K.e.coffman (talk | contribs) →Yes: + |
→Threaded discussion: "We’ve become witch doctors" |
||
Line 726: | Line 726: | ||
::::[[User:Middle 8]] has consistently refused to admit he has a COI with respect to acupuncture. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
::::[[User:Middle 8]] has consistently refused to admit he has a COI with respect to acupuncture. [[User:ජපස|jps]] ([[User talk:ජපස|talk]]) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::{{replyto|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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
:::{{replyto|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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
||
::::Re: Johns Hopins, see [https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/07/alternative-medicine-hospitals-promote/ 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." --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDerivatives == |
== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperDerivatives == |
Revision as of 21:21, 30 December 2018
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]
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. Example yes !vote (please sign with ~~~~).
- Yes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes: seems self-evident. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
No
- No. Example no !vote (please sign with ~~~~).
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)
- @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:
- Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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:
-
File:/Users/banit/Desktop/superderivatives Founders Agreement Parr 20181024161623.webarchive