H-War. No. I have no "close connection" with H-WAR--I am a subscriber like thousands of people & I posted a few messages in recent years. It is one of 200+ academic discussion lists published by H-NET-- i was one of the leaders of H-Net when 130 new lests were created in the mid 1990s. Richard J. Jensen covers my permanent departure from H-Net in 1997. (I did remain active on some lists until a few years ago, but not H-War). I suggest that "close connection" is not a useful criterion here regarding ne & either H-War or H-Net. I did complain that the guidelines on COI are very vague --they seem to be specific only on paid editing (I was never paid to edit) and I hope the folks here can make some improvements. Rjensen (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, if others don't see it as an issue, I'll let it go. Thanks for your perspective Joe Roe. –dlthewave ☎ 02:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Human Appeal
- Human Appeal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- CliveMilkychops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ed1911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Both users are WP:SPAs. The newer one - CliveMilkychops has only edited Human Appeal. Ed1911 has also edited Othman Moqbel (former CEO of Human Appeal) and Nooh al-Kaddo (former trustee). Both users are attempting to remove controversies involving the organization, while relying on somewhat dodgy sourcing (an opinion piece by a WP:DAILYMAIL journalist in MEE). Icewhiz (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Art of Living Foundation
- Art of Living Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- NewlyHookedToWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I am self-reporting a possible COI and invite the editors to review my contributions to the page. Also, I am unclear whether my contributions fall under COI because I have volunteered with the non-profit in the past, without any benefits (financial or otherwise). I have taken special care for before making any edits, but would like some feedback about my situation. More discussion here [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Text was found in that article to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Text which is added to an article ought to be in an editor's own words, using an editor's own phrasing. A listing of the problematic text may be found here. Spintendo 12:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Marcel Saucet
- Nestor AI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Marcel Saucet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Draft:Marcel Saucet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Dr. Marcel Saucet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Draft:Dr. Marcel Saucet ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nutcrackermd47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- OfficialBiancaJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Articles on this businessman (who may or may not have a doctorate) have been deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Saucet and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Saucet (2nd nomination). However, the create-protection is being gamed by using the honorific. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Accounts blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OfficialBiancaJ. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the User Mukesh.bhardwaj40
- Oye digital marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User:Mukesh.bhardwaj40/sandbox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Mukesh.bhardwaj40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I've been following this user for a while as part of New page patrol since he created an article about an agency called Oye digital marketing, It was deleted by someone else. That company states on its page that it tries to promote people's social media presence. I posted a COI notice on his talk page. After that incident he created a page about Rhythm wagholikar, a non-notable author. I Nominated it for CSD and got it deleted, This user approaches me and tries very hard to convince me of its notabilty. Now that attempts by the user to promote a non-notable author and his books seem dubious . And I am almost certain of it being a clear promotion, once I googled the username along with the agency's. Daiyusha (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Daiyusha: If you go to https://www.oyedigitalmarketing.com/a, you will see that "Rhythm Wagholikar" is a client of this agency. This is a clear-cut case of undisclosed paid editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Martha L. Black-class icebreaker and User:VintageCCG
- Martha L. Black-class icebreaker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- VintageCCG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I believe the user has COI based on his testimony on his talk page where he quotes CCG policy at me without ever linking to it and misunderstands the difference between ship classification and a ship class, attempting to assert CCG methods of classification over that of reliable secondary sources, based on that misinterpretaion. He claims to have been a "marine professional" and "Just isn't done that way, notwithstanding that some other fleets might follow that convention. We don't." I asked him to declare his COI and refrain from editing in this area, but he denies it. I hope maybe this can help shed some light if I was right and maybe ask him to refrain from trying to impose Canadian Coast Guard guidelines on Wikipedia. Thank you. Llammakey (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed I provided a link to the CCG source material http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/e0013696 and here is a second source link https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/84 I have no COI other than being an expert on Canadian Coast Guard policies and history, and I am merely seeking to correct inaccurate identification of CCG ship classes in this and other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, readers will be confused by the conflicting misinformation ... outside this Wikipedia reference, if you cited a "Martha L Black Class icebreaker" then anyone with knowledge of the CCG would wonder why you were calling it that rather than the published name of the ship class i.e. High Endurance Multi-Task Vessel HEMTV which is cited in all CCG publications and communications. The "first-of-class" naming convention is common in naval fleets but is not followed by the civilian Canadian Coast Guard. This is not a subjective matter nor an opinion which might be subject to bias or agenda. It is simply a reflection of class naming conventions as practiced by the Canadian Coast Guard. I am not sure how to effect a correction for accuracy that is repeatedly reverted by an editor. VintageCCG (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Vintage's got a strong POV and isn't listening to us, but technically I don't think they have a COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Vistara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- M.soumen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor is an employee of Vistara. Per his twitter page, he is the airline's network planner, that is to say, they know of where the airline plans to fly or would cease to even before the same is published. Their primary edits are to any airport article related to this airline. Edits so far by this user related to Vistara are without any solid references. There is no declaration on their user page about their CoI and their edits are of concern given the failure to verify the content. — LeoFrank Talk 15:06, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree the above fact that I work for Vistara. However I deny any malpractices which can be categorised as conflict of interest. Edits done from account mostly supported by published articles. In few incidents when I had edited despite lack of published supporting material those were removed as'original research" and I have accepted those changes against my edits. I am primarily an aviation geek and love to read/learn/edit wikipedia articles on aviation (airliens/airports). M.soumen Talk 16:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether you deny a COI or not, it exists. Please do not edit the article itself, but confine yourself to requesting edits on the article Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- @M.soumen: Let alone the COI that you have, it does not look like you understand the verifiability policy per the edit you have made here. — LeoFrank Talk 17:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Also the fact that you have created the article Sanjiv Kapoor. Your talk page is full of warnings related to citation and most of them relate to Vistara. — LeoFrank Talk 17:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- @M.soumen: Let alone the COI that you have, it does not look like you understand the verifiability policy per the edit you have made here. — LeoFrank Talk 17:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether you deny a COI or not, it exists. Please do not edit the article itself, but confine yourself to requesting edits on the article Talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Julie Wyman article move to main space
- Julie Wyman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- SeaBass200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Karentalent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fist, user SeaBass200 (which looks like a SPA) creates the article as a draft, next user Karentalent, who had previously declared COI for another article, moves it to main space. Please check, I am not sure how to handle such issues. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Artaria195
In their eight months here, User:Artaria195 has edited extensively and exclusively on Noah K, his band Dollshot, and closely related topics. I've had a number of conversations with Artaria195 regarding WP:COI, to which they've always pushed back. At one point, I had managed to convince him to put a notice on their user page disclosing their COI, and he began to comply with our requirements by suggesting edits on the article talk page. I considered this a good outcome.
Unfortunately, that didn't last long, and they soon went back to editing the article themselves. Eventually, they removed the COI notice from their user page and have continued to make COI edits.
I doubt any further conversations I could have with him would be useful, so we're here. I'd like to see a formal finding that he does indeed have a COI, and editing restrictions imposed to enforce our COI requirements. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Here is a detailed response to your accusation of a COI. I began editing the article again when you initiated an AfD discussion in order to improve it. I do not have a COI by Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, my recent edit to the article on Noah K is simply the addition of and explanation of a new source that improves the article. I am planning to edit more widely, but had been focused on improving and defending the first article I had seriously contributed to. Artaria195 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Jean Beauvoir
- Jean Beauvoir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jeanbeau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Allindianz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Rockandpunkfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 2601:6c1:380:4870:9861:2455:5cf8:fe11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
On December 21, I stumbled upon this page due to unusual edits from an IP. At first, it seems oddly spammy [2] because they were adding "X-apple-data-detectors://22". I later realized this was a long term article that has been edited by COIs since 2012 [3]. It was not until the page was protected by Ad Orientem that Jeanbeau began editing for the first time since June 2017. I reverted their unsourced, promotional additions and have been discussing with them on my talk page. They admit to having their assistant Myra (Allindianz) edit the page but since Myra is not autoconfirmed, when the page was protected only he could edit. The reason I am bringing it here is because while I thought we agreed that they would use Edit Requests [4] (they specifically say "I do note your reference to submitting verified materials through the “WP edit requests - talk”, will prevent any further issues and will advise."), today they continued adding to the page [5]. This is problematic because I have been explaining in excruciating detail the problems with this over the past few days and they are ignoring it. They seem to be unwilling to follow our rules and they are so clearly only here to promote themselves. I am posting here for help since clearly, our discussions are not working. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that this is not a good situation. It looks like there are a lot of accounts that have a narrow interest in this individual. My gut is saying that the easiest way to deal with this is to slap extended confirmed protection on the article. Has the editing been disruptive and/or obviously promotional? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Ad Orientem: Sorry for the late rely. As I have just stumbled onto this page recently, I can only tell you what the edit history shows and my own experience. It does not seem to have been disruptive (they were mostly allowed to edit in peace until this year) until I started challenging the edits. I am still amazed this got by us for so long, they weren't actively hiding their COI. This is likely because they did not understand our rules but since I have explained it to them, there is no more excuses. There are undertones of it being promotional [6] but it was fixable and mostly namecruft (just listing everyone he has ever worked with indiscriminately). The major worry of mine was that it was all unsourced (although every edit summary said it could be verified, I am having problems finding sources) and again, promotionally undertoned. It was not an obvious promotion as in "so-and-so is the best musician ever" but it needs some NPOV tweaking. I am not comfortable taking the COI tag off just yet. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Charlie Hales
- Charlie Hales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Charliehales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Please see User:Charliehales' edits to the Charlie Hales articles, as well as my talk page comments. I should note, Charlie emailed me directly from a company email address, asking to call him to discuss changes to the article. I am not comfortable doing this, and I've also posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Charlie_Hales_article, hoping WP:Oregon members will keep an eye on the article and offer support as possible. Wanting to share here as well, in case any actions need to be taken. I do not intend to reply to his email. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment You're under no obligation whatsoever to contact him in any manner through the means he provided. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Flippin, Kentucky
- Flippin, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BlueLevelBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has stated they have written a book about this county, and that "we" are attempting to update and improve the current entries for this counties bicentennial. The editor is adding unencylopedic drivel such as "Flippin’s schools, churches, Masonic Lodge, bank, hotels, stores, mills, and factories once contributed to the quality of life in this community and County" I have tried to remove and explain that it is promotional and unencylopedic but the editor seems to have the mentality of owning the article. VVikingTalkEdits 14:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I wonder whether the editor’s user talk page or the article y’all page could be used to discuss some of these issues. My perception is that the editor is making good-faith edits, even if they could stand to be refined a bit. Larry Hockett (Talk) 15:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree for the most part the editor has made good-faith edits, my concern is they have an undeclared COI, and have added promotional unencylopedic information back into the article after being told why it was removed. (The editor has been using the edit summaries so they know what they are) --VVikingTalkEdits 15:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BITE? The only time you've ever edited their talk page is to notify them of this discussion, and the only edit you've made to the article talk page is more of a complaint than an attempt at discussion. Besides that, if we're going to add COI templates every time a new user edits an article on their home town then we've got a lot of work to do, because that's like 135% of new editors. GMGtalk 15:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree for the most part the editor has made good-faith edits, my concern is they have an undeclared COI, and have added promotional unencylopedic information back into the article after being told why it was removed. (The editor has been using the edit summaries so they know what they are) --VVikingTalkEdits 15:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is a good report, thank you. The user in question just removed 8K of the history section, which I restored. He or she appears to have a lot of ownership issues with the page, and has added extensive original research.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- I had a little back and forth with the user. They seem to just be a little outside the normal rules, but well-intentioned. It's probably not so much a COI issue as it is a new user issue.. They're working on the OR issue. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Marilyn Kirsch
- Marilyn Kirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Gabor Herman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Artist183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Gabortherman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Magneto2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Artist183, a SPA user with a lot of inside information on Marilyn Kirsch refuses to answer a simple COI questions, claims she or he owns the page, and is engaging in edit warring and WP:OWNERSHIP. Appears to be the article subject, see "added a reference to my MFA". Some crossover with User:Gaborherman (Apparently the husband of Marilyn Kirsch,and aslo edited by user Gabortherman, who seems to have outed himself at that talk page). Seems like a family affair all around. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
- Added a new SPA account that removed the autobio and 3rd party tags on Gabor Herman.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I am neither Gabor Herman nor I am using a login name similar to Gabor Herman. I can confirm that the information on the previous wiki pages is correct. What's the problem? Magneto2011 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- the problem is that your only edits here on Wikipedia have been to remove valid tags on the article page placed by myself and another editor. Please stop this.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Draft:HASHAN
- Draft:HASHAN (edit | [[Talk:Draft:HASHAN|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- HASHANMusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User appears to be creating a draft article about themselves. I have left a COI notice on their talk page. Their only contributions have been to their own draft. Agent00x (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Czechia Initiative / Helveticus96
- I have wrestled with posting this for a few weeks. In my invesitgations of User:Jan Blanicky I discovered they were an undisclosed editor for their boss Vladimir Hirsch, who I also eventually found out helps run something called the "Czechia Initiative." Most of that can be found [here], and [here.] I was prompted to post this via a previously unseen by myself post on my talk page from a Mobile IP [here.] It is the only post they have made to Wikipedia and they are based out of Virginia. They claim that someone named Vaclav Sulista is the "ring leader" and they try to proliferate usage of Czechia, things I already knew. Most of these edits take place at Name of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic, and across all instances of it on Wikipedia. You will see many Czechia Initiative members (including Jan Blanicky and Vaclav Sulista) engaging in discussions on Talk:Name of the Czech Republic, and talk pages of any users seemingly against their agenda, including myself, and User:Khajidha.
- Currently there is a lenghty moratorium on the discussion of the name at Talk:Czech Republic, with an understanding that, per at least 7-8 discussions/RFCs and WP:COMMONNAME, "Czech Republic" should be used, and that any attempts to proliferate "Czechia" be reverted on sight. Numerous users and I have dealt with this. In this I have come across one user User:Helveticus96, who has taken part in such edits. The user claims to be Vaclav Sulista on their talk page. Numerous user talk and article talk page interactions show a concerted effort to convince people to use the word "Czechia." A person named Vaclav Sulista is named as one of two "team members" at the Facebook page ([[7]]) and one of 12 "contributors" at the Czechia Initiative's "about us" page.([[8]]) In my invesitgations I found that some of his interactions are being posted to Facebook as the user attempts to convince people that Wikipedia is "censoring." [This post in particular] is from [a comment on Helveticus96/Vaclav Sulista's own talk page] with this added commentary:
(translated from Czech via Google)"Unbelievable arrogance and madness of anonymous Wikipedia administrators. After several months of change from Swaziland to Eswatini, a false claim that Eswatini is more used than Swaziland. That is clearly not true. The official list of EU countries in English states Czechia, Wikipedia immediately erases and returns to the Czech Republic? How are these people a hidden agenda? I do not understand obsession with suppressing Czechia everywhere, even where it is obviously used. Any discussion of the topic is blocked by July 2019, it's just ridiculous!"
- I had previously suspected sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, at the very least, based on the nearly in tandem edits Helveticus had with User:Heptapolein, a sock of Jan Blanicky.([listed here]) Clearly these two know each other based on the frequency of times Helveticus comes to his defence, sometimes even on user talk pages for seemingly no reason. (even on Helveticus' talk page he claims "I am using my account from 2 different IP addresses, thats all, I can not imagine this is forbidden." However, regardless of the vast evidence, no action was taken as the reasoning was a previous CheckUser failed to connect him to Jan Blanicky. It's a clear WP:DUCK situation. I feel like some kind of action should be taken per the obvious meatpuppetry and clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:COI edits at the very least.- R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- Update: I noticed that Helveticus again [confirmed his identity on my talk page], saying: " I am not ashamed of my identity, and I am declaring it openly on my Wikipedia page, apparently something, most admins are afraid to do." This seems to be in response to the Mobile IP which made another edit to my talk page under a different string. [[9]], where they point out that their first post about Helveticus was [posted onto the Facebook page for the Czechia Initiative.] with the commentary (from Czech): "Anonymous administrators of Wikipedia nominally attack members of the initiative!" Intersting that they would accuse Wikipedia admins of being "anonymous."
- Update 2:I've also found a nonactive user by the name of User:Vaclavjoseph. The name is similar and the editing focus is uncanny. All of the edits focus on changing Czech Republic to Czechia. This account has existed contemporaneously with Helveticus96, and both were created in 2014. The accounts first proper edit was in 2016 to chime in and agree with Jan Blanicky at Talk:Czech Republic with the comment "Jan Blanický is absolutely right." This is identical to the editing M.O. of Helveticus coming to Jan Blanicky's defense on numerous other occasions, seemingly out of nowhere. Clearly this account was made for only one purpose. Clearly this also breaches WP:SOCKPUPPET, but I- R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- pinging previouslty involved @Ground Zero: - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
It's been a while
Just a reminder: this is a list of recently created articles that are more likely to be promotional or whose authors have undeclared conflicts of interest.
Extended content
|
---|
|
I've left the female academic bios in, but there's still plenty of startup and entrepreneur spam in between. MER-C 07:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Dr Greg Wood
- Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Work Capability Assessment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dr Greg Wood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have discovered that User:Dr Greg Wood has a possible Conflict of Interest. I was editing the Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment article. I quickly noticed that the article had a strong bias. I also noticed there was a section describing a doctor who had worked for Atos (the company who used to run the Work Capability Assessment). and had whistleblown on Atos. Oddly, this did not name the doctor. I looked at the references on this section and noticed that the doctor in question was named Greg Wood. Here is a link to the article before I edited it.[10] I knew that people weren't supposed to edit Wikipedia articles about themselves, but I wasn't very familiar with the rules around this. I looked at WP:COI. It mentioned that naming editors should be avoided, so I asked on the editor request for help page if this user had COI, using a pseudonym for Greg Wood.[11]. User:JohninDC responded that it could potentially be COI. He also told me that he had worked out who the editor in question was and had contacted them. User:Dr Greg Wood later responded that he was the doctor who blew the whistle on Atos on his talk page, but denied he had a conflict of interest [12]. I decided to look into how the content that refered to Greg Wood came to be on the page.
I found that the Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment had been split from the Work Capability Assessment article. I found that Dr Greg Wood had added the content on 15 August 2014.[13] He cites two sources; both of which are interviews that he gave to different media outlets. He edited the content again 3 times on the same day.[14][15][16] Here are all the other edits that he has made regarding his actions:
2014
2015
2016
- 31 January [28]
- 1 February [29][30].
- 9 May [31] [32] [33] [34].
- 10 May [35][36]
- 11 May [37][38]
- 12 May [39]
- 14 May [40]
- 19 September [41][42]
- 20 September [43][44][45][46][47][48][49]
- 21 September [50]
- 22 September [51]
- 23 September [52]
- 24 September [53]
- 29 September [54]
- 30 September [55][56][57][58]
- 1 October [59][60][61]
- 2 October [62]
- 3 October [63][64][65][66]
- 4 October [67][68][69][70][71][72]
- 5 October [73][74]
- 6 October [75][76][77]
- 7 October [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]
- 8 October [87][88][89][90]
- 9 October [91]
- 10 October [92][93][94][95][96]
- 13 October [97]
- 15 October [98]
- 18 October [99]
- 22 October [100]
- 23 October [101]
- 24 October [102]
- 6 November [103]
- 11 December [104][105]
2017
- 15 January [106]
- 16 January [107][108]
- 18 January [109][110][111]
- 20 January [112]
- 2 February [113]
- 9 February [114][115][116][117][118]
On 27 June 2017, the Work Capability Assessment article was split and a new article: Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment was created, which included the section on Dr Greg Wood's actions. He made the following edits relating to his actions:
On 25 August, the page was nominated for deletion. Dr Greg Wood advocated keeping the article.[129]
- 5 September [130]
Dr Greg Wood has also contributed significantly to other articles in relation to the Work Capability Assessment. I'm not sure if he has a conflict of interest in relation to these articles, but I feel these articles have an undue emphasis on the Work Capability Assessment.
In the case of the Incapacity Benefit article, I removed some content relating to the Work Capability Assessment, but Dr Greg Wood reverted my edits to put the content back.[131][132][133]. I initially removed this again, but realised it would be in violation of WP:1RR so I put it back.
CircleGirl (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
- India News Haryana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Neerajmadhuria72014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Draft:Ajay Shukla ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:LD Sharma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Draft:EverlyWell ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This editor's only edits have been to create new articles. Three of them were draftified. Subject editor admitted association with LD Sharma. Subject editor has now moved India News Haryana and Ajay Shukla back into article space without relying on AFC process (although they were told to use AFC). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?
Do practitioners of alternative medicine (Acupuncture, Coin rubbing, Ear candling, Homeopathy, Phrenology, Urine therapy, Vaginal steaming, etc.) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Related:
Please !vote in the yes and no sections, and discuss in the threaded discussion section.
Any editor may move comments placed in the yes and no sections into the threaded discussion section.
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes
- Yes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes: seems self-evident. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes: Someone who gets paid for practicing acupuncture has a clear COI concerning our acupuncture article. Someone who makes their living selling homeopathic medicines has a clear COI concerning our homeopathy article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes - their income depends on promoting nonsense. --mfb (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes with qualification Anyone who gets paid or receives money in relation to a subject they are editing has a potential conflict of interest (the potential conflict is that they will edit the subject in a non-neutral manner in order to increase their personal gain). Most medical professionals have a potential conflict if they edit medical articles for example. For the vast vast majority of these editors the potential conflict never arises because they edit perfectly normally without attempting to push any agenda or the potential conflict is very remote. The problem with editors who receive money related to pseudoscience/alt-med etc is that it is almost always in their interest to not present a balanced article, which is why we have so many who edit non-neutrally. But its still only a potential COI. An actual COI needs a much stronger relationship than merely being financially linked through their job. OR a demonstrated pattern of COI editing in the subject area. Its certainly possible for an acupuncturist to edit neutrally on acupuncture articles when describing the process. But this is not the same as a paid editor who is being directly paid to edit an article - their financial conflict is directly linked and pretty much depends on a favorable article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes they do, because their business is dependent on the pulic acceptance of the legitimacy of the quackery they sell. A medical doctor can use any valid therapy, they have no COI in respect of a specific drug unless they are a spokesperson or involved in trials, but an acupuncturist, homeopathist or whatever, gains tangible financial benefit when Wikipedia validates the false beliefs that underpin their business. A doctor who prescribes statins will change to another treatment if statins are shown to be ineffective. An acupuncturist has no obvious option other than acupuncture. It's like any other cult. An agnostic has no COI in respect of cults, neither does an atheist, but a member of the cult, does.
- Consider, for example, knee arthroscopy for arthritis. This was tested in well controlled experiments and found to be no better than placebo. The professional community recognised that this means it does not work, so they stopped doing it. Surgeons who performed knee arthroscopy did not have a problem with that, they were still qualified surgeons and did other work. Now consider what happened when evidence came in that acupuncture is no better than placebo. Acupuncturists can't change their practice - there is no practice of sticking things other than needles into people, they have invested a lot of time and money learning the medical equivalent of Klingon, so they cannot work unless they obscure the evidence that it does not matter where you stick the needles or even whether you put them in. They engage in political agitation and policy-based evidence making to support their business and their quasi-religious beliefs. The number of conditions for which acupuncture still has a positive evidence base is shrinking, and all of them are self-reported subjective symptoms. There is a huge incentive to change Wikipedia to reflect the world as they wish it to be, rather than as science finds it.
- It's like the difference between a 4-3-3 formation trainer, who has a vested interest in that formation, and a supporter of football, who won't care over much about the formation, only about the game itself. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No
- No. Acupuncture Program - Johns Hopkins Medicine. I, for one, welcome our expert editors from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine one of the topped ranked medical schools in the world. Please provide real examples where this has been a problem so we can come up with a proposal more precise and less sweeping. GreenC 19:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- And what happens if research shows (as in fact it does) that acupuncture is invalid? A research programme made up of acupuncturists has a seriously hard time adapting its practices to exclude the refuted parts of acupuncture, such as meridians and qi, so will have a close to impossible task accepting evidence that "real" acupuncture is no better than fake, as science shows. Instead they say, literally, that acupuncture is so powerful that even fake acupuncture works. Yes, really. Guy (Help!) 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- No The editing may be unbalanced, but unless they are writing about themselves, their own business or paid to write, it is not a "conflict". If we say this is a COI, we would have to ban all experts on writing about their own expertise. That would be no doctors writing on medical topics, no historians writing on history etc. For any of these things it can result in imbalance, but it is not COI. So we need multiple points of view, and this includes alternative medicine practitioners. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- No Conflict of interest (COI) editing "involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Unless an editor is involved in an article about their practice, it is not COI, per the guideline. Nor is it COI for a conventional physician to edit articles about medicine. TFD (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- (as CAM professional) Not enough of one to trigger Wikipedia's COIADVICE, same as my !vote in the first RfC. COI isn't like being pregnant: you can have it a little bit, or some, or a lot. (See my signature link.) My preference is to disclose, proceed with care, and -- hopefully -- let my edits be judged solely on their merits. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- No - See below. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- No No more than an MD has a conflict of interest writing about medicine. This is yet another attempt to silence anyone who doesn't tow the skeptical line about complimentary medicine and in particular a witch hunt against User:Middle 8... 4,3,2,1 "But acupuncture is pseudoscience and its evil!" See Talk:Acupuncture for background on this. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
- No Not inherently so. I think Graeme Bartlett nailed it. Specialists have specialist knowledge and this is not a COI. Certainly people in the field of alternative medicine are no more COI than an MD writing about their specialty or a PhD writing about the topic where they teach. I favor balance and NPOV, but the MEDRS and SCIRS gang need to remember that not all "alternative" medicine consists of quack remedies promoted by hucksters. It's all about balance and accuracy. Montanabw(talk) 00:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- No Graeme Bartlett has good points. Saying an editor has a COI just because of their profession is a mistake, by this logic MDs should not be able to edit articles about energy healing, because if energy healing was real(which it's not) it would be a threat to doctor's livelihoods. Do we really we want to go down the road of restricting editors from editing the topics they know the best? This proposal appears to be an attempt to stop POV pushing by twisting WP:COI. Given that we have a policy against POV pushing, and discretionary sanctions that can be enforced against POV pushers editing alternative medicine, this proposal is completely unnecessary
Sometimes
- Sometimes. I'm boldly adding a third option as I don't believe a blanket judgment is useful here. If someone is here to promote a particular point of view, and has a real-life connection to that subject, then they have a COI. However, contributors considered experts in their field should always be welcome, provided they edit according to policies and community norms. The difference between these two is governed by common sense. Bradv🍁 20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Per comment below.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Difficult question. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's an inverse correlation between the legitimacy of a field and the likelihood that a practitioner in that field will edit such articles in a way incompatible with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Ultimately, however, I'm not in the "yes" section because I think it largely overlaps with WP:EXTERNALREL. I have no problem with an acupuncturist writing about the history of acupuncture (generally speaking), for example. That said, I'm not in the "no" section because I do think there's one aspect of this that we can say there's an inherently problematic COI: the matter of its legitimacy itself. In other words, I would be a "yes" if the question were phrased "...with regard to the [legitimacy/scientific accuracy/similar] of their field of practice." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
- Comment: Not sure this question should be limited to altmed. We already have WP:MEDCOI. Surely anybody who has a financial interest in sellling something specific, has a COI, whether it is in "conventional" medicine (say, specialising in a plastic surgery procedure) or altmed (say, being a rolfer™). Why do we need to have any kind of special treatment for altmed specialists? - they're already covered. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- As a wise person going by the name of Alexbrn once wrote:
- "It is a false equivalence between (most) altmed practitioners and 'western-medicine MDs'. The latter operate in a wide field and if certain therapies and products are found useless they simply adjust to new ones. In altmed the therapy is usually one specific intervention and so there is no 'off ramp' - the practitioner's livelihood is thus strongly bound to assessments of that therapy's worth. So, an advocate of crystal therapy does not operate in a way which responds to evidence. Of course in conventional medicine too editors here have COIs when they have close links to particular medical products or therapies; problems like that happen here often too."[134] (Posted by Alexbrn to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest on 11 May 2015 UTC)
- I'm just saying. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Acupuncture Program - Johns Hopkins Medicine. I, for one, welcome our expert editors from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine one of the topped ranked medical schools in the world. Please provide real examples where this has been a problem so we can come up with a proposal more precise and less sweeping. -- GreenC 19:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Middle 8 has consistently refused to admit he has a COI with respect to acupuncture. jps (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's not possible to have a COI with respect to acupuncture. Unless he is editing in favor of his products, services or institution. It is looking like this RfC is really about a single user, User:Middle 8. -- GreenC 01:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ජපස: wrote:
User:Middle 8 has consistently refused to admit he has a COI with respect to acupuncture
-- Actually, I have so admitted, just not in the way you would've preferred.[135][136] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)- That you are an unethical, conflicted editor who has used Wikipedia to make money for your various alternative medicine ventures is something with which I can agree, certainly. jps (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Climb down off that high horse, the weather's nicer down here. I've been on long-term leave and haven't made money from my "alt-med venture" in quite awhile. I used to talk to my patients about the evidence base for acu (once I understood it) and the Wikipedia article (partly out of curiosity, partly a sense of ethical obligation). Most hadn't read it. The very few who had invariably thought the acu article so ridiculously skeptic-POV'd that they discounted it and even had a boomerang reaction. (The alternative medicine article today is almost hilariously bad in that way, btw.) So, you'll be glad to hear that if anything my efforts probably hurt my bottom line. Back when I had one from acu. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- That you are an unethical, conflicted editor who has used Wikipedia to make money for your various alternative medicine ventures is something with which I can agree, certainly. jps (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- User:Middle 8 has consistently refused to admit he has a COI with respect to acupuncture. jps (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: Why, what a brilliant young man I was back then! I think my view is is still essentially the same - whether altmed or not, people financially interested in something have a COI. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Acupuncture Program - Johns Hopkins Medicine. I, for one, welcome our expert editors from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine one of the topped ranked medical schools in the world. Please provide real examples where this has been a problem so we can come up with a proposal more precise and less sweeping. -- GreenC 19:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm just saying. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Re: Johns Hopins, see Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies. Key quote:
- "They’re among the nation’s premier medical centers, at the leading edge of scientific research. Yet hospitals affiliated with Yale, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and other top medical research centers also aggressively promote alternative therapies with little or no scientific backing. They offer 'energy healing' to help treat multiple sclerosis, acupuncture for infertility, and homeopathic bee venom for fibromyalgia. A public forum hosted by the University of Florida’s hospital even promises to explain how herbal therapy can reverse Alzheimer’s. (It can’t.)... Some hospitals have built luxurious, spa-like wellness centers to draw patients for spiritual healing, homeopathy, and more. And they’re promoting such treatments for a wide array of conditions, including depression, heart disease, cancer, and chronic pain. Duke even markets a pediatric program that suggests on its website that alternative medicine, including 'detoxification programs' and 'botanical medicines,' can help children with conditions ranging from autism to asthma to ADHD. 'We’ve become witch doctors,' said Dr. Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at the Yale School of Medicine and a longtime critic of alternative medicine."
- As our article on Alternative medicine says, "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in others the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Re: Johns Hopins, see Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies. Key quote:
- The claim of "scientific consensus" is unsourced. Sounds about right. How can you source consensus when major scientific medical institutions like Johns Hopkins are using alt medicine. Evidently there is no consensus. Unless you believe these institutions are "witch doctors" says Dr. Steven Novella. Reminds me of Elizabeth Holmes who called the WSJ a "tabloid" when they published something she didn't like. -- GreenC 01:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:LEADCITE, that is sourced in the body. Determination of scientific consensus is not through whether reputed medical institutions use alt medicine but through what high-quality WP:MEDRS sources say. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok found it. Four sources dated 1995,1997,2002,2004 nearly a generation old.. It's also asserting a strong statement of broad consensus which would be difficult to demonstrate in four sources, unless those sources are directly asserting the statement. JH is to medical scientific research, as Stanford is to computer science and MIT is to engineering. They are the establishment, and publishers of reliable sources. There is a Johns Hopkins book in the Bibliography, though not chosen as a source. It looks like core establishment has been changing over the past generation, and Wikipedia is still fighting the altmed battles I recall from the early 2000s. At the very least, a re-examination of what the consensus is these days would be a useful exercise. I suspect there would be such conflicting opinion no clear consensus would emerge, or least not the unqualified one currently claimed with those 4 old sources. -- GreenC 16:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comments like this are prima facie evidence of intellectual vapidity. The year 2004 is described as being "nearly a generation old", entire institutions are held up as paragons of research as though there is no possibility for problems to occur among individuals or groups when they're employed by such a beast, and then further absurdities are entertained that somehow the scientific consensus doesn't exist that acupuncture has no evidence for its efficacy. If we took WP:CIR seriously, this would be grounds for topic banning. jps (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- The average of those 4 dates centers around 2000 which is about 19 years ago, 20 years is a generation. And you don't need to threaten me with banning. I am not intellectually vapid, are you intellectually vapid? You've got a problem, it's not me, it's time. Consensus changes and a lot has happened since GWB took office. Marijuana is becoming more legal etc., there is a broad trend in health care encompassing alternative therapies that reflects generational changes in the population at large who are more accepting than previous. As the contradictions between Wikipedia and the real world continue to build you will become increasingly embattled. The right action is to keep Wikipedia up to date. -- GreenC 23:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- You think a generation is 20 years, eh, buster? "Marijuana is becoming legal, etc." WOW! SUCH GREAT arguments! Keep trying, though. You continue to make a wonderful case that you lack the intellectual heft necessary to render an informed opinion on this subject. jps (talk)
- @jps, Galobtter, Guy Macon, GreenC, Alexbrn Well, we do have the hefty consensus (yes, it says consensus) of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that
"Nonpharmacologic interventions for pain treatment, including acupuncture, physical therapy and exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and mindfulness meditation, also are powerful tools in the management of chronic pain."
[137] Yes, I am quoting accurately and in context -- the NAM looked at several nonpharmacologic pain treatments [138] and found favorably for a few of them including acu. (Source: NAM consensus report Pain Management and the Opioid Epidemic: Balancing Societal and Individual Benefits and Risks of Prescription Opioid Use[self-published source?? we'd better find something wrong with it and fast or the sky's going to fall. someone alert the bloggers!]) - To be clear: this is the sci consensus (or at least the large majority view, given the source, and others) about acupuncture's clinical value. That is not to be confused with the sci consensus about its efficacy compared to sham acupuncture (perhaps a small analgesic effect). Pretty impressive example of how researchers and clinicians think differently, I'd say. After all, it's perverse to { use a treatment that's (mostly) a placebo | not use a treatment that helps certain difficult-to-treat pain patients }.
- If only we had editors able to hold these two seemingly opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- @jps, Galobtter, Guy Macon, GreenC, Alexbrn Well, we do have the hefty consensus (yes, it says consensus) of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that
- You think a generation is 20 years, eh, buster? "Marijuana is becoming legal, etc." WOW! SUCH GREAT arguments! Keep trying, though. You continue to make a wonderful case that you lack the intellectual heft necessary to render an informed opinion on this subject. jps (talk)
- The average of those 4 dates centers around 2000 which is about 19 years ago, 20 years is a generation. And you don't need to threaten me with banning. I am not intellectually vapid, are you intellectually vapid? You've got a problem, it's not me, it's time. Consensus changes and a lot has happened since GWB took office. Marijuana is becoming more legal etc., there is a broad trend in health care encompassing alternative therapies that reflects generational changes in the population at large who are more accepting than previous. As the contradictions between Wikipedia and the real world continue to build you will become increasingly embattled. The right action is to keep Wikipedia up to date. -- GreenC 23:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comments like this are prima facie evidence of intellectual vapidity. The year 2004 is described as being "nearly a generation old", entire institutions are held up as paragons of research as though there is no possibility for problems to occur among individuals or groups when they're employed by such a beast, and then further absurdities are entertained that somehow the scientific consensus doesn't exist that acupuncture has no evidence for its efficacy. If we took WP:CIR seriously, this would be grounds for topic banning. jps (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Ok found it. Four sources dated 1995,1997,2002,2004 nearly a generation old.. It's also asserting a strong statement of broad consensus which would be difficult to demonstrate in four sources, unless those sources are directly asserting the statement. JH is to medical scientific research, as Stanford is to computer science and MIT is to engineering. They are the establishment, and publishers of reliable sources. There is a Johns Hopkins book in the Bibliography, though not chosen as a source. It looks like core establishment has been changing over the past generation, and Wikipedia is still fighting the altmed battles I recall from the early 2000s. At the very least, a re-examination of what the consensus is these days would be a useful exercise. I suspect there would be such conflicting opinion no clear consensus would emerge, or least not the unqualified one currently claimed with those 4 old sources. -- GreenC 16:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- MOS:LEADCITE, that is sourced in the body. Determination of scientific consensus is not through whether reputed medical institutions use alt medicine but through what high-quality WP:MEDRS sources say. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- The claim of "scientific consensus" is unsourced. Sounds about right. How can you source consensus when major scientific medical institutions like Johns Hopkins are using alt medicine. Evidently there is no consensus. Unless you believe these institutions are "witch doctors" says Dr. Steven Novella. Reminds me of Elizabeth Holmes who called the WSJ a "tabloid" when they published something she didn't like. -- GreenC 01:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The source is not commenting on alternative medicine. It is commenting on pain management and the opioid crisis. It is reminiscent of problems we have always had with POV-pushers like yourself cherry-picking sources that made them feel better about their pet pseudosciences. Also, this source is off-topic for this discussion of COI, of course. A better question might be, do you possibly have a COI with respect to alternative medicine? jps (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:MEDCOI seems to be fine for this. It says that folks with a COI need to declare it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don't mean to say that western medical knowledge is the end-all and be-all of health related articles. If traditional or other alt-med procedures are used and notable they should be reported, but that doesn't mean they get a pass on reporting scientific studies, or reporting when there have been no scientific studies. That is the domain of western medicine. Anybody, alt-med or otherwise, who has a COI and doesn't declare it is walking on thin ice, especially if they don't accurately report the scientific evidence. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- At least one user (See User talk:Roxy the dog#CAM COI RfC IDHT (smh) and User:Middle 8/COI) has declared[139] that it is perfectly OK for a practicing acupuncturist to edit our acupuncture article, and he quotes the 2015 RfC listed above as support for that assertion. So here we are, revisiting the question with a new RfC to see whether the community wants to uphold or overturn the previous RfC. I would assume that if you were to try to invoke WP:MEDCOI he would point to the same RfC as allowing him to edit despite having a clear COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The previous RfC doesn't need to be "overturned" because it was inconclusive (no consensus). But we do need clarity. It's a bit naughty for any altmed specialist to claim that "no consensus" result gave a green light for them to freely edit an article on their specialism. Alexbrn (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well frankly it does. No consensus means exactly that. There is no consensus that those particular workers are inherantly conflicted and should be prohibited from editing articles directly in the topic area in which they are employed (which was the obvious goal of the RFC). I suspect if the question was phrased more generically it would gain clearer consensus. "Do you have a COI in the topic area in which you are employed or otherwise recieve financial renumeration" would either be no or yes. As it stands, singling out one specific industry will end up with 'yeah sometimes'. But no one wants to ask that question because it would prevent all sorts of editors editing their favored topics, or it would prevent none. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- There was no consensus that that they are, and no consensus that they aren't. Are you familiar with the scottish verdict? But okay, if we're saying anything but an unequivocal finding of "yes" here shall be interpreted as granting altmed folk free reign to edit on their own specialisms, then that at least clarifies how - in community terms - the result will be taken. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes [cynic] its what allows people in Scotland to have a 2nd bite in the civil courts when they dont get the result they want in the criminal ones [/cynic]. But that is a very different kettle of fish from an ENWP no consensus result. ENWP is fundementally 'we cant agree'. A not proven verdict is most often deployed in Scotland where the Jury think the person is guilty but the evidence isnt there, or cannot be corroborated. Its not a lack of agreement, its a lack of supporting evidence. Personally I would be more than happy to ban all Altmed practitioners from their relevant topic areas, but thats a thin end of the wedge which is what I suspect led to the original result. If we are going to contemplate going that route, just directly do a proposal for it rather than using the roundabout COI for it (which by policy doesnt actually prohibit them even if it is declared they have a conflict). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that editors (well one anyway) are using the previous RfC to claim an exemption from our general COI provisions in a kind of "Wikipedia has cleared me" way. As WP:MEDCOI states "Editing on topics where one is involved or closely related, especially when there is potential financial gain, is discouraged". I think that should be applied to altmed just as it is to conventional medicine. I sort of agree with your general point though, because ultimately all these things are gameable by conflicted editors, and it's POV editing and associated behaviour which will get them in the end. Alexbrn (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Acupuncturists are not bound by MEDCOI since acupuncture isnt medicine *Pigeon Cat Pigeon*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- The vaunted Johns Hopkins Integrative Medicine Acupuncture Program as described on their own website:
Spintendo 12:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Acupuncture and massage appointments are now available at our downtown campus for cancer patients and their caregivers (family and all healthcare providers) at the Hackerman-Patz Pavilion, located just across the street from the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Massage therapy includes deep tissue, oncology massage, and other types. Acupuncture and massage therapy make excellent gifts! Please call 410-828-3585 to make an appointment or obtain a gift certificate.[1]
- The vaunted Johns Hopkins Integrative Medicine Acupuncture Program as described on their own website:
- Acupuncturists are not bound by MEDCOI since acupuncture isnt medicine *Pigeon Cat Pigeon*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that editors (well one anyway) are using the previous RfC to claim an exemption from our general COI provisions in a kind of "Wikipedia has cleared me" way. As WP:MEDCOI states "Editing on topics where one is involved or closely related, especially when there is potential financial gain, is discouraged". I think that should be applied to altmed just as it is to conventional medicine. I sort of agree with your general point though, because ultimately all these things are gameable by conflicted editors, and it's POV editing and associated behaviour which will get them in the end. Alexbrn (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes [cynic] its what allows people in Scotland to have a 2nd bite in the civil courts when they dont get the result they want in the criminal ones [/cynic]. But that is a very different kettle of fish from an ENWP no consensus result. ENWP is fundementally 'we cant agree'. A not proven verdict is most often deployed in Scotland where the Jury think the person is guilty but the evidence isnt there, or cannot be corroborated. Its not a lack of agreement, its a lack of supporting evidence. Personally I would be more than happy to ban all Altmed practitioners from their relevant topic areas, but thats a thin end of the wedge which is what I suspect led to the original result. If we are going to contemplate going that route, just directly do a proposal for it rather than using the roundabout COI for it (which by policy doesnt actually prohibit them even if it is declared they have a conflict). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- There was no consensus that that they are, and no consensus that they aren't. Are you familiar with the scottish verdict? But okay, if we're saying anything but an unequivocal finding of "yes" here shall be interpreted as granting altmed folk free reign to edit on their own specialisms, then that at least clarifies how - in community terms - the result will be taken. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well frankly it does. No consensus means exactly that. There is no consensus that those particular workers are inherantly conflicted and should be prohibited from editing articles directly in the topic area in which they are employed (which was the obvious goal of the RFC). I suspect if the question was phrased more generically it would gain clearer consensus. "Do you have a COI in the topic area in which you are employed or otherwise recieve financial renumeration" would either be no or yes. As it stands, singling out one specific industry will end up with 'yeah sometimes'. But no one wants to ask that question because it would prevent all sorts of editors editing their favored topics, or it would prevent none. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The previous RfC doesn't need to be "overturned" because it was inconclusive (no consensus). But we do need clarity. It's a bit naughty for any altmed specialist to claim that "no consensus" result gave a green light for them to freely edit an article on their specialism. Alexbrn (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Johns Hopkins Medicine. "Massage and Acupuncture: Integrative Medicine and Digestive Center". www.hopkinsmedicine.org.
- In shock news, product of US for-profit health system sells useless procedures to vulnerable people... News at 11. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I had a quick look at Talk:Acupuncture and see quite a few people quoting MEDRS. It seems to me if "
" is held to apply to acupuncture, then the whole of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Medicine applies. In any case, I don't see that MEDCOI places any restrictions or limits that COI doesn't already. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.
- What a silly RFC. It's like asking "Are scientific journals reliable source?". There is no yes/no answer. Seems to me some editors are just looking for hammer with which to hit editors they disagree with and a way of deciding who is "one of us" (Horray!) vs "one of them" (Oh No!). I encourage folks to read the !votes by MastCell and WhatAmIDoing in the previous RFC. As noted, while some AltMed requires such a degree of impossibleness as to be unreasonable (homeopathy) others are more complicated (when does a diet become mainstream?). And WhatAmIDoing points out that COI is not the issue, but POV pushing may be. And quite possible for a practitioner in WM to push their POV and even to earn from one specific treatment from which they have invested money on equipment, training and promotion. Where I disagree with some is that I think there is a fair amount of inertia in WM towards shifting treatment in the face of new evidence (or of continuing to use and promote a treatment that never had much or any evidence). Recent scandals with surgical implants demonstrate that quite amply. I'd rather we were focussing more on whether someone was making helpful edits (or not) than who they are. -- Colin°Talk 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Comment It certainly is not COI per the existing guideline (WP:COI). If you wish to change the guideline, it should be taken to the village pump where changes to guidelines are made. TFD (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- Whether something works or not does not impact or affect COI. COI has to do with Wikipedia content. If an article is about the ridiculous we source it and move on. I'm not interested in whether its nonsense or not. Working for pay in a particular field does not in itself constitute a COI. Western physicians might then be accused of COI; I don't buy Alex's, although well stated, point suggesting alt med practitioners /physicians can be singled out with COIs since he assumes alt medicine professionals only work in one modality and don't change if shown something better. Being an expert in a field and even being paid in that field does not constitute a COI. As teacher at university I might ask my students to look at an article on movement, and did, that I know will lead through the references to further research on a topic, but I may take a look at the article first to make sure the article is accurate; that's not a COI. A COI, in my opinion, is when someone is editing Wikipedia to slant its content and may even be paid to slant its content. I've met those who have strong POV in topic areas and feel that any means necessary to indicate that "true" POV is acceptable. We need experts and those experts are likely paid to teach or work in their fields or did if retired. Its silly to push aside the expert and allow a non expert to control an article. There has to be some middle ground where new expert editors can interact with experienced non-expert Wikipedia editors without huge levels of drama. I'd suggest the responsibility to deal with those experts sits with the experienced editor; those with experience often see themselves as gate keepers to a refined world instead of the mediators between experts and their ability to add expert content.Littleolive oil (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
hatting off-topic diversion
|
---|
|
- We don't need to use the conflict of interest policy to deal with POV-pushing editors in complementary and alternative medicine, because ArbCom discretionary sanctions are a satisfactory draconian remedy. (We sometimes need draconian remedies, and this one is sufficiently draconian.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Robert McClenon on this. Alternative medicine is one of those topics like politics and Gibralter where emotions run high and ARBCOM remedies are in place. They do the job. I also agree with Colin that even mainstream medical sources can sometimes have biases exposed and are not to be taken as perfect gospel. As always, our alphabet soup of policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and even most of the time WP:MEDRS and SCIRS) usually provide the guidance needed. Time to stop beating this dead horse. Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: This RfC is part of an ongoing attempt to vilify anyone who adds information that speaks to the effectiveness of any kind of alternative medicine, or any other topic the pseudoskeptics have declared to be pseudoscience. The things listed in the RfC are chosen to make it look as kooky as possible and they betray the poster's biases. What they are really talking about is acupuncture and Chinese Traditional Medicine, which they repeatedly claim are pseudoscience. Such a claim reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. As I have said before here "Science is a method, not a list of things that are right and things that are wrong. The scientific study of any phenomena is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is bad science. Science not done right. If the method is followed it is ipso facto science, no matter what it is studying." and "Science is about examining the evidence. Suppressing information about whole subject areas because one has decided are dodgy is not science. There is a name for it though. It is a witch hunt." See here "Yes, stop your COI editing, it’s disgusting that you have the bare-faced gall to involve yourself in this article. You already know this. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)".
- Moreover this is a content dispute disguised as an RfC. At AcupunctureUser:Middle 8 made this edit:
The Joint Commission requires the organizations it accredits to provide complementary, non-pharmacologic pain treatments (e.g. acupuncture) for patients who may benefit from them, such use potentially reducing the need for opioids. The Joint Commission allows organizations to choose which type(s) of complementary treatment to provide — it mandates none in particular because the evidence base for these treatments varies widely and is incomplete.
- This text is cited to this page. See Joint Commission for info on this body.
- User:Roxy the dog reverted it claiming it was a COI edit. I reverted it back as it is accurate, well sourced information and I have no COI. User:JzG now seems to be claiming the source is not reliable "Neither is a self-sourced statement on the website of a trade body that has clearly been the subject of industry lobbying." I contend that his source is reliable, especially for statements about their own policies, which is what this is. These same editors have been removing well sourced information from the Acupuncture page for some time. See for example here where these same editors argue that an IPD meta review, the gold standard of systematic review, is not a reliable source. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- How big is the problem really? Obviously we're headed for another "no consensus", but has anyone wondered? Which articles/editors are afflicted, and how much trouble could've been saved if the last RfC had closed with a "Yes"?
- To answer this, I looked at the most common CAM's,[140] checking article talk for any mention of "COI" or "Conflict of interest" regarding specific editors editing in their profession. Here's the last time anyone raised a concern:
- Biofeedback, Herbalism, Massage, Nutrition/Nutritionist, Therapeutic Touch, Tai Chi - never
- Yoga - December 2006 (only instance)
- Osteopathy - January 2007 (only instance)
- Meditation - April 2007 (only instance)
- Reiki - February 2008 (only instance; editor self-disclosing)
- Hypnosis - June 2013 (only instance)
- Homeopathy - September 2013
- Chiropractic - January 2014
- Qigong - February 2014 (only instance)
- Naturopathy - August 2015 and Feburary 2008 (two instances)
- Ayurveda - May 2016 (only instance; user with zero mainspace edits and two talk page edits)
- Traditional Chinese Medicine - May 2014, then October 2013 (two instances)
- Dietary supplement - January 2018 (only instance; editor self-disclosing)
- Acupuncture - Just a couple weeks ago (whenever I or one of the other 2-3 acu'ist editors use the talk page, a couple of other editors find it necessary to make it into a thing, repeatedly. I guess it's understandable -- I only disclose my profession once per signature)
- Obviously.... an urgent problem.
- In the last three years, I've edited acupuncture a total of eight times, btw. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
SuperDerivatives
- SuperDerivatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- mbanit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
At present edits that mention other founders or the fact that David Gershon is only a co-founder of superderivatives are being ignored and do not make it to the main article.
The claim is that David Gershon is the sole founder of super derivatives where in actual fact he is a co-founder with three other people
Even worse, in the editing page, it is claimed that Menashe Banit 'Falsely claims to be a co-founder of superderivatives. This unfair liable. It is also harassment.
Enclosed are the contract that clearly specify who are the founders of the company superderivatives:
/Users/banit/Desktop/superderivatives Founders Agreement Parr_20181024161623.webarchive
Mbanit (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- You need to post a URL where we can find that superderivatives Founders Agreement. We cannot read documents that are on your home computer's desktop. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- User blocked as clearly continuing the disruption by multiple IPs on the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Tony Kemp (nurse)
- Tony Kemp (nurse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- British Association for Immediate Care (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- BASICS HQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- AEK1961 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Just like Charlie Hales up above, someone editing their own article by adding unsourced content and shaping it into a resume. Also removed COI template at top of page. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- For now the account is blocked per WP:ORGNAME. I also left a note about WP:NOSHARING as there seems to be a lack of understanding about that part of the username policy. If they clear up that bit of business, then we can move on the COI stuff. I've also added British Association for Immediate Care to the affected articles. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
- At User talk:Beemer69#Tony Kemp (nurse), the new user AEK1961 has now self-identified as the subject of the article Tony Kemp (nurse) and also as the former user BASICS HQ. I posted a response at Talk:British Association for Immediate Care suggesting the use of the {{request edit}} template. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)