Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
| Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
|
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
|
| ||||
| To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
| ||||
| Search the COI noticeboard archives |
| Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Possible autobiographies found by bot
- User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.
Requested edits
- Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.
Severe conflict of interest
Geoffrey Edelsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gepa (talk · contribs) freely admits he is the PR representative of the article subject. Please note that this article has been subject to a variety of sockpuppets in the past (all now blocked) including socks connected to the company Zeumic which hosts Edelsten's personal website. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Additional information, Mr Edelsten on his own website is totally against Wikipedia http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/Wikipedia-Discredited-Wikipeedonya/ in fact his website also claims that he will launch a campaign against Wikipedia to the Australian Government. http://www.geoffreyedelsten.com/Appeal-to-the-Australian-Government/ It is clear to me that a paid representative of Edelsten (User:Gepa) only has one agenda and it's not in the spirit of Wikipedia Michellecrisp (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Linkspam. [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is not COI. Take it to WP:WPSPAM. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Peer review
If I have peer-reviewed a publication, do I have a conflict of interest with it? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- A self-published source that has been peer-reviewed is usually allowed (see WP:SPS). As long as its use in the article is not self-promotional it should be no problem. Some don't like to see "excessive citations" from SPS'es, even when notable, though that's obviously fairly subjective and hard to quantify. Peer-reviewed and being used by yourself as (I assume) an expert in the subject is not COI in my opinion. ArakunemTalk 17:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I'm asking for the situation where I am the reviewer of someone else's publication. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 17:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Supervision
If I have supervised a project, do I have a conflict of interest with it? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, you just have to be very careful when editing an article and keep to WP:NPOV. Michellecrisp (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- What project? Guido knows COI guidelines perfectly well. There's a deal of Wikidrama going on relating to this user, and I think this is very likely to be a disingenuous enquiry. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Korn/Ferry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I rolled back a couple of edits on this article by Kornferry (talk · contribs) that were blatantly promotional; after I wandered off to do other things, an IP, 65.125.188.130, jumped in and did a bunch more blatantly promotional edits. Surprise, surprise: the IP resolves to Korn/Ferry. I'm going to roll the edits back again, then have to do other stuff again. Someone want to look over this article and keep an eye on it, please? I've left a COI notice on the registered user's talk page, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
WikiHealthAuthority (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edits only to an article about a health authority. Probable conflict of interest. Also reported at WP:UAA but recommended I bring it here. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
DrSturm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
DrSturm contends that this subsection should be included in the Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone article. The only sources for the subsection are forum posts on a website (fansite?) of which DrSturm is a member, example here. User has stated I'll be banned from editing Wikipedia before I give this up on the article's talk page, made personal remarks and insults and edit warred.Mr T (Based) (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is not really COI. You're not talking about an NPOV problem with the content. "This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics." Try WP:WQA for personal remarks or WP:AN3 for edit warring. If he's clear about refusing to cooperate towards consensus, you can take it to WP:AN/I. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hm? You didn't notify the user. --68.161.185.186 (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikibratupdates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Seems to be a SPA interested in adding details on "Brat Culture". Created article Donna Musil, added large content to Military brat (U.S. subculture) refering to Donna Musil and her work, created Brats Without Borders, Inc. and on its talk page admitted that they were in fact Donna Musil diff, director of this company. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Leonard Sax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fritzvonturin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is persistently removing material critical of Leonard Sax (sometimes without being logged into an account), rephrasing the critical claims to make them sound less negative or less persuasive, or immediately inserting rebuttals from Leonard Sax phrased in such a way as to sound like Leonard Sax disproved the negative claims against him. He is also flooding the article with positive reviews of Leonard Sax, sometimes by cutting out the critical material in a review and leaving only the positive components of it behind. (Consider, for example, this diff between my edits and his. Look at the explanation of the JAMA review near line 13: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Sax&diff=259452499&oldid=259407824 . Also consider how he eviscerated the criticism section). Fritzvonturin's comments on the talk page make me believe that he is not making a good-faith attempt at creating an unbiased article. Please consider my proposal of what the article should look like on the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonard_Sax&action=edit§ion=4 . DarwinPeacock (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
User:USTL Lille
- USTL Lille (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Account seems to be operated on behalf of Université Lille Nord de France. All contributions to date have been to the article about the university or to people who attended the university. No obvious spam that I can see, but future risk of the same given that it appears to be a SPA Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- {{uw-username}} posted on usertalk solicited a reply to the effect that the editor was not affiliated with the university and would use a new account from now on (diff). Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note to self - finish edit before saving. Therefore, will close this report - no action required. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- R&R Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- KDR81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User KDR81 continually edits the R&R Partners article to post material critical of the organization. We have reason to believe KDR81 is an employee of the organization who has been critical of R&R and our client the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority. The edits and information is very one sided. We believe KRD81 also operates as a sockpuppet or as a meatpuppet under the alias LVAustrian. I have attempted to correct only to be locked in an edit war. There are items posted to our page that are factually incorrect in regards to the controversy. What is our recourse in regards to this Wikipedia conflict of interest?Adexpertinlv (talk)
- Sounds like there's two conflicts of interest here. Remember, you should use extreme caution when editing an article about a company you're affiliated with as well. I tagged the article as having a conflict of interest and you two should try working out your differences on the article's talk page. Themfromspace (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I understand and respect the sensitivity of having a company edit an article. Thanks again.Adexpertinlv (talk) 21:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible conflict of interest
- Susanna Foster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)- User Micah Vita (contribs) appears to be the son of the article's subject as he added links to a YouTube account [2] of the same name in which he identifies himself as her son. He has added a great deal of unsourced personal info to the article. I left him a warning on his talk page, but he did not respond or stop editing the page.Copana2002 (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Definitly a conflict of interest. I reverted the article back to the 4 December before the COI became a runaway problem. The edits done were NPOV and uncited which aren't allowed per the WP:BLP, so nothing valuable has been lost. Themfromspace (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hubert Harrison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been heavily edited by Perjef (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is evidently Harrison's biographer Jeffrey B. Perry. The user has inserted a great deal of self-promotion for his work. Offenbach (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.Perjef (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Offenbach has apparently misleadingly altered the Offenbach comment of 03.28 25 December 2008. That original offering ”outed” me, complained that I contributed too much to the Hubert Harrison page (I note Offenbach has never made a contribution to the factual content of the page), and was part of an effort to censor the Harrison page on generalities because Offenbach “agreed” that he or she did not like how the page “feels.” I think if Offenbach has a new comment to add it should be entered (and timed and dated) as a new comment. I think it is important that in Wikipedia comments, as in Wikipedia pages, we pay attention to factual accuracy. I repeat my previous comment— “The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate with numerous source citations and links. It has been used and favorably commented on by others. My interest in Hubert Harrison is, and has always been, because he is important—he was important in the early twentieth century and he is important today. Harrison’s importance is growing and as others begin to write on him, significant new contributions should continue to be cited. If there is anything that is inaccurate in the Harrison page, it should be corrected. The fact is that at this point in time I am especially familiar with Harrison’s life and work, have written more on him than anyone else, and desire to share information about him (including links to items I have written) with others. Though one writer “feel(s)” this is wrong and another seeks to “out” me and label the piece self-promotion—they miss the point. The Hubert Harrison wikipedia page is about Hubert Harrison and introducing more people to his life and work.” I don’t think the Hubert Harrison article should be censored based on Offenbach’s “outing,” feelings, or misleadingly altered comment above. Perjef (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hubert_Harrison" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 02:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
My response to Perjef is on Talk:Hubert_Harrison. No need to repeat everything here. Offenbach (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Offenbach claims to have “altered” the initial Offenbach outing comment “after familiarizing myself with WP:OUTING so as to avoid any inappropriate dissemination of personal information.” I think this indicates one of the major problems with what has gone on. Offenbach should not have been so quick to “out,” so quick to “censor,” and so quick to “alter.” I think if more thinking would have been done in the first place many problems could have been avoided.
I think Offenbach improperly outed and improperly censored and I think that which was altered should have been reverted, or returned to a former state (no censoring and no outing), with a properly dated and timed comment indicating what was done.
If Offenbach would have proceeded with more caution Offenbach might have read in WP:COI that “When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline.”
What should have been done? I think that Offenbach should have started with an assumption of good faith on my part. I think that Offenbach’s behavior does not suggest an assumption of good faith. I think that Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists”; that “Editing in an area in which . . . one has . . . expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest” and, most importantly, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor.” I think if Offenbach would have proceeded in this way it would have been in the best interest of Wikipedia.
Offenbach acknowledges that “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Let me repeat that, “the factuality of the information provided in the article is not in question here.” Nevertheless, Offenbach jumped to a censoring tactic without any discussion with the author. I don’t think this was the correct way to proceed.
Offenbach offers as an explanation for the quick jump to censoring that the “self-citation in the article . . . seems excessive.” “Seems excessive”--that is a pretty illusory standard for imposing censorship. Is Offenbach familiar with the literature in the field? If so, why not enter some citations that Offenbach thinks are necessary ? (In fact, Offenbach was quick to censor an article to which Offenbach never contributed). I am familiar with the literature in the field and I think the works cited stand. Again, Offenbach should have realized that “There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists” and should not have moved to censoring without discussion.
Regarding the talks about Harrison -- they are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) “a pretty clear” conflict of interest. I would like to see more such citations about other listings of talks by others on Harrison. I think that Offenbach is way off base on this.
The Hubert Harrison page is factual and accurate and makes a contribution It cites sources where people can get more information on Harrison. If Offenbach has more to add, good. But don’t censor the article for listing what is out there.
I think that Offenbach should remove the censor template. I think that the outing and the censoring are not in the best interest of Wikipedia.
Then, pursuant to Wikipedia guidelines, “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia.” I also think that Offenbach should realize that “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.”
My suggestion--Offenbach should remove the censor template that Offenbach imposed on the page and if Offenbach wants to discuss the page we can--and we can use existing Wikipedia channels if necessary.
Again, I think that the censor template should be removed --in the best interests of Wikipedia. Perjef (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a look at the article, and I agree with Offenbach that there's a problem of excessive self-linking (as well as peacock wording and, despite the copious footnotes, very little specific sourcing).
- The linkspamming - decidedly non-minor self-links added under the guise of minor edits - is also of interest. See [3],[4],[5],[6],[7]
- The short answer - and it help if Perjef could keep discussion considerably terser per Talk guidelines - is that where there appears to be a conflict of interest, Perjef should follow WP:COI guidelines and let uninvolved editors make the call about inclusion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
At 21:58 27 December 2008 Gordonofcartoon placed a COI template on a Hubert Harrison page that was COI template-free. (Another editor had taken down the Offenbach COI template asking the very legitimate question--"on what basis is this a COI?") Gordonofcartoon placed a new COI template on the Harrison page without any discussion with me despite citing me in a statement Gordonofcartoon made. As I previously quoted from Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest-“The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor . . . Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or a ban.” I do not think that Gordonofcartoons’s placing of a COI template on the Harrison article is in the best interest of Wikipedia, especially since Gordoncartoon did not cite one specific on the Harrison page when taking this action.Perjef (talk) 13:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thus far, when one cuts through all the words of the COI template-placers, the only specific about Harrison page content that has been objected to was Offenbach’s concern about a reference to talks on Harrison. I responded that talks “are one of the principal means that people currently have to learn more about Harrison--many talks are in free public libraries (often in very poor communities). It is my assumption that many people go to Wikipedia when they want to find out about somebody or something and that they also use it to find out where they can get more information on the subject. Citing talks at free public libraries etc. is not (to use Offenbach’s original words) 'a pretty clear' conflict of interest.” Perjef (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. No-one is obliged to discuss every edit with you (you might remember WP:OWN). It's also fine to add a template to alert others to an issue, even if you haven't edited a page yourself.
- Frankly these Wikilayering essays, and general hostility to others' perception of the subject, look to me strong evidence that there is a problem of neutrality with this article. This is the reason COI has been raised: not to harass you.
- PS Please don't duplicate every post here and on the Talk page; and also please indent your posts properly (this applies to Offenbach too). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Gordonofcartoons’ statement that “No one is obliged to discuss every edit with you” is a straw man argument. It is not what I said. I did not argue that every edit has to be discussed with me. Why Gordonofcartoon insists on carrying on discussion in this way I will leave for others to consider.
- I have, however, pointed out that Offenbach and Gordonofcartoon threw up COI templates that mentioned me without following Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest, which states—“The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor . . . Using COI allegations to harass the editor or gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.“
- Gordonofcartoon has twice made adhominem comments and twice tried to move discussion from the content of the Harrison page. Gordonofcartoon's most recent comment above tries to marshall “strong evidence” for “the reason the COI has been raised” not in the content of the Harrison page, but in Gordonofcartoon’s subjective characterization of other matters. I think that Gordonofcartoon should stop the adhominem comments and focus on the content of the Harrison page.
- As I publish this entry now, I see that is what is finally being done. It should have been done in the first place. It is what I have tried to do and what I have encouraged others to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest, which states—"The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor . . .
- You omitted what immediately follows: "Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN...", and this is commonly how conflict of interest problems are first raised.
- focus on the content of the Harrison page ... As I publish this entry now, I see that is what is finally being done
- That's what we all want, I hope. But it would help a lot if you took a less snarky attitude to others' perception of the situation - whether subjective or not. You're being defensive of the article. It's understandable. We know you're an authority on the topic. But Wikipedia has its own house style - of emphasis, citation format, relationship of authors to articles - that exists to steer articles toward neutrality in the difficult situation of open authorship. Recognising that, and not treating it as censorship/harassment, will make things go more smooothly. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- As I publish this entry now, I see that is what is finally being done. It should have been done in the first place. It is what I have tried to do and what I have encouraged others to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perjef (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I do not read the Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest guidelines as you do—and I think this particular matter might have been cleared up if you had attmpted to specifically cite what you thought applied. What you claimed "immediately follows" does not immediately follow.
- The opening paragraph in “How to handle conflicts of interest” describes two measures that may be taken -- reporting on the noticeboard and using the user warning template. It then discusses “Dealing with suspected conflicted editors” and states unequivocally “The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor. If this measure fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP: COIN . . .” It then states “Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, . . . “
- To me this clearly means what it says—when "dealing with suspected conflicted editors" “The first approach should be direct discussion with the editor.” I think this is a correct interpretation, I think it is in the best interest of Wikipedia.
- To make this more clear—I read it as follows—when you "suspect" there is a conflict of interest “the first approach” should be to discuss it with the editor. Then, if persuasion fails, consider whether to go to dispute resolution or initiate discussion at WP-COIN. I find nothing in this that supports jumping to a COI Template first, before discussion, as was done in both COI Template instances regarding the Harrison page and I find something in it that does say the “first approach” should be discussion.
- I actually think Wikipedia would run much better if the “first approach” were followed. What do you think?Perjef (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I believe that the Hubert Harrison article is somewhat too laudatory and promotional about the subject, and has more links to the work of Jeffrey Perry than are strictly necessary. (It is not surprising that an author would be enthusiastic about the subject of his own work, but If an article reads like an entry in a publisher's catalog, it isn't neutral enough to suit Wikipedia). The article also uses some web sites as references for matters of fact that probably don't qualify as WP:Reliable sources under our policy. Since User:Gordonofcartoon is very experienced with Wikipedia COI issues, and has no reason to assess this article more severely than any other, I hope that User:Perjef is willling to work cooperatively with him to see how the article could be improved. A good place to begin having this discussion is at Talk:Hubert Harrison. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Rich Gunning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - IP editor claims to be the business partner of the article's subject. Whoville (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- 69.123.97.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User claims to represent "LIRR management" in edit summaries, and has been repeatedly removing a paragraph about a recent scandal involving the LIRR. Also made a passing accusation of libel. Rhobite (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Note — IP temporarily blocked for the legal threat. MuZemike (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arts Foundation of New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Arts Foundation of New Zealand Laureate Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- artsfoundation.org.nz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- Artsfounation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Artsfoundation
--Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sunsetavw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user is only contributing to articles related to Aviation Week and the Ares Blog (run by Aviation Week). They have continually removed maintenance templates and, for example, merge suggestions without discussion. The user name "...AVW" suggests a link to AViation Week and a possibility of a conflict of interest. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nicholasethier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Excel Corruption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User admits to having a direct conflict of interest by stating he works for Microsoft here. User does not readily understand the basic Wikipedia guidelines and policies in regards to the article he has created. MuZemike (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (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.
- Jim Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User is a practicing acupuncturist. He is currently too active in editing these articles and dominating talk page discussions in an attempt to minimize the mainstream understanding of acupuncture including the fact that there are criticisms of acupuncture for its pseudoscientific aspects and its lack of evidence basis. Indeed, uniquely among many editors on pseudoscience pages, we can be sure that Jim Butler stands to benefit monetarily (at his acupuncture practice) for preventing Wikipedia from reporting on the criticisms of acupuncture and related health items (he is also a fan of the pseudoscientific canard of facilitated communication, though he probably does not get direct compensation for its advocacy).
Currently, one of the pages he is editing List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts has been tagged by me to point out his specific conflict of interest (though there are others on that page as well). His current tactic seems politically tuned to making sure the criticism of acupuncture as a pseudoscience gets as marginalized as possible: in this case he argues for a separation of sources which is the subject of an ongoing RfC about his promotion of original research.
I'll also point out one of his most recent edits to acupuncture is obviously removing unfavorable opinions about acupuncture and spinning others into more positive opinions. The general consensus (as said by Edzard Ernst, for example) is that there is evidence that acupuncture may help with nausea, but that treatment for any and all other ailments is not based on evidence. Furthermore, the reliance on qi and associated meridians are generally considered pseudoscience, though Jim Butler is carefully guarding the article on acupuncture to prevent exposition of these points.
In short, this user should probably not be editing Wikipedia in these areas in the way he is doing.
ScienceApologist (talk) 10:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm an acupuncturist. I also have a Harvard M.A. in chemistry, which gives me a unique perspective that has benefited some of our alt-med articles. And I wear my Wikipedia hat first when I edit, which is what makes me "merely" an expert editor, instead of one with COI. My edits and talk page conduct are good, as the respected admin and incoming Arbitrator User:Vassyana observed when dealing with another tendentious editor of skeptical bent. In fact, the vast majority of editors (including some really skeptical ones) with whom I collaborate have no objections to my editing, and some have left quite positive feedback (see my talk page, e.g. here and here). Off-wiki, of course, it doesn't matter whether I say I believe in invisible pink unicorns as long as I edit neutrally.
- Now, chronic problem editor ScienceApologist is going after me because I've gone and disagreed with him on an RfC, here. I disagree with SA over sources that suffice to show scientific consensus, and the demarcation problem, and SA's "bulldozer" approach that eschews nuance (and which is on full display in this little attack-fest here). In fact, SA has made his mission clear: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned."
- The idea that I could make money from WP, even if I wanted to, is laughable. I practice acupuncture only part-time, edit very sporadically, and spend most of my time caring for my son, who has multiple disabilities. WP has lots of editors who edit in their professional areas. The vast majority, like me, understand WP policy and don't go trolling for clients. What we're seeing here is what happens when a garden-variety editor gets in the way of a chronic problem editor's crusade. No doubt, SA's approach and mine are quite different. Remember, to have COI, you have to have tendentious editing; now look which one of us repeatedly gets blocked:
- ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
- Jim Butler (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
- As for the edit to which SA objects above, I explained it in careful detail on the talk page. ScienceApologist could have, at any time, challenged my comments at the talk page. But this has never been about content; it's about SA playing out WP:GAME and WP:KETTLE. (Additionally, SA provides no evidence of my blocking anything, and distorts Ernst on evidence; for a summary, just head on over to acupuncture; skim the lead and then see this section.) thanks, Jim Butler (t) 12:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- P.S., a bit off-topic but illustrative of the gaming and oversimplification that SA indulges in: Facilitated communication is controversial, but per WP:PSCI WP would not characterize it as pseudoscience. The article establishes that it is a "significant minority view". So, yes, my views on this complicated issue are in the minority, which in SA's take-no-prisoners world reduces to "pseudoscientific canard". This editor has elements of WP:FANATIC and there are many good reasons an ArbCom case is pending against him. --Jim Butler (t) 12:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
This complaint is mistaken. An editor's vocation does not create a COI. COI is when an editor writes about themselves or their own organization, not their own field of work. Whether this matter may involve Wikipedia:Advocacy, a violation of WP:NPOV, is another matter. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike Godwin editing Wikipedia with a COI
It would seem that this IP address 76.102.192.98 is none other than the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney, Mike Godwin. Is he not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines about self-interested editing on autobiographical articles and themes? -- He called me with jack high (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not only is he familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, but he knows how to distinguish guidelines from policies. You'd think he was a lawyer or something. MikeGodwin (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- And you know this how? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're seeing an admission that the IP and the named editor are the same. That answers the question from Riding Hood. For the first question, Mike Godwin does seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there anything more to do here? Were there any edits that anyone feels are inappropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- It would be better if editors who are editing articles about themselves, or references to themselves in other articles, would log in so as to avoid the impression that they are avoiding scrutiny. The guideline calls for conflicted editors to declare their conflicts and preferably to limit themselves to making suggestion on talk pages. Guidelines are meant to be followed unless there's a good reason to ignore them. Wikimedia employees should set a good example in that regard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're seeing an admission that the IP and the named editor are the same. That answers the question from Riding Hood. For the first question, Mike Godwin does seem to be familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there anything more to do here? Were there any edits that anyone feels are inappropriate? EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- And you know this how? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Not only is he familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, but he knows how to distinguish guidelines from policies. You'd think he was a lawyer or something. MikeGodwin (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Article created and totally edited by a user whose original User name was User:Awapniak (They've now asked for a name change and it has been granted). I put a COI tag on the page and left a uw-coi notice on their Talk page, they removed the coi tag and I put it back and suggested that's not the right thing to do. They claim their edits are informational and not promotional. I don't disagree with the notability, just with the article being an autobiography. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)