Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Rich Barton Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Georgina Long Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zillow Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Alli Sports

• 59.101.84.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EGorodetsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.101.112.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This company may be attempting to promote their various products again. To summarize, MTV/NBC owns a company that promotes a large collection of sporting events/competitions. The company previously added lots of copyrighted and advertorial content to Wikipedia under accounts that mirrored the company's name.

As a reminder, they previously attempted to do this and 18 articles, 2 categories, 2 templates, and at least 5 files were deleted per A7, G11, and G12. You can find the whole investigation here, the WP:COIN report here, and the WP:ANI discussion here (for some reason, it seems to have been deleted instead of archived).

Articles that were deleted have been recreated with slightly different names (Winter Dew Tour 2008-09 to 2008-2009 Winter Dew Tour).

The IP editor has been adding Winter Dew Tour links to every article that has anything to do with sports related to the Winter Dew Tour. Essentially everything they've added to Wikipedia and edited has to do with the Dew Tours. EGorodetsky created the new articles with slightly different names and added text to the articles he created that's taken verbatim from the standard press release for these events. I thought I'd mention this here because the pattern is similar enough to previous issues to warrant a look and I'm sure they can explain whether or not they have a close connection.

I'll look more closely at this situation when I have more time. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I added another IP address. They added the same copyrighted material to Dew Tour. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

2009–2010 Winter Dew Tour is up for deletion for a copyright violation. Two other articles were deleted for the same reason. I think COIN regulars are looking for other articles but it's hard to be certain. I'm going to look for more problematic articles but the IP editor(s) are jumping around a lot in that IP range so it's been difficult to find everything they've been working on.

If you find article or editors that are adding promotional or copyrighted material related to this subject, please list them here. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Monster Monpiece

• Monster Monpiece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nippon Ichi Software (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User with suspicious username is making edits to Monster Monpiece, an article about a Japanese videogame developed by Compile Heart. Nippon Ichi Software is another Japanese videogame developer, and editing of articles by "competitors" (regardless of whether the user is genuinely an employee or not) qualifies as COI. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User was banned (WP:USERNAME violation). Edits were reverted. I think plenty of people have it watchlisted now. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama etc. (Bundled AfD)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lexington62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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. OlYeller21^Talktome 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.

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)

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)

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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and subtopics)
• Traditional Chinese Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and subtopics)
• Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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. OlYeller21^Talktome 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)

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). OlYeller21^Talktome 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)

• (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. 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 resisting 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". There are some conversations you have gotten caught up in, and stances you have taken in them where it seemed that your commitment to acupuncture overruled your commitment to PAG. 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 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. Be wary of your own reasoning for your position in those situations - it can be a distraction from the underlying issues. 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)

The Venus Project

I'm not sure if it's a good place, but I have a problem. Basically I don't understand the situation. I'd like to keep material presenting purposes of this organization sourced from its website, but some user claims that it mustn't be self-sourced and reverts me. I disagree with it, self-source in case of subject's purposes is OK. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a board for issues with conflicts of interest. For fringe theories related issues there is WP:FTN, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You can also try the reliable sources noticeboard which is where you can discuss whether or not a source is worth including in an article. Just be certain that whichever board you take this issue to, that you notify the other person involved because you're supposed to notify any person you're discussing on a noticeboard. -- Atama頭 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Swenzy, yet again

• Remember the 13th (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Viral marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Diff: [6])
• List of hoaxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brian Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Syrian Electronic Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 50.162.190.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cjrhoads (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)

Sean's advice is a good one. In addition, I just wanted to thank you personally for taking a conscientious approach, being open about your affiliation, and trying to work within the rules to get the article created. I wish you luck here. -- Atama頭 18:13, 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)

Mitch Meyers

• Mitch Meyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jack Thorwegen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zipatoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nickroady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)

Road marking machine

• Road marking machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cornhorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sameeraweerasinghe‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Autobiography, with persistent copyright violations and promotional intent. JNW (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)