Do you have questions or need help? |
|
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy. | Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{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 |
|
Contents
- 1 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama etc. (Bundled AfD)
- 2 A self-confirmed advocate (lawyer or publicist) has wiped out his client's page- one that was diligently edited and reviewed over a period of a year and a half
- 3 Acupuncture
- 4 Swenzy, yet again
- 5 Qigong
- 6 Arco
- 7 Mitch Meyers
- 8 Road marking machine
- 9 Tayyab Ghalija
- 10 Sameera Weerasinghe
- 11 John Parr
- 12 Paracetamol (asthma section)
- 13 Fluor Corp.
- 14 Big Debate South Africa
- 15 MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general
- 16 Mark W. Rocha
- 17 Self-described advocate editing Lakshmi Rai
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama etc. (Bundled AfD)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama
- Lexington62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
The above named article is a bundled AfD discussion of 32 near clone articles about state branches of the Constitution Party. Based on comments in the discussion, I believe it is possible that these articles may have been created, and are primarily being edited by members of the Constitution Party. - Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- This situation is a bit odd. I've been watching several state-level articles from this organization for a while due to copyright violations and advertising. I don't like leveling that accusation without evidence but there's at least 40 articles to check the history of and I don't think that any topic bans or blocks needs to be given.
- I support having this report here due to how easily the AfD, possible followup AfDs, and just the overall situation may quickly deteriorate due to the nature of the subject (national-level political party).
- The AfD is attempting to sort out which state-level organizations in this party are notable and which are not (there are currently 31 articles listed in the AfD). All-or-nothing arguments have sidetracked the discussion so level heads are very welcome. Outside of that, I don't see any reason for discussion to take place here. OlYeller21Talktome 20:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lexington62 has posted to another editor saying "The Constitution Party of West Virginia is trying to organize a team to perform this task on the rest of the CP state pages to save them. If you can help, would you please send an email to correspondence@cpwva.org? Thank you, and God Bless!Lexington62 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)" This is clearly a conflict of interest. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
A self-confirmed advocate (lawyer or publicist) has wiped out his client's page- one that was diligently edited and reviewed over a period of a year and a half
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jimmy Henchman is a claimed client (although it is unclear what type) for this person user 67.81.205.59 (talk). This person has partially blanked and completely changed the substance the page that many people worked on for a year and a half. .
The diff is here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238
There were some attempts to restore it. Then user 67.81.205.59 (talk) next complained: here and here explaining that Jimmy Henchman was his client without providing citations to support his objections to the extensively litigated version he blanked.
History: In August through September of 2012 many of the issues were litigated and decided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman with a resulting Keep decision based on WP:HEY and my work. Since then, the article has been diligently worked on by these editors: STATicVapor TheHerald Jfmantis Turgan Rmhermen RonJohn and Yamado Taro and myself.
I feel that the blanking of the page by 67.81.205.59 who has a stated financial COI, his/her later complaint and the subsequent attempt to censor the page has had a chilling effect on all the diligent editors I've mentioned above. Moreover, none of 67.81.205.59's objections were mentioned on the Jimmy Henchman talk page but his cause apparently taken up a few editors working in concert to blank the page and all its references. I'd greatly appreciate a ruling here and an attempt to restore and protect the article to the pre https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238 state. As Jimmy Henchman is currently serving a life sentence +5 for multiple crimes and is now on trial for murder, the BLP1 issues do not seem ripe to re-examine. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- And the forum shopping has started. Please see User_talk:NeilN#Jimmy_Henchman_page and Talk:James_Rosemond#Massive_unexplained_revert_by_Scholarlyarticles. There is no COI issue with the active editors. --NeilN talk to me 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Actually, you brought the COI to my attention: *The reason why the article is receiving more attention is because it was mentioned here and here. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Hope this helps. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- And that's how it's supposed to work. Someone who has a COI posts to a talk page or noticeboard and uninvolved editors take a look at the claim and edit the article according to their judgment. --NeilN talk to me 22:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- There is no COI issue that I can see here. The initial removal of information from a biographical article from an IP claiming to represent the article subject may be subject to scrutiny due to COI concerns. However, from what I can tell the person who edited the article did so once back in January. There have been about 100 edits done since then to the page by other editors not affiliated by the subject. Since the IP editor you are concerned about has not edited since January 23, and your content dispute is with editors other than that IP, there is nothing else that is appropriate for this noticeboard.
- And that's how it's supposed to work. Someone who has a COI posts to a talk page or noticeboard and uninvolved editors take a look at the claim and edit the article according to their judgment. --NeilN talk to me 22:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, you brought the COI to my attention: *The reason why the article is receiving more attention is because it was mentioned here and here. --NeilN talk to me 05:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Hope this helps. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I will reinforce what NeilN has said. You seem to grossly misconstrue the purpose of a deletion discussion. The AfD that you are referencing as an example of consensus being reached that is being violated is only a consensus for keeping the article in the encyclopedia, not a consensus for the content that is in the article. Even if there was a consensus reached, that AfD was more than a year ago, and even a recent consensus reached on an article doesn't lock the article's content in stone.
-
-
-
-
-
- This article is a biography of a living person, and the content of such articles has the potential to harm the article subject. Therefore, negative information is given extra scrutiny and great care is taken to ensure its relevance and verifiability. That doesn't mean that biographies aren't allowed to have negative information, but concerns about that negative information need to be taken seriously.
-
-
-
-
-
- Not that it should matter, but I saw that you had questioned whether NeilN is an administrator. Being an administrator doesn't give anyone special authority, nor does it mean that what they say is of more importance than anyone else. But if it's important to you, I'm an administrator. -- Atama頭 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I just asked because of a particular template he placed on my page. Not to challenge, just to understand a bit more about the situation. I do know that this is a biography of a living person. But the particular content in questions was discussed previously regarding BLP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman. I'm not questioning NeilN COI but this persons 67.81.205.59 and the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238 since Jimmy Henchman is his client. It wasn't stated on the talk page why the issue was coming up a year later. But since the last discussion the subject has been sentenced to life plus 5 and went on trial for murder so I don't see BLP1 as a particular issue especially given the multiple instances of criminal activity. I can understand someone wanting to raise the issue again. But if so shouldn't the persons lawyer do this on a talk page rather than simply blanking the page?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- The IP did not blank the page (why do you persist in these types of misrepresentations?). The changes were undone forty minutes later [1]. --NeilN talk to me 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I just asked because of a particular template he placed on my page. Not to challenge, just to understand a bit more about the situation. I do know that this is a biography of a living person. But the particular content in questions was discussed previously regarding BLP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman. I'm not questioning NeilN COI but this persons 67.81.205.59 and the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238 since Jimmy Henchman is his client. It wasn't stated on the talk page why the issue was coming up a year later. But since the last discussion the subject has been sentenced to life plus 5 and went on trial for murder so I don't see BLP1 as a particular issue especially given the multiple instances of criminal activity. I can understand someone wanting to raise the issue again. But if so shouldn't the persons lawyer do this on a talk page rather than simply blanking the page?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In my view that was a good thing. Why not leave it there (with the prompt revert) and start a discussion about the particular points that haven't been discussed from that point? I noticed editors asked the person to talk on the Jimmy Henchman page. S/he did not. Without doing so, it's hard to get a picture of what was going on. Apparently some editors took it on themselves to address the persons issues without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page. Not to put to fine a point on it but a lot of folks with a lot of expertise spent quite a bit of time on it that it took a week or two to wipe out completely. I would have commented but these changes happened quite quickly. For months before there had been vandalism from unknown ID address that were quickly fixed and I assumed this was the same thing. How could those editors have read all the underlying hundreds of articles required to make those kinds of changes? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "...without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page." See this? And scroll down? And down? I don't know about you, but I call that discussion. It's up to you to join in (or not) in the discussion that focused on the reliability of the sources. It also sounds as if you have some ownership issues here. Do you at least understand there's no COI problems? --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- and we "dont leave it there" while we discuss because WP:BLP is very plain: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emph in original). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- "...without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page." See this? And scroll down? And down? I don't know about you, but I call that discussion. It's up to you to join in (or not) in the discussion that focused on the reliability of the sources. It also sounds as if you have some ownership issues here. Do you at least understand there's no COI problems? --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- In my view that was a good thing. Why not leave it there (with the prompt revert) and start a discussion about the particular points that haven't been discussed from that point? I noticed editors asked the person to talk on the Jimmy Henchman page. S/he did not. Without doing so, it's hard to get a picture of what was going on. Apparently some editors took it on themselves to address the persons issues without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page. Not to put to fine a point on it but a lot of folks with a lot of expertise spent quite a bit of time on it that it took a week or two to wipe out completely. I would have commented but these changes happened quite quickly. For months before there had been vandalism from unknown ID address that were quickly fixed and I assumed this was the same thing. How could those editors have read all the underlying hundreds of articles required to make those kinds of changes? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think part of the confusion was that there was apparently a complaint by an agent of Jimmy Henchman of which people on the talk page were unaware. (At about the time that person, the agent, changed the page). At that point , BLP was discussed but not in the context of the claims raised by Henchman's agent. Since the complaint was not posted to the Jimmy Henchman talk page I and others didn't know about or understand why the issues were coming up again since it's been a long process with careful scrutiny from the beginning. I realize I'm somewhat new and hope my attempt to understand the process isn't offending anyone here. I know sometimes it can be hard to read tone over the Internet. Apparently, I offended NeilN when I asked a questioned that was just an attempt to clarify things, apparently in an awkward manner, so sorry for that. I'd like to explain my reasoning now that I have a better understanding of the issues and also say that I think it fair to post the original complaint of Henchman's agent on the Jimmy Henchman talk page where we can discuss it point by point.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Since I've been following this from close to the beginning, I'd like to add my 2 cents. From viewing the talk page it seems, that people are unaware that not only has Henchman been indicted for murder but is currently standing trial (in addition to his standing life sentence+5 for multiple crimes.) The fact that he is currently on trial is not there and if you look at the watchers chart there was a huge bump when he was sentenced and a lot of folks are following. The issues surrounding his involvement with PAC have been also discussed and reviewed here and since they are raised again and again in multiple sources they were decided to be appropriate for inclusion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The various points that Henchman's agent makes (I'll refer to him as an agent because I'm not sure what is meant when s/he writes "Henchman is my client") indict the integrity and or competence of the Judge - Judge Gleeson (sp?), the reporters, his last lawyer Shargel (sp?) and other people. The complaint alleges that Judge Gleeson didn't like Shargel and that's why Henchman was convicted. He also claims that Philips was the reason for his indictment. During the trial Henchman claimed that Philips (whom, by the way, Henchman publicly threatened with physical violence by press), was in a conspiracy with Allison Gender (another reporter) and that they both were responsible for Henchman's indictment. Both journalists' reports were entered into evidence during the 2012 criminal trial.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Henchman also claimed that he was being persecuted by "Jewish prosecutor," (I have know idea why his religion seemed relevant- just quoting) by whom I assume he meant Todd Kaminsky, the US prosecutor in the case. Most of these claims were litigated during the 2012 trial and a jury unanimously found Henchman guilty and the judge sentenced him to life plus five. Henchman asked to called by the name Rosemond during the trial as has his agent here. During the criminal trial Henchman was not granted his motion as he was known by the name Henchman. As for the new claims against Judge Gleeson (who has an impeccable reputation) and Henchman's former lawyer Shargel and others that Henchman's agent makes here on Wikipedia, these have not been litigated in a court of law. However, these people have WP pages here and I'm sure these charges Henchman's agent makes become problematic for the BLPs of their WP pages. The BLP issues regarding Henchman have been raised repeatedly have been examined a year and a half ago and each new addition has been examined. I understand that it can be a continuing process. I'm not suggesting that something should be left unexamined since an AfD. Nevertheless WP:Hey seems to mean that although an article might have been incomplete at one point it was not by the time the AfD was closed. The sources at that point were called "rock solid" and it was determined there was no GNG or BLP1 (as per Dennis Brown's comments in that AfD). Also the VV article was discussed and resolved and the editor who found it problematic reversed herself. I'm glad to dig up this reference but frankly I was told that since the very contentious vetting a year and a half ago everyone wanted to calm things down and forget about it. It was removed from many places, people reverted themselves etc. You can imagine that given the gravity and extremity of the crimes, many people would be squeamish about getting involved. However, whether or not BLP issues validly exist on Henchman's WP as it stood on Jan 23, they clearly exist in relation to the charges of Henchman's agent.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Given the multiple criminal activities, the life sentence, the indictment and trial of Henchman, I feel that the BLP issues involved with the various people Henchman's agent indict should be the focus at this point rather than a concern that someone has found a new way of persecuting him. I hope this clarifies things. All the bestScholarlyarticles (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Can some uninvolved editor close this with the appropriate outcome? Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 21:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Acupuncture
- Acupuncture (and subtopics)
- Traditional Chinese Medicine (and subtopics)
- Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
I am an acupuncturist. Does this fact mean that I have a COI with acupuncture and related articles? Some arguments I've seen and/or thought of:
- No, because Wikipedia has never made one's profession (as opposed to one's employer) a basis for WP:COI, and should not, because it (in theory anyway) encourages professionals to edit in their areas of expertise.
- Yes, because acupuncture has pseudoscientific aspects and debatable evidence for its effectiveness. Therefore, practitioners may profit from the article portraying it in a too-positive light.
- No, because those are differences of degree and not of kind with other professions, so we really would be creating a bad precedent and slippery slope. Many professions compete with one another and suffer from overpromotion. For acupuncture there is a range of opinion on its effectiveness, some fairly positive,[2] and a real degree of mainstream acceptance.[3][4]
I'm also going to paste the last couple comments from an active thread on my user talk page:
-
- (from Alexbrn) Somebody heavily invested in a single procedure probably shouldn't be writing about it; and if that procedure became the subject of controversy, where the outcome of the controversy might bear on their interests, they almost certainly shouldn't. Personally, I now keep clear of editing around anything I'm closely involved in (even if I'm not paid for it): one of the reasons I edit altmed topics is precisely because it has no "real life" crossover with me. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI
-
-
- (my reply) We're writing an encyclopedia, and our standards should reflect that, and be pragmatic, and not try to fix what isn't broken. People heavily invested in single procedures are also known as "specialists" and should be writing about it, assuming topic expertise matters. (Who else will be able to evaluate certain sources? Etc.) It would be disastrous if Wikipedia followed that standard. .... In cases where that procedure becomes controversial, where the outcome of the controversy might bear on their interests, you may be right about COI, or at least potential for it (if that's not redundant). But this may still cast too broad a net, and has to be weighed against the benefits of subject expertise. Discouraging editing from specialist expert editors is a big deal, and may damage the project severely. We should do something to draw out the best in such editors, and it shouldn't be all stick. Of course, declaring a COI doesn't necessarily mean a person shouldn't write about a topic, only that certain checks and balances be involved, e.g. perhaps 0RR, or just using talk pages. And that could be done in cases where controversies might bear on an editor's interest. What we've done so far, for all professionals irrespective of specialty or controversies, is to caution against tendentiousness, and otherwise hold them to the same standards as everyone else; where is the evidence of this not working? Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me)
-
Thanks in advance for your feedback. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Alexbrn is correct. The situation here is that "specialist status" when it comes to contested knowledge is essentially someone who is inherently conflicted about the contested topic. The same argument could be made by a professional ufologist or a professional psychic or a professional faith healer. The Conflict of Interest policy is set up to explicitly avoid the situation where people who are necessarily in need of promoting their "specialty" be it a profession of dubious consideration, a business, an organization, or themselves are not caught up in even the appearance of impropriety. Every time you save an edit in article space, you are breaching this barrier that is put in place to protect Wikipedia's reputation. It is an embarrassment no matter your intent. jps (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- So, you're saying COI applies not necessarily to anyone who might profit from portraying their profession favorably, but only to "professions of dubious consideration"? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 23:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Nope. Professions that center around the application of contested knowledge are necessarily more fraught. We're not talking about delivering the mail. We're talking about making specific claims relating to health and a procedure which is acknolweged by most experts to be essentially quackery. jps (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Related: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Re: Outside view by jps --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This is on Middle8's user page: See User:Middle 8#Things contentious: "Conflict of interest (COI): None declared. A couple of editors have suggested that my being an acupuncturist causes me to have a COI, because I might profit by making acupuncture look good, or something -- as that couldn't happen with other professions."
Being an acupuncturist is not a COI according to Middle8 but according to Wikipedia's WP:COI it seems like he has a COI. The undeclared COI editor is trying his hardest to get me banned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic.
Example of past problems: Middle 8 deleted the Adams 2011 reference and added duplication to the article and on the talk page he said: @QG - you have to be kidding. Everyone but you joined consensus at Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events and I simply didn't make the edit till now. Your conduct in that section was an unbelievable IDHT and this is just more. There was no discussion to delete the Adams 2011 reference at all. He claims it was "unbelievable IDHT".
- White, A. (2004). "A cumulative review of the range and incidence of significant adverse events associated with acupuncture". Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society 22 (3): 122–133. PMID 15551936. See Acupuncture#cite note-White 2004-158. He thinks a 10 year old source is MEDRS complaint when newer sources can be used.
While he deleted the Adams 2011 reference he also added the 2004 Acupuncture in medicine journal written by the trade. Middle 8 claimed there was a conduct problem on my part but he was initially ignoring what he did and ignoring my comments about the duplication. Middle 8, you were causing and ignoring the problems. See WP:IDHT. Of course he wants me banned because he wants to do more edits like this left unchecked. I did not appreciate how Middle 8 conducted himself in this situation. The issue was resolved after I cleaned up Middle 8's duplication and restored text he deleted. He claims he accidentally deleted the Adams 2011 source and text.
But if you look further back in the edit history he did the same thing with another source. He deleted sourced text that was from a newer 2011 meta-review. He claimed he just moved the newer Ernst 2011 source but he did delete the text from the newer 2011 source. There was only agreement to use the date 2004 source for the 5 per one million numbers, not to also delete a 2011 Ersnt source. The current text is: "The incidence of serious adverse events was 5 per one million,[157] which included children and adults.[22]". This was not appropriate how he repeatedly conducted himself. What was most inappropriate is that he blames me for the problems when he started the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Obviously retaliatory (I co-certified an RfC for this editor) and off-topic. (Factually inaccurate too, for the record... the bad edit was an acknowledged cut-and-paste accident). Might be worth collapsing the text (template hat/hab).... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I believe you when you say it was accidental, but, regardless, when accidents make it look like you are changing article text to skew it towards a contentious professional POV you must have, it is important that we identify the best ways to remain above the board. If you had had a strict policy -- as others do -- of not editing in article space when relating to subjects with which you have a vested interest that extends to financial spheres, this would have never come up. jps (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- STOP. Accidental duplication of an entire paragraph enumerating adverse events is not a POV-push. This is disruptive, retaliatory and underhanded. I posted here in good faith seeking feedback, and these posts from QuackGuru and jps are an attempt to poison the waters. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- He did delete the Adams 2011 reference but he also previously deleted the text from the 2011 meta-review. This happened on two different occasions. One time we could believe him it was an accident but he did it two separate times. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Obviously, this shouldn't even be here. But I will say that comments like this are why an RfC/U exists: repeating false allegations that someone has already corrected is not cool. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- A wikipedia article which describes pseudoscience/a fringe theory or alternative medicine is always going to be difficult for its proponents to edit neutrally since the article will be generally negative on the issues of validity and plausibility etc. A fringe proponent will inherently find it difficult to edit neutrally in such a topic. For example, I have yet to see a case where a fringe proponent consistently follows WP:MEDRS in their speciality. In the topic of astrology for example, the astrologers that have continued to edit the section about the scientific basis of astrology ended up being topic banned because they couldn't allow negative content about their discipline to stand. Something to consider, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Acupuncture was a mid-life career change for me; I was a scientist before. The first response to this Ernst blog post by one "Skeptical acupuncturist" wasn't me, but nearly could have been. The climate was different in the '90's and acupuncture seemed so promising. At any rate, I do understand MEDRS and sticking close to good sources. I also know the profession from inside out, like Ben Kavaoussi, and can help evaluate TCM-specific sources. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Middle8 and another editor accused me of skewing the facts at acupuncture. If there was a problem with the text then why haven't you tried fixing it? Where was the discussion on the talk page where you showed there was a problem with the text? Middle8, please stop making false accusations against me when I am editing in good faith. I started this thread on the talk. See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- QG, I'm sorry you're disgruntled about the current RfC/U, but your comments plainly belong there, not here. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- There seems to be a bit of a question regarding whether or not there is a conflict of interest per WP:COI. I think this is the kind of case where the line get a bit blurred because "close connection" is fundamentally a grey area.
- In my opinion, with this case, COIN should serve two functions. One is to determine if a topic ban needs to be placed on someone based on their connection to a subject whose article they are editing. The other is to help bring editors to a situation to attempt to solve a content dispute where personal beliefs may be affecting the outcome. WP:NPOVN was created exactly for that purpose as well (I think it should be reported there as well).
- I don't see any need for a topic ban at this point. The discussion is heated and there are accusations of personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF but it looks like most of those accusations are based on a disagreement rather than personal attacks that require blocks. Even if they get to the point of blocks, they're not really close to warranting a topic ban. On a side note, falling back on personal attack accusations and personal attacks themselves are easily trumped by good arguments. I'm not saying that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF should be ignored - at all - but don't let yourself get caught up in that fight when the goal is to create a good article for Wikipedia (if that's not your primary goal, you shouldn't be editing the topic).
- As for the content dispute, I agree with IRWolfie-'s statement. The controversy on Wikipedia will mirror the controversy outside of Wikipedia but the difference is that WP:MEDRS is a guideline for a reason and the community issued a topic ban in the case of astrology for a reason. If any participants find themselves disagreeing with WP:MEDRS or the topic ban, they need to realize that the playing field isn't same here as it is outside of Wikipedia. Making arguments that are based on the findings of sources that don't satisfy WP:MEDRS aren't going to be given as much weight, or possibly any weight, like they might outside of Wikipedia. Anything that's described as pseudoscience is going to be controversial and WP:MEDRS inherently shows Wikipedia's stance in that controversy.
- Unless someone suggests a topic ban or blocks, I think this discussion regarding this report would be best served at the article's talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 20:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- I will not be suggesting a topic ban because I don't believe in them. On the other hand, I do think it is problematic that Middle 8 has been consistent in insisting that he is completely above the fray when it comes to this issue. I suggested that he simply stay away from the articlespace and continue to contribute in the talkpage. This was rebuffed rather angrily, but I do not begrudge him that since he thinks he is in the right. Nonetheless, the last think I want is for this discussion to be interpreted by him in the future that he has no conflict of interest. I think he does have a conflict of interest, rather plainly so. I'm not sure whether that means he should agree to my suggestion or not, but the fact that he will not acknowledge this concern makes it difficult to have the conversation when it comes to looking at his activities. jps (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- If I didn't acknowledge the concern, then why did I start this thread? Unfortunately, your abetting QuackGuru's vendetta has completely sidetracked it, rendering any meaningful collective insight unlikely. We'll start afresh some other time, so no harm; but the drama and wasted time was preventable. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- You explicitly say on your user page about conflicts of interest that you have "None declared." That's simply not acknowledging that you have one. You could even couch it as, "I don't think I am acting untoward, but it is understandable why some think I have a conflict of interest." But you won't even do that. You won't acknowledge the existence of the complaint. jps (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, that's been my opinion till now, but because I might be wrong I came here -- so of course I acknowledge a potential COI. Not sure what your problem is ... I thought you'd be pleased by this development. And sure, I'll be happy to change the wording; my views are evolving, and I'm not rigid. I'm not going to press my view no matter what; that would be inappropriate and disruptive. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Wording changed on user page, thanks for timely suggestion --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, that's been my opinion till now, but because I might be wrong I came here -- so of course I acknowledge a potential COI. Not sure what your problem is ... I thought you'd be pleased by this development. And sure, I'll be happy to change the wording; my views are evolving, and I'm not rigid. I'm not going to press my view no matter what; that would be inappropriate and disruptive. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- You explicitly say on your user page about conflicts of interest that you have "None declared." That's simply not acknowledging that you have one. You could even couch it as, "I don't think I am acting untoward, but it is understandable why some think I have a conflict of interest." But you won't even do that. You won't acknowledge the existence of the complaint. jps (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- If I didn't acknowledge the concern, then why did I start this thread? Unfortunately, your abetting QuackGuru's vendetta has completely sidetracked it, rendering any meaningful collective insight unlikely. We'll start afresh some other time, so no harm; but the drama and wasted time was preventable. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I haven't read through the entire situation so take this with a grain of salt - I suggest that both parties remember that our opinions on a topic aren't particularly important. The opinions of reliable sources is important. If reliable sources, outlined by WP:MEDRS think one thing and sources that don't satisfy WP:MEDRS think something different, the latter's opinion isn't included in the article. It's quite that black and white, obviously, but that's how things should be going.
- We all get in arguments where we think our view is "right" but Wikipedia isn't concerned with what's "right" or "true" (as crazy as that sounds). Wikipedia reflects what's verifiable. Opinions published by Wikipedia should reflect the overall feelings of reliable sources.
- Does that help at all? Again, I'm not completely familiar with the entire situation so maybe I need to shut my mouth (fingers). OlYeller21Talktome 21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well-said. MEDRS is something I know well. I didn't mention it, but I'm also a degreed scientist, so I grok the literature. I will add, as gentle nudge, the jps's own biases have gotten him into some topsy-turvy positions with respect to MEDRS: see [thread] at WT:MEDRS. I think jps oversimplifies pseudoscience demarcation and discounts grey areas. Acupuncture is controversial precisely because the results are mixed, and jps's default position appears to be that all non-null results are to be discounted as the work of fringe proponents. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- This is the classic pseudoscience defense. It is no more valid when Middle 8 says it as when a parapsychologist says it or when a ufologist says it or when a creationist says it. It's all the same thing over and over again. Those of us in the trenches, it is claimed, see everything as a bullseye. What's not appreciated by the critics is that their particular fondness for their particular idiosyncratic idea is just as reasonable as the others who have particular fondness for their idiosyncratic ideas. The Vickers source has been impeached so well and so often it's not worth bringing up again, but, needless to say, independent sources all agree that its meta-analysis does not show efficacy in the way Vickers et al. have promoted it to have done. No biggee, just a slight little problem with the NCCAM funding junket. Not here to right great wrongs, of course, but the content is clearly not accepted as the last word on the subject, in spite of the protestations of, would you believe it?, acupuncturists. jps (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, your views on demarcation are oversimplified; the more scholarly sources acknowledge grey areas and multiple criteria for demarcation. Do you respect Michael Shermer? (Perhaps in a moment you won't.) He makes the exact same argument that you just called a classic pseudoscience defense. In a book chapter (in a book edited by Massimo Pigliucci, another prominent skeptic and expert on demarcation, and M. Boudry; 2013), Shermer classifies acupuncture as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. From what I've seen online, it's an impressive book. ... But see how far afield from the original question this is? I may need some level of moderation next time, and may have to have the discussion in user talk space where hijacking can be swiftly dealt with. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- Acupuncture is not a pseudoscience. It is a practice that practitioners claim can provide certain medical benefits, but the arguments that these benefits exist ultimately boil down to pseudoscientific arguments. The best they've got is that there is a sympathetic nervous response which is beneficial, but they posit no evidence for this beyond the simple observation that putting needles in a living animal provokes a sympathetic nervous response (the benefits of this response are clouded in obscurity). It is important to make the distinction that the practice itself is not a pseudoscience, and only in the meanest sense would someone classify a practice as such. Putting onions in your room to ward off a cold, though a folk remedy, is just a practice. Only when you claim a mechanism does such a claim become pseudoscientific. Shermer understands this, even in the source you cite. You do not seem to understand this. jps (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, your views on demarcation are oversimplified; the more scholarly sources acknowledge grey areas and multiple criteria for demarcation. Do you respect Michael Shermer? (Perhaps in a moment you won't.) He makes the exact same argument that you just called a classic pseudoscience defense. In a book chapter (in a book edited by Massimo Pigliucci, another prominent skeptic and expert on demarcation, and M. Boudry; 2013), Shermer classifies acupuncture as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. From what I've seen online, it's an impressive book. ... But see how far afield from the original question this is? I may need some level of moderation next time, and may have to have the discussion in user talk space where hijacking can be swiftly dealt with. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is the classic pseudoscience defense. It is no more valid when Middle 8 says it as when a parapsychologist says it or when a ufologist says it or when a creationist says it. It's all the same thing over and over again. Those of us in the trenches, it is claimed, see everything as a bullseye. What's not appreciated by the critics is that their particular fondness for their particular idiosyncratic idea is just as reasonable as the others who have particular fondness for their idiosyncratic ideas. The Vickers source has been impeached so well and so often it's not worth bringing up again, but, needless to say, independent sources all agree that its meta-analysis does not show efficacy in the way Vickers et al. have promoted it to have done. No biggee, just a slight little problem with the NCCAM funding junket. Not here to right great wrongs, of course, but the content is clearly not accepted as the last word on the subject, in spite of the protestations of, would you believe it?, acupuncturists. jps (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- Well-said. MEDRS is something I know well. I didn't mention it, but I'm also a degreed scientist, so I grok the literature. I will add, as gentle nudge, the jps's own biases have gotten him into some topsy-turvy positions with respect to MEDRS: see [thread] at WT:MEDRS. I think jps oversimplifies pseudoscience demarcation and discounts grey areas. Acupuncture is controversial precisely because the results are mixed, and jps's default position appears to be that all non-null results are to be discounted as the work of fringe proponents. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- I will not be suggesting a topic ban because I don't believe in them. On the other hand, I do think it is problematic that Middle 8 has been consistent in insisting that he is completely above the fray when it comes to this issue. I suggested that he simply stay away from the articlespace and continue to contribute in the talkpage. This was rebuffed rather angrily, but I do not begrudge him that since he thinks he is in the right. Nonetheless, the last think I want is for this discussion to be interpreted by him in the future that he has no conflict of interest. I think he does have a conflict of interest, rather plainly so. I'm not sure whether that means he should agree to my suggestion or not, but the fact that he will not acknowledge this concern makes it difficult to have the conversation when it comes to looking at his activities. jps (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- (addendum: disregard following comment; let's leave this open) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC) ... I'd hoped to get a range of input and have a serious discussion, but with QuackGuru disgruntled over an RfC/U and hijacking the thread, that's obviously not going to happen this time around. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- There have been a number of people who have contributed to this thread that are neither myself nor QG. They all mention at least a possibility of a conflict of interest. But, it seems like you're going to dismiss their comments as being somehow tainted. And you accuse me of being cynical? jps (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- WP:IAD. When threads are hijacked, the depth of discussion suffers, so naturally I'd like to have a deeper consideration later. And of course I am grateful for the feedback we have been able to garner. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I Call Shenanigans. QuackGuru has posted exactly three comments and you replied to every one of them. Jps has posted six comments and you replied to five out of six. By comparison, you have made fourteen comments, and I have made one.
-
-
-
-
-
- You are free to simply skip the comments that you don't like. Nobody will think the less of you for not responding. Quite the opposite, actually.
-
-
-
-
-
- If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a QuackGuru-only feed and The QuackGuru Song by Gilbert Gottfried blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Guy Macon, my comments above are sincere; any apparent shenanigans are artifacts of my communicative style (which obviously needs work). But from your remark, I can see that my excessive replies ended up causing at least as much disruption as anything else. Maybe even more than all of them put together. Clearly this is a lesson in progress for me. Thanks, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- From Beyond My Ken, reposted[5]: I don't see why one's profession should be any less of a potential COI than one's employer -- it depends on the editor. Some can write about their work or their company in a straightforward and neutral manner, while others are so strongly connected to them that they cannot achieve objectivity. In the case of a quasi-medical procedure like acupuncture, which, by its very nature, cannot be studied using double-blind tests, and therefore is largely reliant on anecdotal evidence, and is highly subject to the placebo effect, there's always going to be a certain amount of clashing between those who truly believe in the technique, and those want to see some objective proof of its efficacy. That means that we need to be much more concerned about the self-interest of the people who edit the article. Given that, acupuncturists who edit it are bound to be held to the highest standard, which means a declaration of their potential COI and, if their editing isn't pristine, following full COI procedures. BMK (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) (reposted here 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC))
-
- Why do you think that acupuncture cannot be studied using double-blind tests? See [ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15520102 ]. Also see [ http://www.med.nyu.edu/content?ChunkIID=155244 ] (skip down to "What Is the Scientific Evidence for Acupuncture?"), --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Middle 8. Thanks for raising this issue - I brought myself to COIN too and understand where you are coming from. I ask you to step back a bit. We have never interacted. I looked at the acupuncture Talk page, and your Talk page, and thought for a while, and here is what I walked away with. 1) I like what you put forth on your User page. When I say "I like it", what I mean is that you appear to be pretty self-aware, and are WP:COMPETENT in WP:PAG and in the subject matter, and this is really important - comfortable calling something that is ambiguous, ambiguous (so much bullshit is generated from the need to drive things to black or white, when the best statement we can make from acceptable sources is grey). I can see how you wrestle with the underlying theory-of-the-body in TCM (what is qi?) and look to re-intrepret it in ways consistent with science; I like the frank and messy acknowledgement you offer in this sentence "Acupuncture itself is a crazy quilt of fringe ideas and testable propositions..." 2) Following on that, there are editors involved in the article who are clearly coming from the fringe, and others who are coming from a highly skeptical point of view, who are very sensitive to the fringe claims. I see that you are striving to stand on the side of science but there are lots of hard conversations. 3) You disclose on your Userpage that (i) you make your living from people coming to see you for acupuncture, and (ii) you have made a personal commitment to it, leaving bench science and spending your days as an acupuncturist. 4) This is a key thing - the latter (ii) is more important than the former. Everybody has a job. Not everyone personally commits to their work. Not everyone with a personal commitment to their work comes and edits Wikipedia. Not everybody like that, gets into extended arguments trying to add positive information or resisting negative information in the article about their work. When that starts happening, it raises questions. 5) General point: it is important to never forget, that as per Martin Luther, "reason is a whore". We all start with assumptions, and have goals, and reason can pretty much always connect dots that get you from your assumptions to your goals. Assumptions and goals are not themselves "reason" - they are worldview and commitments that are shaped by desire, experience, etc. This is something that smart people like you can forget. 6) Second general point: concerns about COI (or advocacy, as I will discuss in a moment) arise from others' perceptions, that your assumptions and/or goals are not aligned with Wikipedia's. 7) Now, addressing the question at hand. I think that to extent that there is sometimes a problem (and I think there sometimes is), it is on the line between WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY; the latter says "Advocacy is closely related to conflict of interest, but differs in that advocacy is a general term for promotional and agenda-based editing, while conflict of interest primarily describes promotional editing by those with a close personal or financial connection to the subject." There is an objective "hook" for the perception of COI, in that you have disclosed what I stated above in 3, and you have engaged in extended arguments in which you pushed for content positive about acupuncture or resisted content that is negative about acupuncture. The question in any one of those arguments, is whether your personal interests/commitments were overwhelming your commitment to PAG. (this is not about whether or not you made reasonable arguments in any of those cases - it is about where you were arguing from and what your goals were) 8) I was careful to say "sometimes a problem". An example: arguing to include a ten year old review when there are several recent ones, is in my view just wack. In this case, I can only explain your stance by guessing that the clear statement of safety in the 10 year old source is very important to the commitment you made to acupuncture and maybe also, something that you want to make very sure that everybody knows. (really, a ten year old source for a health-related claim!) 9) Summarizing: regardless of what determination is made here, please be aware of WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine) and especially the two tables in it. One of the tables points to potential problems; the other points to potential strengths. I think your contributions have generally been helpful; you know the literature and PAG and these competencies are wonderful; but when you run into resistance from folks who are experienced in applying MEDRS, please slow down and really listen to them and be more ready to yield; in these situations your personal commitments (assumptions and goals) ~may well be~ overruling your commitment to Wikipedia's goals. (I am not saying it always does) But be wary of your own reasoning for your position in those situations - it can be a distraction from the underlying issues. In those situations, please stop and really ask yourself what is at stake for you. The ones who raise the COI flag are asking it, and you should too. There you go. maybe tldr, sorry for that. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
General case
For quite some time, this sentence was part of WP:COI, and referenced in discussions of editorial COI:
- "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."
It was removed in this edit, part of a series of edits by an editor doing a general clean-up and copy edit (see series of edits by User:SlimVirgin in late October '12). I'd assumed there was a specific reason and consensus for its removal, but that doesn't appear to be the case (which isn't meant to reflect in any way whatsoever on SlimVirgin's conduct). It's a pretty important issue and obviously bears here, because if it's true then the conversation turns to circumstances in which we should make exceptions. So, I'm going to ask about it at; needless to say, (a) I'll mention the existence of this thread, and (b) feel free to weigh in. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 06:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Swenzy, yet again
- Remember the 13th
- Viral marketing (Diff: [6])
- List of hoaxes
- Brian Griffin
- Syrian Electronic Army
- 50.162.190.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Swenzy, the hoax/spam/black hat SEO organization whose article was brought up here, is back, sort of. The Swenzy article was deleted via an AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swenzy for discussion. But some of the same promotional content is being put into other articles. I've taken most of it out. Please watch to see if it comes back. Should Remember the 13th be sent to AfD? It was basically a spam, but one that got notability because it was a fake NASA site. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remember the 13th. Once that's decided, this COI is done for now. John Nagle (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- This was also deleted previously at Remember The 13th Hoax via AfD. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've opened up an SPI for this. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm the one who edited all those articles and made the Swenzy one, I think you should delete all of the articles pertaining to swenzy. I was not paid but I do fear the concerns that you guys have rules and everyone must abide to them. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Qigong
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Qigong
- Cjrhoads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
CJrhoads identifies her real-world name on her Userpage. Her bio, linked at her Userpage, says that: "Rhoads is one of the founding members of the Taijiquan Enthusiasts Organization , a worldwide virtual organization of health and martial arts players which advocates spreading the health benefits of integrative health practices such as Qigong and Taijiquan to everyone." (emphasis added) The bio also notes that she was the "Martial Arts Promoter of the Year" in 2010. The bio also explains how qigong practice helped her recover (remarkably!) from a terrible accident. Her userpage states that she is employed by a university and that she has a consulting business. I am not saying that she has a financial interest - that she makes money from qigong. Her Userpage does establish a strong personal interest in the health benefits of qigong, and a professional interest as founder of a nonprofit that advocates for spreading the health benefits of qigong.
After edit warring a bit (no violation) with MEDRS-experienced editor WP:Yobol back on January 9th, about changing a summary sentence in the lead about health benefits of qigong, she opened a discussion on the Talk page (dif) to try to make the Lead make a more "positive" statement about the health benefits of qigong. In her words: "But if you read the entire article (NB by jytdog: referring to a source), it is much more "positive" about the likelihood that there actually is a positive health benefit to daily Qigong practice, there just hasn't (yet) been enough well designed large-scale placebo-controlled randomized studies to make that conclusion." (dif) and later... "I agree we should maintain a neutral tone - but the current tone is not neutral, but leans toward the negative." (dif) and yet later.. "The old text is not neutral, in my opinion. It is biased and negative, and gives the wrong impression regarding how the medical community views Qigong and Tai Chi." (dif). And this is the stance (that the current Lead is negatively biased) she has taken since.
This content dispute has been difficult and it is not my intention to go into detail here (and there are other, peripheral issues). But in a nutshell, CJ is inexperienced in writing about health information in Wikipedia, and has not been engaging with our efforts to educate her about how we generate health-related content and what sources we use, as described in MEDRS, which I and others have taken a great deal of time and effort to explain. She has not heeded or responded to arguments based on MEDRS, nor has she been making arguments grounded in MEDRS. And so we are failing to reach consensus even after a lot of time and work. I eventually warned her that she was approaching WP:IDHT territory and I finally checked out her userpage and found the content described above. I then placed a note on her Talk page (dif) explaining the COI issue that I saw - namely that her outside interest in promoting health benefits of qigong were conflicting with her obligations as a Wikipedian to learn and follow our guidelines and policies. I urged her to read the various COI guidelines and essays and to come here for guidance. (I do want to say that folks who run this board may see this as more of an WP:ADVOCACY issue - as you know better than I, they are closely related.)
CJ has reacted negatively. She stated that she has tried not to advocate. (dif) And she stated that she does not have a COI, as she defines COI as purely financial (dif).
I explained more, but when she resisting taking my concerns into consideration, I added a note to the Qigong Talk page about my concern (dif) and CJ reacted more negatively, again denying she has a COI since she defines that as financial, and accusing me of trying to silence her. (difs)
In any case, this seems to me a situation where there is a content dispute that is being complicated in that: a) CJ's outside interests and advocacy are conflicting with her obligation to learn (nobody knows everything, but everybody has to learn and eventually know) and follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and b) CJ herself seems to be unaware of how the COI/advocacy is driving her to make the article more "positive."
What I am seeking is for COIN to weigh in on this and advise a) if CJ has a COI/Advocate issue and b) if so, how she should proceed. I am not seeking any kind of block or ban at this time - and as the activity has been mostly limited to Talk it is not clear to me that there is any blockable or topic-bannable offense. Given her knowledge of qigong she could become a valuable contributor. But I believe that she has a COI/advocate issue at least around qigong, and should be behaving differently; the key thing I want is education as demonstrated by change in behavior - that she see that has an issue as Wikipedia defines those issues (not as she defines them) and declare it, and that going forward she be especially careful to learn and follow our sourcing policies and guidelines, and in general follow the guidances provided to editors with a COI. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- I've read the entire section on conflict of interest, and in my opinion, I have demonstrated only behavior that is in keeping with the guidance of that section. It seems to me that the real issue is that I believe that what Jytdog calls neutral, I call negatively biased. And what I call neutral, he calls positive and advocating. But if you actually look at the page, you will see that I am simply looking for an alternative to what I consider to be negatively biased text, which I believe I have a right to do. I have made no edits to the article since starting the discussion. As a group we have been discussing 6 different options of wording that would make the text more neutral in my opinion. Jytdog appears to be unhappy with me for continuing the discussion, and this appears to be one of his strategies for trying to force me to stop. Please do come on the talk page, review the information, and assess whether or not I have done anything improper. I enthusiastically support many different points of view and encouraged an organized method for many people to come on the talk page and add their opinion. CJ (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- CJ I am not making an "accusation"; I am stating a concern under Wikipedia's guidelines. You have said that you have no COI, so when you say your behavior is in keeping with "that section" (and I am not sure which you mean), do you mean that you have done nothing differently since it does not apply to you? Your accusation, repeated here, that I am acting to silence you, violates WP:AGF and is, sadly, a too typical reaction. The COI concern is not about the content dispute, it is a separate issue that is exacerbating it - your trying to focus the discussion on the content dispute is also sadly a typical reaction. Acknowledging a COI and acting accordingly would not in any way silence you - certainly not on the Talk page. There is a role for editors with a COI on Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- You are correct that a COI does not have to be financial. Someone promoting a non-profit that they run isn't doing it for money but clearly has a conflict of interest, as does someone who is trying to whitewash a biography of their father. But I'm not sure that there is a clear COI here, although there may be a POV issue.
-
-
-
- The issue would be different if CJ had promoted her consulting business, her university, or any of the organizations she is involved with. She has a direct connection to all of those entities, and when trying to promote them (either by speaking of them positively in the article or just mentioning them, or removing negative information about them) she has a conflict of interest. But for the entire Qigong discipline itself, no, there is no COI. That would be the equivalent of stating that a psychologist has a COI at psychology-related articles. Even if the psychologist is a known promoter of the discipline it's not a COI, because any benefit the editor receives is indirect. The COI guideline suggests using common sense to decide how close an editor needs to be to the subject for a COI to be determined, and points out that "subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise". I think that's what applies here.
-
-
-
- But the POV still may be a concern, if CJ personally has an interest in promoting Qigong as a practice and her edits skew the article in a positive manner unduly, then the WP:NPOV policy needs to be considered. A pro-Qigong POV isn't necessarily a bad thing to have if you are earnestly trying to improve the article; while we should all try to edit without a bias it's sometimes impossible not to edit from a particular perspective. If an editor with a positive POV helps keep unwarranted negative information out of the article, while an editor with a negative POV helps keep the article from being too promotional, and they can collaborate constructively it's possible to have a balanced end product.
-
-
-
- My question to CJ is this... I do suggest you don't have a COI as we generally define it. But given your past experience with Qigong (and its positive effects on your life) and as someone who tries to promote the benefits of Qigong and related practices, don't you feel that your perspective may be a positive one? Doing so does not invalidate your input at the article, nor does it mandate that you no longer edit the article. But if you acknowledge that your personal viewpoint is positive toward the discipline, perhaps it can help you consciously avoid trying to be too promotional of the practice in the article (and you do already insist that you're trying to be neutral) and it may help understand skepticism other editors may have to your suggestions. This isn't a COI in the strictest sense, but the consequences of this POV are about the same. -- Atama頭 18:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Thank you so much for weighing in. I struggle with your interpretation; to me being a founder of an organization based on spreading the positive effects of qigong and then coming here to edit and specifically aiming to increase the "positive content" about qigong in Wikipedia is about as conflicted as you can get; CJ has demonstrated (until today) no effort to engage in the guidelines and polices that govern how Wikipedia generates content. How the encyclopedia operates has been 2nd banana to promoting the health benefits of qigong. And really - zero engagement (again, until today) with discussions about appropriate sources. Hm.Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's murky. I'd say that this is probably the closest I've ever seen to an indirect benefit turning into a COI. I've used the comparison many times about a Star Wars fan not having a COI at Star Wars articles (despite their enthusiasm for the subject which may border on the obsessed). Having an interest and a conflict of interest isn't the same thing. If our COI guideline discouraged people from editing articles about subjects they felt passionate about we'd probably have a sharp decrease in article contributions. Even in my case, I've probably provided the most edits to subjects I have a personal interest in (a video game I played for years, a phone I've used for years, etc.). So in general, in cases like this one we judge that a person doesn't have a COI to avoid setting a bad precedent, and because our COI guideline is intended to cover people with a closer connection to a subject. But I admit that you're really skirting the line when an editor is an actual advocate of the subject. -- Atama頭 19:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let me add, too, that between the two concerns, POV is a much bigger deal that a COI. When a conflict of interest is identified, we at best warn an editor and may give them additional scrutiny, and if there's a consensus of editors there might be a topic ban or page ban instituted to prevent the editor from editing the article directly (though that's very rare). But an editor who repeatedly and flagrantly violates our POV policy can and will be blocked for it. There's a reason why we only have a guideline for conflicts of interest, and we have a policy for maintaining a neutral point of view in an article. The latter is far more serious because it represents a tangible form of disruption that will harm the quality of articles. So please don't take my suggestion that there is no solid COI as an endorsement of CJ's actions. -- Atama頭 19:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That is so interesting. Thank you for explaining. I guess I went for COI over Advocacy because CJ's nonprofit "advocates spreading the health benefits of ... Qigong". And I guess, to me, having the COI flag over qigong for CJ makes it more clear that the standards are extra important to hew to. Anyway I don't want to mess with how you all do things here! I work at a university and we think about COI differently. The acknowledgement and disclosure are primary; it lets others, and the one with the conflict, all know that more care and rigor is needed in the arena of conflict. I think that is a super useful structure to have. But thanks again, really. I will leave this for the two of you to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Let me add, looking over the talk page for the Qigong article, I see a persistent and nearly relentless attempt to put something positive into the article, something that tries to make a more definitive declaration that Qigong can bring a positive benefit to a patient/practitioner. I have no doubt that this stems directly from CJ's personal (and perhaps life-changing) experience and advocacy. To be fair, CJ has been non-confrontational and willing to take matters to discussion rather than forcing the issue too strongly. And far be it from me to criticize someone for trying to promote something that they felt has given them a better quality of life. But I still think that this feels like a "throw everything against the wall until something sticks" approach, almost to the point of a polite tendentiousness. You may consider going to WP:NPOVN with this problem, that is the noticeboard that deals with attempts to skew articles toward a particular POV, and may help you get more independent opinions on the subject. Finally, this is a case where I can't argue too strongly if someone says that CJ does have a COI, in this case the circumstances are such that it may as well be one (the result is the same), I just can't bring myself to objectively say that a COI is the issue (not as I understand COI here on Wikipedia). -- Atama頭 19:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks! Am interested to have User:Cjrhoads engage with you here, as I think she could benefit from discussion with an admin experienced in these issues like you. As I said if she can turn the corner she could become a valued contributor. I will get out of the way and will keep the NPOVN board in mind. thanks again, a LOT, for your time and thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Atami, for saying exactly what I said - having a passion for a topic should not disqualify someone from editing articles. There Is no conflict of interest. Our attempts (I am but one of many) to make the POV of the Qigong article more neutral (not positive, neutral) have been hampered by an overly negative and biased POV from some of the more experienced editors. The unrelenting harassment and unwillingness to compromise or be open to more recent research findings is problematic -not to me, but to the accuracy of the article. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the inclination to continue to try and get the POV to be more neutral and accurate anymore. I have deleted most of the sections with my discussions and will not be volunteering any more of my valuable time to Wikipedia. My talents and skills can be put to better use than to be endlessly accused of wrongdoing or to argue with narrowmindedness. Thanks for you time. CJ (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunate way to end things. And you missed the pretty significant warnings that Atama had for you. I am sorry to see you go; if you had taken the time to learn how we do things you could have become a valuable contributor. But I think maybe you assumed Wikipedia was more like a blog than the rigorous place of scholarship that it is, complete with a framework that the community has built over years for creating good articles collaboratively. There is a lot to learn - you cannot just sweep in and do what you want. And the mass deletions you made on the Talk page were a major violation of our policies, since you also deleted a bunch of other editors' comments. But this is also kind of a perfect echo of your time here.Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Taking CJ at her word, I reckon that this COIN posting can be closed and archived. Thanks again Atama for your time. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arco
- Arco Limited
- ArcoMarketing
Hi, I work for Arco and would like to create a Wiki page for the company. I have written a first draft of the page, which is neutral to us as a company and is written from an external perspective. Would I be able to submit the content for consideration to be created into a Wiki page please?
Thanks
Anna — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArcoMarketing (talk • contribs) 12:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Have you seen Wikipedia:Articles for creation ? "If you...have a conflict of interest, but have an idea for a new article and some references, you can create one here and it will be reviewed and considered for publication." Sean.hoyland - talk 12:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, however, your user name is in breach of our user name policy and has been blocked accordingly. Please create a new user name that represents you as an individual.--ukexpat (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- We already have an article for ARCO. John Nagle (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and the Atlantic Richfield ARCO is the only Arco I've heard of personally but I guess Anna's Arco is perhaps the safety equipment company...or not. I see someone has added an Arco (company) red link to the Arco disambiguation page, although that name probably needs to be more precise. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- There are lots of small and medium sized companies called "Arco" in some form. "Arco Ltd." is a UK retailer of "safety equipment, workwear, safety boots and shoes, gloves and maintenance supplies". "Arco Marketing PTE" in Singapore is a source for seasoned eel, boiled octopus, and fresh whole squid. "Arco Marketing" in Italy supplies fancy beach umbrellas. (Their teak umbrella is a bit strange.) "Arco Marketing Group" in Texas is a corporation that had their registration cancelled for tax reasons but was reinstated. "Arco Marketing LLC" is a gas station at the corner of Purdy and Blueberry in Monroe, CT. None of these are standing out as particularly notable. John Nagle (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and the Atlantic Richfield ARCO is the only Arco I've heard of personally but I guess Anna's Arco is perhaps the safety equipment company...or not. I see someone has added an Arco (company) red link to the Arco disambiguation page, although that name probably needs to be more precise. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- We already have an article for ARCO. John Nagle (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Mitch Meyers
- Mitch Meyers
- Jack Thorwegen
- Zipatoni
- Nickroady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- ATB90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Editor has been adding and restoring promotional statements, BLP content not in listed sources, and deleting CN and COI tags, among others. Editor (whose only edits have related to a current company, two of its founders, and a previous company they were involved in) has a verifiable WP:COI, and has avoided discussion of that COI on talk pages. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the editor has a verifiable COI, easily verified at least if we assume WP:REALNAME here. And the editor's actions seem to violate almost every suggestion made in our COI guideline. -- Atama頭 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- And now that we've launched a COI investigation, suddenly another editor has popped up making the same edits to the same articles, also with no statement of COI. What a coinkydink! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- This edit is problematic... not sure which is right. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that's more of a "success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan" matter; a campaign that large clearly involves more than one person. However, the sourcing on the Meyers assertion is problematic, as you've noted elsewhere. NOTE: I have added the new user name to this COI properly now. Should I start a simultaneous WP:SPI on them? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- To AGF here a bit, it's possible that Nick created a new account not including his real-life name in an attempt to get privacy. If the old account no longer edits, then there should be no violation of WP:SOCK. I like to give editors a bit of wiggle-room and err on the side of privacy (realizing that WP:OUTING trumps WP:COI until someone is clearly abusing the former to support the latter). My suggestion is to wait on that SPI until the Nickroady account edits again; if so, then file the SPI. Behaviorally speaking, as someone who has participated in many SPIs in the past, it looks like they're the same person (notice the similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts). But we allow someone to abandon one account and start using a different one if the old account is never used again, especially if the old account included identifying information. -- Atama頭 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fair 'nuff. I will hold off on any SPI, barring further compelling occurences. However, I would like to see practical motion on the COI (in addition to Smartse's very useful help with edits.) Nick's COI is clear; the new account, even if it is not Nick, is editing in the exact style of someone with a COI, and so passes the duck test. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- To AGF here a bit, it's possible that Nick created a new account not including his real-life name in an attempt to get privacy. If the old account no longer edits, then there should be no violation of WP:SOCK. I like to give editors a bit of wiggle-room and err on the side of privacy (realizing that WP:OUTING trumps WP:COI until someone is clearly abusing the former to support the latter). My suggestion is to wait on that SPI until the Nickroady account edits again; if so, then file the SPI. Behaviorally speaking, as someone who has participated in many SPIs in the past, it looks like they're the same person (notice the similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts). But we allow someone to abandon one account and start using a different one if the old account is never used again, especially if the old account included identifying information. -- Atama頭 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that's more of a "success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan" matter; a campaign that large clearly involves more than one person. However, the sourcing on the Meyers assertion is problematic, as you've noted elsewhere. NOTE: I have added the new user name to this COI properly now. Should I start a simultaneous WP:SPI on them? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- This edit is problematic... not sure which is right. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- And now that we've launched a COI investigation, suddenly another editor has popped up making the same edits to the same articles, also with no statement of COI. What a coinkydink! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Road marking machine
- Road marking machine
- Cornhorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Adding advertiments for a company's products, and claiming "own work" on images that contain watermark for company that makes machines. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- The main problem here is that possibly non-free images have been uploaded to Commons. Ad links to the company are not being inserted. Can this problem be turned over to the non-free image gnomes? (If so, how, on Commons?) They're reasonable images of useful but boring equipment, something we'll have a hard time getting someone to photograph. (I've been trying to get someone to photograph a modern medium-sized 3-phase AC synchronous motor, common in industrial plants but rare outside them, because that article has photos only of 1910 and 1935 designs, and there's been some progress since then.) Someone may need to hand-hold this new editor through the ORTS process and get him to resubmit images without watermarks. I'm inclined to assume good faith here. It's not like we have a major spam problem in the asphalt processing, road marking, and dust removal articles in Wikipedia. John Nagle (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Tayyab Ghalija
Tayyab Ghalija (talk · contribs) Please monitor the long term contributions of this user, whose edits appear to be only self-promotional editing. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 01:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not a COI problem, just petty vandalism. Reverted once by ClueBot, once by another editor. Put second warning on talk page. John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Sameera Weerasinghe
- Sameera Weerasinghe
- Sameeraweerasinghe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Autobiography, with persistent copyright violations and promotional intent. JNW (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
John Parr
- John Parr
- JPMLTD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
This user self-identifies as a representative of the subject e.g. [7] [8] - some of the problematic edits include deletion of maintenance templates [9] [10] [11], ignoring talk page warnings, article talk page tampering [12], and in the user contribs, multiple cases of "factual addition" without referencing, and clear symptoms of WP:OWN [13]. Dl2000 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not an Admin so know authority here to actually do anything. But FWIW this does look like a pretty clear case of COI and persistent disruptive editing. I suggest that user:JPMLTD be blocked from further editing on the article in question if that is in fact possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Paracetamol (asthma section)
There is no evidence of a conflict of interest. As a content dispute this is better discussed at Talk:Paracetamol. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Paracetamol
- Formerly 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Multiple deletes of accurate and properly referenced content on Paracetamol (asthma section). All information suggesting paracetamol’s epidemiological link to asthma is a valid link deleted (content referenced by many peer reviewed medical journal articles), while every bit of evidence suggesting link not valid left in (referenced by significantly fewer sources). Not neutral. Significantly slanted toward view that favors pharmaceutical manufacturer.
Additionally, these edits appear to involve paid conflict of interest editing by individual with ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The content repeatedly deleted does not represent “undue weight”, as it's referenced by numerous peer reviewed medical journal articles. The repeatedly deleted content includes detailed and specific factors which link paracetamol use to asthma.
Paid conflict of interested edits suspected in this instance by user Formerly 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) He has attempted multiple tactics to censor this information, including misrepresentation of this information as undue weight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596143963&oldid=596137886
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596291033&oldid=596186085
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596291033&oldid=596186085
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596570621&oldid=596563551
Review of Formerly 98's edit history includes multiple and frequent edits of medication side effects, which involve censoring or downplaying adverse events, suggesting paid conflict of interest editing involving ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
Possible conflict of interest by moderator Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Jmh649 was contacted directly by Formerly 98 and responded by deleting the above mentioned content. He claimed to have originally deleted it because a concise summary of the information was very similar to a concise summary found in one of the review articles referenced. He cited “copyright violation” as reason for the deletion. However, the true reason for the edit apparently was not copyright violation, because once the wording was changed to remove any hint of copyright violation, he stated it was now proper to delete it because it was now not concise enough, claiming the asthma section of the paracetamol page is somehow clearer with every bit of evidence suggesting link to asthma true deleted (referenced by many sources) while every bit of evidence suggesting link to asthma not true left in (referenced by far fewer sources) Extreme lack of neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paracetamol&diff=596341712&oldid=596341479
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 22 February 2014
-
- I suggest you start by reading WP:MEDRS. As for supposed 'conflicts of interest', you have yet to provide the slightest evidence to back your assertions up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
- No basis. User:BoboMeowCat is an WP:SPA who is new and doesn't understand how we operate. Editor is engaging in tendentious editing on this issue, as evidenced by the user's contribs. Suggest an admin warning to User:BoboMeowCat followed by a block if the behavior persists. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Bob copy and pasted nearly a paragraph of text from one of the sources he was using and than tried to edit war it into place. He has now paraphrased it a bit but it is still a little to close to the source in question IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- No basis. User:BoboMeowCat is an WP:SPA who is new and doesn't understand how we operate. Editor is engaging in tendentious editing on this issue, as evidenced by the user's contribs. Suggest an admin warning to User:BoboMeowCat followed by a block if the behavior persists. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- My editor page clearly discloses that I am a former pharmaceutical industry employee. I probably have biases just like everyone else, but no COIs. In order to minimize the influence of any personal biases, I've actively sought input and review of my work from senior editors and admins, as User:jmh649, User:Jfdwolff, and User:Anypodetos can attest. In the present case, recognizing that I was arguing an adverse event issue from the "industry" point of view, I sought input from Jmh649 at a very early stage in the disagreement in order to avoid even the appearance of pushing a NNPOV. I am more than happy to discuss my overall contributions here as well as any specific edits that anyone is concerned about.
-
-
-
-
-
- As an example of my interactions with other users that I disagree with, I'd like to offer the discussion currently at the bottom of the Finasteride Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Finasteride. It is open-minded and respectful. I'm also responsible for about 90% of the current content of the ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin articles.
-
-
-
-
-
- As a parenthetical comment, I'd like to protest the fact that I was not given the courtesy of being notified of this posting. I learned of it just now by accident. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Formerly 98, If no COI, what is your current rationale for repeated deletion of accurate and properly referenced content? Link to most recent deletion:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Multiple references from both primary and secondary sources indicate the deleted content does not represent “undue weight”. The deleted content not from "isolated studies" but rather repeatedly demonstrated in many studies. On the asthma section of the paracetamol page, all evidence which suggests link to asthma valid repeatedly deleted, while all content suggesting link may not be valid, left in place. This is not balanced or neutral.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- PS- I mentioned my conflict of interest concerns multiple times in talk:Paracetamol. Also, it was my understanding that when I previously listed your user name above in this format Formerly 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), you would be notified.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am surprised that BoboMeowCat felt compelled to assume bad faith on behalf of Formerly 98. Last time I checked, paracetamol was sold generically for about 1p/tablet and a microscopic profit margin.
- If the "conflict of interest" is simply a matter of how to present the evidence, this is a content dispute that should be discussed on Talk:Paracetamol and this should be a snowball close. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fluor Corp.
The current article on a ~$30 billion construction company is basically somewhat representative of what a neutral article should look like. However, it contains a lawsuit cited only to a primary source, while omitting others that are more notable and have proper secondary sources. The dedicated Awards and Rankings section contains some trivial or unsourced promotion and even in the article's current bare-bones state it should really include the major diversification and restructuring in the '70s and '80s. The CFO in the infobox is outdated, which is easy to fix since we normally only include the CEO, President and/or Chairman. Like any article, there is a lot of information that could be added to make it more complete. Additionally, I am in the process of obtaining the copyrights to some images, such as one of their headquarters in the early 1900s.
I am affiliated with the organization and would like to bring the article up to the GA standard in my COI role. I've put together a proposed draft at User:CorporateM/Fluor for consideration and feedback by impartial editors. I originally asked User:Paul W if he would review it when ready, as he has an interest in construction, but forgot at-the-time that I met Paul on Chartered Institute of Public Relations, which I brought up to GA and where he has a COI, so I figured it would be better to ask a broad set of editors for input.
Many of the sources I used are hard-cover books or a profile story in Fortune that I dug up from the library's archives. If anyone contests a source, I can provide a PDF or full-text. Additionally, I'm in the process of sorting out images, red-links, and probably doing a couple more passes at copyediting over the next couple days.
Very appreciative of your input in advance! CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Big Debate South Africa
- Big Debate South Africa
- Ben Cashdan
- BroaddaylightSA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Admitted COI account creating and editing article on his tv show and autobiography. Have requested intervention re: username. More eyes on these will be helpful. JNW (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like Cashdan's page has quite a bit of imbedded external links. While he likely qualifies for a page, I'm going to remove those at the very least. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
- I really appreciate the feedback, which I have read very carefully and considered very carefully, about the potential conflict of interest in my contributions on Wikipedia. I want to make clear that I have not been paid to edit anything on Wikipedia, and the company I work with is a non-profit entity. However it is fair to raise this issue with me as I am very close to the subject matter of the pages I created and edited. Hence I have done everything I can to edit my contributions very very carefully, stating fairly all sides of the subject matter. I note that my contributions have been referred to WikiProject South Africa, which is great - I look forward to seeing the input from the participants in that group. Despite my closeness to the subject, I think that my contributions to date are balanced and conform to Wikipedia editorial guidelines. From this point onwards I will refrain from directly editing the content which has a potential COI. Instead I will raise any issues I have on the talk page, as advised. I will also apply for a name change, since my current wikipedia username is too close to the name of an entity . This has been a learning curve and I appreciate all the feedback! Incidentally - what are imbedded external links? I guess that those are urls from outside wikipedia embedded in the article? I guess those should be in the external links section, and links inside the article should be restricted to other wikipedia pages? I continue to learn! BroaddaylightSA (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, that was where you put the single brackets and url surrounding certain terms. In the future, the best practice is to use these links as references if there is good content to pull from them and to only link words or phrases to other Wikipedia pages. This helps us avoid indirect spamming of the site. Feel free to ask any other questions you might have. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
-
MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general
- MobiCart
- Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Hi all. I am in the midst of a dispute with Jeremy112233 an article he's edited. I would like your opinion whether or not we may assume he's done paid advocacy on the MobiCart article he created.
I shall divide my accusations into three parts.
Part 1: Novaseminary has already asked him if he has any COI, and he ignored the question.
- In 2013, User:Novaseminary wrote some words on Jeremy's talk page. They have been revised by an oversighter, but some are left. The remaining words read: "You have an interesting edit history. How do you choose which new articles to write? Do you always follow WP:COI? I ask because some of your editing strikes me as being a bit promotional. And, for instance, you've uploaded professional looking images with emailed-in permission indicating you have at least the permission of the subject (if not a business, agent, or other relationship) and then went on to write about the subject. And you have claimed to be a ghostwriter in the past. Do you still ghostwrite? Are you still A professional author and entreprenuer?"
- Jeremy deleted Novaseminary's words from his talk page (his custom is to remove all negative words from his talk page). Jeremy replied that he emails article subjects to request photos.
- Jeremy ignored all Novaseminary's other questions.
Part 2: Let's look at one of Jeremy's articles.
- Let's not look at an article to which Jeremy's made complex edits — such as the RH article, in which he's added, removed, and restructured content, all in one edit. A simpler way to determine whether or not Jeremy is a paid advocate is to look at a article he's created. Let's look at MobiCart.
- MobiCart is a 12-person operation. (CrunchBase) It started in the UK, but after its founder left the company, it was moved to Singapore. (Steve O'Hear, TechCrunch) Before the move, Jeremy wrote an article about it. The article said only good things about the company. The article's "Awards" section made up about a quarter of the article's text. Even after the founder left, nobody cared enough about the company to update the article to say so.
- I think the MobiCart article is one of Jeremy's more promotional articles.
Part 3: Let's look at a few other articles of Jeremy's.
- Jeremy has created quite a few articles about companies; a small proportion have been deleted. One deleted article is "Buckfire and Buckfire P.C.", a poorly-sourced article about a non-notable law firm. It cited several sources which were republished copies of PRWeb press releases. (user:cmadler)
- I looked briefly through some of Jeremy's sandbox articles. I found User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/107, perhaps one of Jeremy's most promotional creations.
It is true that, on half a dozen separate occasions, Jeremy has contributed to COIN discussions. But this does not prove whatsoever that he has no COIs.
Dear COIN participants: May we safely assume that Jeremy has a COI for the MobiCart article?
I thank you for your time. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would say that Unforgettable has been stalking me at this point, as after a brief interaction at Restoration Hardware, where I tried to engage with him multiple times on his own talk page, the user decided to instead accuse my of having a COI. He then began editing pages I had created in the past (looking as if he was looking through all my past contributions) , see here, one of which was a good edit, and now he is discussing MobiCart. I would appreciate it if the user could engage over the content at the Restoration Hardware page, instead of attacking me. Always like comments on my sandboxes, but I don't really have time to respond to everything. I have created well over 400 articles, and to stalk and attack the few articles that were deleted is a little bizarre. And yes, I remove obsolete things from my talk page. I have been vandalized in the past (my userspace is semi-protected) and don't enjoy viewing past negative interactions every time I open my account :) The user also leaves out my responses regarding the King article and offer to teach the editor how to get free images for his pages--and that he has deleted my multiple entreaties to him on his talk page to discuss the content issue from which this posting originated. I've been stalked before, but this is a little out there. Lastly, if you find fault with the Mobicart article, please do edit it. I really don't care if it stays or goes, it was an hour's work at most and feel free to take to AFD. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can only assume that the editor saw this board in my contributions history and decided it was the best place to continue his personal attacks against me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I generally don't like to bother engaging in talk-page debate with any user if I suspect that the user is a paid advocate. Debate with paid advocates can be an exercise in frustration, and I feel it's sometimes unnecessary. I looked at some of Jeremy's contributions for a number of reasons, but I think the main reason is that I wanted to know whether or not he is a paid advocate. Indeed I edited the Xconomy article he created while doing so. Indeed I left out Jeremy's full response regarding the King article, and his kind offer to User:Novaseminary; he is welcome to repost them here. Indeed I have deleted Jeremy's words from my talk page. Jeremy twice told me that COIN is the best place for discussions like this before I started this discussion here. He is right: COIN is indeed the best place for discussions like this. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, COIN is a better place to take an accusation of COI, however probably not the best place to take a content dispute. Though I am glad you are now willing to discuss issues, rather than levying edit comment epithets. I'd be happy to reengage with you about the Restoration page any time. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- For now, I just want for COIN to determine whether or not you have a likely COI at MobiCart. We can leave the RH article alone for the moment. You are right that some of the edit comment epithets I have made are quite severe. The most recent one on your user talk page is for the benefit of future Wikipedians who are searching through its history using "Find in Page". —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I would just like to point out that you first started attacking me on the Restoration page, then carried it elsewhere, and you've just admitted to this as well as hunting through my past contributions in reaction to our interaction on the Restoration page. It would be nice if we could be constructive here :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- For now, I just want for COIN to determine whether or not you have a likely COI at MobiCart. We can leave the RH article alone for the moment. You are right that some of the edit comment epithets I have made are quite severe. The most recent one on your user talk page is for the benefit of future Wikipedians who are searching through its history using "Find in Page". —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right, COIN is a better place to take an accusation of COI, however probably not the best place to take a content dispute. Though I am glad you are now willing to discuss issues, rather than levying edit comment epithets. I'd be happy to reengage with you about the Restoration page any time. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I generally don't like to bother engaging in talk-page debate with any user if I suspect that the user is a paid advocate. Debate with paid advocates can be an exercise in frustration, and I feel it's sometimes unnecessary. I looked at some of Jeremy's contributions for a number of reasons, but I think the main reason is that I wanted to know whether or not he is a paid advocate. Indeed I edited the Xconomy article he created while doing so. Indeed I left out Jeremy's full response regarding the King article, and his kind offer to User:Novaseminary; he is welcome to repost them here. Indeed I have deleted Jeremy's words from my talk page. Jeremy twice told me that COIN is the best place for discussions like this before I started this discussion here. He is right: COIN is indeed the best place for discussions like this. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can only assume that the editor saw this board in my contributions history and decided it was the best place to continue his personal attacks against me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If I hadn't suspected you of paid advocacy, I wouldn't have accused you of paid advocacy on the Restoration talk page, nor would I have looked through your past contributions for paid advocacy, nor would I have accused you of paid advocacy here. I admit, as we agree, to having hurled severe edit-summary epithets. (The severest was probably "I suspect Jeremy112233 of having a conflict of interest (COI), advertising/promotional editing, and/or adding vanispamcruftisement to Wikipedia. +{{subst:coin-notice}}." The other was probably "Reverted to revision 589920219 by BiH: Jeremy112233 seems to be a paid editor: see, e.g., User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/107. I am restoring list of competitors, sourced Consumers Union criticism, and more". I think the problem, in both cases, was that I failed to make clear enough that these are only my personal suspicions and could be wrong.) I, too, hope that the conversation here will be constructive. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Looking over the evidence presented at the beginning of this thread... No. I see no reason to suspect Jeremy112233 has a COI with MobiCart. And suggesting paid advocacy is an even bigger leap. I'm a bit concerned about one line that you said, Unforfettableid: "But this does not prove whatsoever that he has no COIs." Jeremy112233 or anyone else does not have to "prove" that he has no COIs, nor can anyone, and asking people to prove a negative is an effort in futility. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence that he has a conflict of interest, and you've failed to do so at this point. I'd also like to point out that if MobiCart is "one of Jeremy's more promotional articles", then he's doing a pretty good job. While I can see how it could be seen as promotional, it's pretty minor and just needs a bit of a rewrite. If you have a dispute with him, I suggest that you deal with the dispute directly and not try to attack the other person's credibility. -- Atama頭 23:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Mark W. Rocha
- Mark W. Rocha
- Mark W. Rocha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Pccweboffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Wallabyjenkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
- Mac912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Article is an autobiography created by subject at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark W. Rocha, and rather than continuing to advance it through the AFC process, was copied into article space by Pccweboffice ("PCC" being the abbreviation for the name of the institution subject heads"). After Pccweboffice was blocked for username reasons, the other two accounts appeared, making minor edits but primarily deleting any of the properly-sourced material that I've been adding (which does not tend to be complimentary to the subject) and repeatedly deleting Autobiography and Unreliable sources tags without addressing the problems they reflect. They have not participated in the discussions I've started on the talk page, have not declared any COIs, and have usually foregone edit summaries, never explaining their deletion of the tags. (I've started up an SPI, but that is a parallel but separate issue.) Nat Gertler (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some of these accounts have also been editing Pasadena City College to remove well-cited but unfavourable information. Removal by Mac912 account: [14]; removals by Mark W. Rocha account: [15], [16], [17]. Regarding the Rocha article, note the following timeline on 22 February:
- 00:16: I post message of Rocha account talk page, advising on WP:Autobiography and WP:COI.
- 00:54: Rocha account replies on my talk stating it is not Rocha himself.
- 02:49: After a flurry of edits to the AFC, the Rocha account removes {AFC submission} template from AFC -- this is the last edit to the AFC.
- 02:53: Mainspace article created by PCCweboffice account.
- 02:56: Rocha account removes {Unreviewed} template from mainspace article.
Self-described advocate editing Lakshmi Rai
- Lakshmi Rai
- Varmais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User Varmais has stated an association with the subject of the article, Lakshmi Rai here and here. Varmais has been notified of COI here. Varmais removed a COI tag and continues to add unsourced content. Jim1138 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- Varmais not reading their talk page, 'owning' article, or both. Removed the COI hat note again. Jim1138 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- On my talk page, Varmais said "we are the official team managing Lakshmi Rai". Besides admitting COI, that sure sounds like a role account. Any admin agreeing is welcome to block on that basis; I won't as I'm now Involved. --Geniac (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)