Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 129.173.213.205 (talk) at 16:29, 11 January 2019 (→‎Meca Sapiens: Notified relevant users). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    Shortcuts
    Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to purge this page
    (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-wp@wikipedia.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:Roy Bahat
    Talk:Marc Benioff
    Talk:Breyers
    Talk:Collodion process
    Talk:Dahua Technology
    Talk:Daniel Diermeier
    Talk:Dixy Chicken
    Talk:Dowa Holdings
    Talk:Earth Journalism Network
    Talk:Mary Baker Eddy
    Talk:Edge Hill University
    Talk:Ex Libris Group
    Talk:Far East Organization
    Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media
    Talk:GoDigital Media Group
    Talk:H.B. Fuller
    Talk:Human Appeal
    Talk:Index Ventures
    Talk:Sultan Al Jaber
    Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg
    Talk:A. Gary Klesch
    Talk:Karl Lagerfeld
    Talk:Lally School of Management
    Talk:LD (cigarette)
    Talk:Kewsong Lee
    Talk:Dafna Lemish
    Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings
    Talk:Masdar
    Talk:McCain Institute
    Talk:MoneyWeek
    Talk:Netvibes
    Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia
    Talk:NextEra Energy
    Talk:Dana G. Peleg
    Talk:Perkins Eastman
    Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management
    Talk:Poster House
    Talk:Joely Proudfit
    Talk:Shlomo Rakib
    Talk:Ranker
    Talk:Eric Rubin
    Talk:Science Inc.
    Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises
    Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman)
    Talk:Spotfire
    Talk:A. G. Sulzberger
    Talk:TaskUs
    Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation
    Talk:Tencent
    Talk:Theatre Development Fund
    Talk:Topps
    Talk:UK Biobank
    Talk:Carla Ulbrich
    Talk:United States Postal Service
    Talk:UnitedHealth Group
    Talk:Dashun Wang
    Talk:Joey Wat
    Talk:Mark Weisbrot
    Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Art of Living Foundation

    I am self-reporting a possible COI and invite the editors to review my contributions to the page. Also, I am unclear whether my contributions fall under COI because I have volunteered with the non-profit in the past, without any benefits (financial or otherwise). I have taken special care for before making any edits, but would like some feedback about my situation. More discussion here [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewlyHookedToWiki (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Text was found in that article to be insufficiently paraphrased from the source material. Text which is added to an article ought to be in an editor's own words, using an editor's own phrasing. A listing of the problematic text may be found here.  Spintendo  12:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not relevant to the discussion here. Those contributions are not mine. I have only made suggestions onto the talk page here [2]. I would like to make changes to the main article, if no editors have concerns about my COI leading to biased editing. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spintendo: It appears that the copyvio claim is erroneous and the Wikipedia article was copied by the other site instead of the other way around. We need a much better process for using this tool if such errors can occur that result in the inappropriate deletion of most of an article. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "It appears..." Where did it appear, on the side of a building? This WP:AWW notwithstanding, your 'much better way' should include you offering proof that, in this case, the chicken came before the egg.  Spintendo  17:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    From 2013-2014 is when the AoLF article and the AoLF webpage both begin to resemble each other. TAoLF website pre-2013 says nothing about the TAoLF, rather, it talks about Bangalore. And the Wiki TAoLF article pre-2013 is partially an embedded list. But with that timeframe no one can say for sure which came first, although according to the website, all their material is copyrighted. Does this mean that all suspect copyvio text needs to be second-guessed with respect to the timeframe that its text was placed online, in order to determine the validity of their claims? We already perform this check now, in a manner of speaking. And when the situation is obvious — such as a copyright claim dated 2015 when the text has been on Wikipedia since 2012 - well in those cases its obvious which source is the copier and which is the copied. But in cases like this where its practically the same year, how should be proceed?  Spintendo  17:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained on the article talk page, and pinged you in that explanation before making any comment here.
    So let's just see what we can to to fix this. Running Earwig's Copyvio Detector on older versions:
    04:44, 16 December 2012 gives 91.6%.
    18:07, 11 June 2012 gives 91.5%.
    23:43, 28 November 2011 gives 82.7%.
    I've no idea how to proceed, but this still suggests to me that the other website copied the Wikipedia article. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Julie Wyman article move to main space

    Fist, user SeaBass200 (which looks like a SPA) creates the article as a draft, next user Karentalent, who had previously declared COI for another article, moves it to main space. Please check, I am not sure how to handle such issues. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I left Karentalent alert-blp and paid1 notices. This certainly looks like paid editing.
    It's not clear what to make of SeaBass200's edits.
    I hope both will respond in an attempt to clarify what's going on. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Artaria195

    In their eight months here, User:Artaria195 has edited extensively and exclusively on Noah K, his band Dollshot, and closely related topics. I've had a number of conversations with Artaria195 regarding WP:COI, to which they've always pushed back. At one point, I had managed to convince him to put a notice on their user page disclosing their COI, and he began to comply with our requirements by suggesting edits on the article talk page. I considered this a good outcome.

    Unfortunately, that didn't last long, and they soon went back to editing the article themselves. Eventually, they removed the COI notice from their user page and have continued to make COI edits.

    I doubt any further conversations I could have with him would be useful, so we're here. I'd like to see a formal finding that he does indeed have a COI, and editing restrictions imposed to enforce our COI requirements. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @RoySmith: Here is a detailed response to your accusation of a COI. I began editing the article again when you initiated an AfD discussion in order to improve it. I do not have a COI by Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, my recent edit to the article on Noah K is simply the addition of and explanation of a new source that improves the article. I am planning to edit more widely, but had been focused on improving and defending the first article I had seriously contributed to. Artaria195 (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You had already explained on your user page what your relationship is. You said, Noah asked if I would take some photos for him a couple years ago after we met at a performance. You also said, I had access to a friend's studio in Brooklyn at the time and was shooting various people for practice. You also said you're a fan of his, and often attend his performances. So, that's your relationship to him. You said you didn't get paid, but being paid is not required to create an external relationship, per WP:EXTERNALREL. What I don't understand is why, after disclosing this, you took the statement down from your talk page. Disclosing your relationship to the subject you're writing about allows our readers to form their own judgements. By deliberately hiding that relationship, you prevent them from doing so and is contrary to the project's goal of transparency. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I don't have a conflict of interest according to WP:EXTERNALREL. It says there that external relationship COI issues should be guided by "common sense". My relationship to the subject is incredibly limited as the statements you quoted above make clear. I had originally posted the COI notice on my talk page because you pressured me to do so, and after engaging in a lengthy AfD discussion that I do not believe was initiated in good faith, I removed the notice since from my understanding there is no COI issue and so it didn't seem necessary. At this point, I and other editors have carefully edited the article to make sure it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for NPOV and stringent BLP sourcing standards, and I would appreciate it greatly if we could resolve this COI noticeboard issue and if you would please remove the COI notice template from the article's talk page. I very much support the aims of Wikipedia and am doing my best as a fairly new editor to understand and abide by the policies. Artaria195 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments: I am only commenting about the COI aspect, because of above comments and reading WP:EXTERNALREL. User: RoySmith gave several instances of statements on a talk page, and although there were no diffs, were not refuted by user:Artaria195. I cannot possibly see how the above statements (again I assume they are there) do not indicate a probable COI. "IF" one person "knows" the subject of an article they are editing on that gives evidence of walking, talking, and quacking so what does that generally indicate? Otr500 (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what it says on WP:EXTERNALREL: "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be an autobiography or written by the subject's spouse." Having done a photo session with Noah K in 2015 and attended a few of his bands shows in NY is not a COI that would affect my editing of this article in any way. In my edits, I've made sure to have a NPOV and cite quality sources for everything. In addition, several other editors have worked on the article to improve the text and citations. I've learned a ton about Wikipedia community and guidelines from working on it, Thanks, Artaria195 (talk) 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Charlie Hales

    Please see User:Charliehales' edits to the Charlie Hales articles, as well as my talk page comments. I should note, Charlie emailed me directly from a company email address, asking to call him to discuss changes to the article. I am not comfortable doing this, and I've also posted a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oregon#Charlie_Hales_article, hoping WP:Oregon members will keep an eye on the article and offer support as possible. Wanting to share here as well, in case any actions need to be taken. I do not intend to reply to his email. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You're under no obligation whatsoever to contact him in any manner through the means he provided. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment #2. I think you did the right thing ignoring the direct request, given the recent history around off-wiki contacts. I see that a Portlander has been active at the article since you posted, and let's hope that's the eyes-on you wanted. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Marilyn Kirsch

    Artist183, a SPA user with a lot of inside information on Marilyn Kirsch refuses to answer a simple COI questions, claims she or he owns the page, and is engaging in edit warring and WP:OWNERSHIP. Appears to be the article subject, see "added a reference to my MFA". Some crossover with User:Gaborherman (Apparently the husband of Marilyn Kirsch,and aslo edited by user Gabortherman, who seems to have outed himself at that talk page). Seems like a family affair all around. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Added a new SPA account that removed the autobio and 3rd party tags on Gabor Herman.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I am neither Gabor Herman nor I am using a login name similar to Gabor Herman. I can confirm that the information on the previous wiki pages is correct. What's the problem? Magneto2011 (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    the problem is that your only edits here on Wikipedia have been to remove valid tags on the article page placed by myself and another editor. Please stop this.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:HASHAN

    User appears to be creating a draft article about themselves. I have left a COI notice on their talk page. Their only contributions have been to their own draft. Agent00x (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Czechia Initiative / Helveticus96

    I have wrestled with posting this for a few weeks. In my invesitgations of User:Jan Blanicky I discovered they were an undisclosed editor for their boss Vladimir Hirsch, who I also eventually found out helps run something called the "Czechia Initiative." Most of that can be found [here], and [here.] I was prompted to post this via a previously unseen by myself post on my talk page from a Mobile IP [here.] It is the only post they have made to Wikipedia and they are based out of Virginia. They claim that someone named Vaclav Sulista is the "ring leader" and they try to proliferate usage of Czechia, things I already knew. Most of these edits take place at Name of the Czech Republic, Czech Republic, and across all instances of it on Wikipedia. You will see many Czechia Initiative members (including Jan Blanicky and Vaclav Sulista) engaging in discussions on Talk:Name of the Czech Republic, and talk pages of any users seemingly against their agenda, including myself, and User:Khajidha.
    Currently there is a lenghty moratorium on the discussion of the name at Talk:Czech Republic, with an understanding that, per at least 7-8 discussions/RFCs and WP:COMMONNAME, "Czech Republic" should be used, and that any attempts to proliferate "Czechia" be reverted on sight. Numerous users and I have dealt with this. In this I have come across one user User:Helveticus96, who has taken part in such edits. The user claims to be Vaclav Sulista on their talk page. Numerous user talk and article talk page interactions show a concerted effort to convince people to use the word "Czechia." A person named Vaclav Sulista is named as one of two "team members" at the Facebook page ([[3]]) and one of 12 "contributors" at the Czechia Initiative's "about us" page.([[4]]) In my invesitgations I found that some of his interactions are being posted to Facebook as the user attempts to convince people that Wikipedia is "censoring." [This post in particular] is from [a comment on Helveticus96/Vaclav Sulista's own talk page] with this added commentary:

    (translated from Czech via Google)"Unbelievable arrogance and madness of anonymous Wikipedia administrators. After several months of change from Swaziland to Eswatini, a false claim that Eswatini is more used than Swaziland. That is clearly not true. The official list of EU countries in English states Czechia, Wikipedia immediately erases and returns to the Czech Republic? How are these people a hidden agenda? I do not understand obsession with suppressing Czechia everywhere, even where it is obviously used. Any discussion of the topic is blocked by July 2019, it's just ridiculous!"

    I had previously suspected sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, at the very least, based on the nearly in tandem edits Helveticus had with User:Heptapolein, a sock of Jan Blanicky.([listed here]) Clearly these two know each other based on the frequency of times Helveticus comes to his defence, sometimes even on user talk pages for seemingly no reason. (even on Helveticus' talk page he claims "I am using my account from 2 different IP addresses, thats all, I can not imagine this is forbidden." However, regardless of the vast evidence, no action was taken as the reasoning was a previous CheckUser failed to connect him to Jan Blanicky. It's a clear WP:DUCK situation. I feel like some kind of action should be taken per the obvious meatpuppetry and clearly WP:NOTHERE and WP:COI edits at the very least.- R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I noticed that Helveticus again [confirmed his identity on my talk page], saying: " I am not ashamed of my identity, and I am declaring it openly on my Wikipedia page, apparently something, most admins are afraid to do." This seems to be in response to the Mobile IP which made another edit to my talk page under a different string. [[5]], where they point out that their first post about Helveticus was [posted onto the Facebook page for the Czechia Initiative.] with the commentary (from Czech): "Anonymous administrators of Wikipedia nominally attack members of the initiative!" Intersting that they would accuse Wikipedia admins of being "anonymous."
    Update 2:I've also found a nonactive user by the name of User:Vaclavjoseph. The name is similar and the editing focus is uncanny. All of the edits focus on changing Czech Republic to Czechia. This account has existed contemporaneously with Helveticus96, and both were created in 2014. The accounts first proper edit was in 2016 to chime in and agree with Jan Blanicky at Talk:Czech Republic with the comment "Jan Blanický is absolutely right." This is identical to the editing M.O. of Helveticus coming to Jan Blanicky's defense on numerous other occasions, seemingly out of nowhere. Clearly this account was made for only one purpose. Clearly this also breaches WP:SOCKPUPPET, but I- R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    pinging previouslty involved @Ground Zero: - R9tgokunks ⭕ 04:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been a while

    Just a reminder: this is a list of recently created articles that are more likely to be promotional or whose authors have undeclared conflicts of interest.

    Extended content

    I've left the female academic bios in, but there's still plenty of startup and entrepreneur spam in between. MER-C 07:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @MER-C: this is a large list. Do you have any suggestions for how to approach things like this with the limited team of active people at this noticeboard? In the past several of us have jumped in to divide-and-conquer when e.g. SPIs turn up stuff like this. But I think (myself included) the usual 3-4 active editors have left. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr Greg Wood

    I have discovered that User:Dr Greg Wood has a possible Conflict of Interest. I was editing the Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment article. I quickly noticed that the article had a strong bias. I also noticed there was a section describing a doctor who had worked for Atos (the company who used to run the Work Capability Assessment). and had whistleblown on Atos. Oddly, this did not name the doctor. I looked at the references on this section and noticed that the doctor in question was named Greg Wood. Here is a link to the article before I edited it.[6] I knew that people weren't supposed to edit Wikipedia articles about themselves, but I wasn't very familiar with the rules around this. I looked at WP:COI. It mentioned that naming editors should be avoided, so I asked on the editor request for help page if this user had COI, using a pseudonym for Greg Wood.[7]. User:JohninDC responded that it could potentially be COI. He also told me that he had worked out who the editor in question was and had contacted them. User:Dr Greg Wood later responded that he was the doctor who blew the whistle on Atos on his talk page, but denied he had a conflict of interest [8]. I decided to look into how the content that refered to Greg Wood came to be on the page.

    I found that the Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment had been split from the Work Capability Assessment article. I found that Dr Greg Wood had added the content on 15 August 2014.[9] He cites two sources; both of which are interviews that he gave to different media outlets. He edited the content again 3 times on the same day.[10][11][12] Here are all the other edits that he has made regarding his actions:

    2014

    2015

    2016

    2017

    On 27 June 2017, the Work Capability Assessment article was split and a new article: Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment was created, which included the section on Dr Greg Wood's actions. He made the following edits relating to his actions:

    On 25 August, the page was nominated for deletion. Dr Greg Wood advocated keeping the article.[125]

    Dr Greg Wood has also contributed significantly to other articles in relation to the Work Capability Assessment. I'm not sure if he has a conflict of interest in relation to these articles, but I feel these articles have an undue emphasis on the Work Capability Assessment.

    In the case of the Incapacity Benefit article, I removed some content relating to the Work Capability Assessment, but Dr Greg Wood reverted my edits to put the content back.[127][128][129]. I initially removed this again, but realised it would be in violation of WP:1RR so I put it back.

    CircleGirl (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    India News Haryana

    This editor's only edits have been to create new articles. Three of them were draftified. Subject editor admitted association with LD Sharma. Subject editor has now moved India News Haryana and Ajay Shukla back into article space without relying on AFC process (although they were told to use AFC). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?

    Do practitioners of alternative medicine (Acupuncture, Coin rubbing, Ear candling, Homeopathy, Phrenology, Urine therapy, Vaginal steaming, etc.) have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice?
    --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Related:

    Please !vote in the yes and no sections, and discuss in the threaded discussion section.
    Any editor may move comments placed in the yes and no sections into the threaded discussion section.
    --Guy Macon (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes

    • Yes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes: seems self-evident. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes: Someone who gets paid for practicing acupuncture has a clear COI concerning our acupuncture article. Someone who makes their living selling homeopathic medicines has a clear COI concerning our homeopathy article. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - their income depends on promoting nonsense. --mfb (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes with qualification Anyone who gets paid or receives money in relation to a subject they are editing has a potential conflict of interest (the potential conflict is that they will edit the subject in a non-neutral manner in order to increase their personal gain). Most medical professionals have a potential conflict if they edit medical articles for example. For the vast vast majority of these editors the potential conflict never arises because they edit perfectly normally without attempting to push any agenda or the potential conflict is very remote. The problem with editors who receive money related to pseudoscience/alt-med etc is that it is almost always in their interest to not present a balanced article, which is why we have so many who edit non-neutrally. But its still only a potential COI. An actual COI needs a much stronger relationship than merely being financially linked through their job. OR a demonstrated pattern of COI editing in the subject area. Its certainly possible for an acupuncturist to edit neutrally on acupuncture articles when describing the process. But this is not the same as a paid editor who is being directly paid to edit an article - their financial conflict is directly linked and pretty much depends on a favorable article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes they do, because their business is dependent on the pulic acceptance of the legitimacy of the quackery they sell. A medical doctor can use any valid therapy, they have no COI in respect of a specific drug unless they are a spokesperson or involved in trials, but an acupuncturist, homeopathist or whatever, gains tangible financial benefit when Wikipedia validates the false beliefs that underpin their business. A doctor who prescribes statins will change to another treatment if statins are shown to be ineffective. An acupuncturist has no obvious option other than acupuncture. It's like any other cult. An agnostic has no COI in respect of cults, neither does an atheist, but a member of the cult, does.
    Consider, for example, knee arthroscopy for arthritis. This was tested in well controlled experiments and found to be no better than placebo. The professional community recognised that this means it does not work, so they stopped doing it. Surgeons who performed knee arthroscopy did not have a problem with that, they were still qualified surgeons and did other work. Now consider what happened when evidence came in that acupuncture is no better than placebo. Acupuncturists can't change their practice - there is no practice of sticking things other than needles into people, they have invested a lot of time and money learning the medical equivalent of Klingon, so they cannot work unless they obscure the evidence that it does not matter where you stick the needles or even whether you put them in. They engage in political agitation and policy-based evidence making to support their business and their quasi-religious beliefs. The number of conditions for which acupuncture still has a positive evidence base is shrinking, and all of them are self-reported subjective symptoms. There is a huge incentive to change Wikipedia to reflect the world as they wish it to be, rather than as science finds it.
    It's like the difference between a 4-3-3 formation trainer, who has a vested interest in that formation, and a supporter of football, who won't care over much about the formation, only about the game itself. Guy (Help!) 01:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes almost as a matter of definition. And that also applies to !voting on the RFC Andyjsmith (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes by definition. The no !vote claims that acupuncture is no different than other legitimate medical professions with regard to COI are required to be dismissed by the closer as direct violations of WP:FRINGE and especially WP:PSCI policy. Such comments have no place on Wikipedia and this RfC cannot be used to override policies and guidelines on the subject.
    Medical professionals, academics, etc. generally do not have COI with respect to their area of research, specialty, etc, and that's pretty layered too. That is because they are typically not selling products, but instead knowledge or treatments they do not have a vested interest in recommending over another treatment barring isolated cases of someone inventing a surgical technique, patents, etc. More importantly, those medical professionals, even if advocating for mainstream science, do not have a COI in part because representing mainstream science is not contrary to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy; it's instead completely in line and enshrined in that policy. There just isn't a lot of room for legitimate medical professionals to be out of line with COI since their role in educating the public is generally the same as an editor's primary role to further the interests of the encyclopedia.
    It's disingenuous and superficial to claim acupuncturists are the same though. They are actively selling something outside of mainstream science. They have a vested interest in making it appear legitimate if they are trying to sell it and by definition cannot fall in the same group as the medical professionals mentioned above that satisfies WP:COINOTBIAS rather than simple advocacy alone. Such an editor would have an inherent conflict with the expected primary role of furthering the interests of the encyclopedia mentioned within the COI guidance. More similar examples would be someone editing Multi-level marketing that sells for such a group or is collecting at the top of the pyramid. Such a person has a vested interest tied directly to their checkbook in making MLM's appear more legitimate than they are. Someone who does sales in general with no connection a MLM group wouldn't have a COI writing about sales frameworks though (barring isolated instances again), which would make them fairly parallel to mainstream medical professionals (that hurt a little bit to write). CAM practitioners fall more in line with that MLM degree of COI. There's just too much with their profession conflicting with the goals of Wikipedia to not call it a strong COI compared to other medical professionals. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, very obviously. Their very livelihoods depend on potential patients's views of their treatments, and Wikipedia is an obvious place for patients to look things up. --Calton | Talk 18:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, obviously, but so does a conventional MD supporting the practices of orthodox medicine. They are indeed selling a product: their services. And they are doing so against competition, including competition from the practitioners of other disciplines. In my opinion, and the majority opinion here, and the great majority opinion of scientists in general univovled with medical practice, one of these approaches has a great advantage over the others--the advantage of being at least approximately correct. . But both regular and alt practitioners have the same goals: to help individuals with their physical and mental problems, to improve society by bringing about a heathier world, and to make money. For any given individual, the relative strengths of the three vary. But the practice of either form of medicine, whether real or fake, is a business enterprise, with one of its primary intentions to make money. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Roxy, the dog. wooF 00:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes A conventionally trained doctor does not have a COI when writing about conventional medicine because they should be following WP:MEDRS and reporting what evidence currently shows—the income and status of the doctor do not depend on what treatments are recommended by reliable sources. By contrast, the income and status of an acupuncturist depend on whether a sufficiently large proportion of the public think spending money on acupuncture is worthwhile. Anything positive an acupuncturist might add to acupuncture potentially boosts their income and status, while anything negative would do the opposite. That is the definition of a COI. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What the evidence currently shows is often equivocal. A MDs income certainly does depend on what patients think is most effective. to take two example, There are MEDRSs for the greater effectiveness of treating some mental conditions with drugs, and equally good ones showing no greater effectiveness. Some psychiatrists do primarily one, some the other. A MD when writing about therapy for these conditions will have a bias in favor of the evidence for the method they use. Which one the patient chooses directly affects their income. That is the definition of a COI. I don't want to stand on any particular example, but there are similar disagreements everywhere within medicine. (and all the other really interesting parts of science, and the rest of the world also. This is an encyclopedia for the general reader, but still we shouldn't oversimplify things.) DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, and anyone might benefit if sales of a particular product were boosted and so could have a COI on some articles (and here is a plastic surgeon indeffed for COI spam). However, there is no reason to think a doctor is more susceptible to a COI problem than anyone else engaged in business, and in principle there is plenty a doctor could write about that was neutral and properly sourced. An alt-med practitioner believes in selling products with no (or dubious) evidence of benefit and in principle brings an anti-reliable source view to alt-med articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. " Because alt-med practitioners' work and worldview is anti-science or pseudoscience, they have great difficulties furthering the interests of the encyclopedia over their livelihood and worldview. It is a false equivalence to assert alt-med practioners are similar to medical professionals in their approaches, but especially in the body of knowledge draw from and the system for expanding and testing that body of knowledge. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes We do not set the fox to guard the henhouse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but the COI can be disclosed and managed; for example, I am an internal medicine and infectious diseases practitioner who is also a faculty member at Johns Hopkins - an institution disproportionately invoked (because the page linked does not represent a general institutional endorsement of acupuncture) by one of the respondents to this RFC. My user page acknowledges some conflicts of interest that I manage by disclosure and caution. Some of the comments here could be construed to suggest that I have a direct conflict of interest with all medical topics - which seems too simplistic. Most editors have some conflicts of interest (their own interests versus those of the encyclopedia) but I would argue that a disclosed COI is manageable (with some exceptions); an important caveat is that editor restraint is an important aspect of managing COI. — soupvector (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but only regarding effectiveness and scientific veracity, not necessarily on questions of history, techniques, etc. Questions of effectiveness and science are literally questions about the validity of their own job, that's absolutely a conflict of interest. ApLundell (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I think it is fairly self-evident that they do. I also believe that some individuals with a COI are able to edit in a neutral fashion - the COI must be disclosed, though, and the first step is determining that it exists. --bonadea contributions talk 09:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • A meaningless "yes" The way it's written, about 98% of all editors have a COI. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes for articles on their specific practice. A Reiki healer should not contribute to the Reiki article as they have a pecuniary interest in the sale of the Reiki "product". However, they could contribute to an article on acupuncture. In the same vein, a conventionally trained cosmetic surgeon who did nothing but C02 laser skin resurfacing should not contribute to the corresponding article on that as they have a pecuniary interest in it as a commoditized service. An obstetrician, however, should be able to contribute to the article caesarean section as they don't have a direct pecuniary interest in the marketing or sale of that procedure. Their livelihood is not dependent on the number of C-sections they perform or, indeed, even public belief in C-sections as an effective method to remove one human from another (though, if there's an obstetrician out there who does nothing but C-sections, and maybe has a private practice, the Caesarean Emporium or Caesarean R Us or whatever, then they should be restrained from contributing to the article caesarean section as the C-section for them is a product and not an area of expertise). Chetsford (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    No

    • No. Acupuncture Program - Johns Hopkins Medicine. I, for one, welcome our expert editors from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine one of the topped ranked medical schools in the world. Please provide real examples where this has been a problem so we can come up with a proposal more precise and less sweeping. GreenC 19:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No The editing may be unbalanced, but unless they are writing about themselves, their own business or paid to write, it is not a "conflict". If we say this is a COI, we would have to ban all experts on writing about their own expertise. That would be no doctors writing on medical topics, no historians writing on history etc. For any of these things it can result in imbalance, but it is not COI. So we need multiple points of view, and this includes alternative medicine practitioners. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Conflict of interest (COI) editing "involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Unless an editor is involved in an article about their practice, it is not COI, per the guideline. Nor is it COI for a conventional physician to edit articles about medicine. TFD (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • (as CAM professional) Not enough of one to trigger Wikipedia's COIADVICE, same as my !vote in the first RfC. COI isn't like being pregnant: you can have it a little bit, or some, or a lot. (See my signature link.) My preference is to disclose, proceed with care, and -- hopefully -- let my edits be judged solely on their merits. More: Also, per TFD. Spot on. That's what WP:COI is saying. A CAM professional does not reap the specific benefit from puffery as a specifically-connected contributor (say, Smith editing the article on Smith's Bed & Breakfast). A CAM professional is far closer to a non-CAM specialist than to someone like Smith, whose puffery benefits only Smith, not an entire profession. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC); added "More" 12:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC); more on "More" 16:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC); rm redundant sentence 22:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
    You did, however, "forget" to disclose that you make money selling acupuncture, so your vote that you have no COI is... a COI. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the reason for this misrepresentation of my comment and misuse of the spa tag, but please avoid it. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 06:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - See below. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No No more than an MD has a conflict of interest writing about medicine. This is yet another attempt to silence anyone who doesn't tow the skeptical line about complimentary medicine and in particular a witch hunt against User:Middle 8... 4,3,2,1 "But acupuncture is pseudoscience and its evil!" See Talk:Acupuncture for background on this. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Not inherently so. I think Graeme Bartlett nailed it. Specialists have specialist knowledge and this is not a COI. Certainly, people in the field of alternative medicine are no more COI than an MD writing about their specialty or a PhD writing about the topic where they teach. I favor balance and NPOV, but the MEDRS and SCIRS gang need to remember that not all "alternative" medicine consists of quack remedies promoted by hucksters. It's all about balance and accuracy. Montanabw(talk) 00:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Graeme Bartlett and Nosebagbear has have good points. Saying an editor has a COI just because of their profession is a mistake, by this logic MDs should not be able to edit articles about energy healing, because if energy healing was real(which it's not) it would be a threat to doctor's livelihoods. Do we really we want to go down the road of restricting editors from editing the topics they know the best? This proposal appears to be an attempt to stop POV pushing by twisting WP:COI. Given that we have a policy against POV pushing, and discretionary sanctions that can be enforced against POV pushers editing alternative medicine, this proposal is completely unnecessary. Question for closer I have noticed that some of the Yes voters are saying that alternative medicine practitioners who vote No are conflicted votes, yet it seems to me they are only conflicted if the RfC is closed in favor of the Yes voters, it's like having a referendum about whose votes count in referendums, and I don't know what the right way to deal with this is, but please explain how you addressed this issue when you close this. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - Sometimes they do, but count me as No. Surgeons have a point of view in favor of surgery, acupuncturists in favor of accupuncture. COI in the sense it is being used here, implies a financial interest making it impossible to edit Wikipedia on related topics in a NPOV manner. And that may or may not be the case, depending on the individual and the topic. This is regulatory creep. No. Carrite (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No They have a COI when writing about their specific practice, i.e. their clinic if it's notable, not when writing about their field of study. Besides which, having the kind of people who advocate for fake medicine disclose COI, is not going to make it any harder for them to do what they do now, which is cherry pick sources and barrage the talk pages with wiki-lawyering and nonsense in order to influence article content. Our articles already benefit from policy based mechanisms, which support the removal of bunk. Our policy on COI necessarily states A COI can exist in the absence of bias, and bias regularly exists in the absence of a COI. Beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but they do not constitute a COI. Voting yes to this policy, would be avocation of a change to this fundamental policy and risks propagating further changes based on the result of this discussion. Experts in a field have the potential to contribute positively to articles in their specialist field and should not be prevented (or limited) by policy from making contributions, even if they are specialists in powdered unicorn horn or similar. In short the significance of the potential change to wiki-policy is not warranted by the relatively minor benefits this proposal would have on troll sniping on alt med articles. Edaham (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Acupuncture is their specific practice. Every edit that makes acupuncture look good, is financially beneficial. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • thanks for taking the time to comment. As I’m sure you are aware I am very much against having quacks creeping around promoting witchcraft, but my point, which I’ll clarify is that unless they are writing an article about their “specific clinic” then their views on a subject amount to a strong bias, not a COI. That’s how I feel about the current policy as it’s written and for the encyclopedia to thrive and maintain inclusivity I think it should stay that way. Edaham (talk) 10:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even the strong bias isn't a rule, at least as long as editors put the interests of WP above their own interests/biases. There have been and still are some pretty clear-eyed and consensus-respecting CAM professionals on WP who have been here awhile (Herbxue for example) and they wouldn't have lasted this long if they were really misbehaving. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rarely. So far as I know a conflict of interest refers to a direct personal connection. It should not be a conflict of interest for a registered Democrat to edit an article on Hillary Clinton, nor even for a Democratic state Senator to edit an article on Hillary Clinton, but it would be a conflict of interest for one of Hillary Clinton's employees, drawing a paycheck she signs, to edit that article. Similarly, it is not a conflict of interest for a plastic surgeon to write about a plastic surgery technique, even if he disagrees with my "unbiased" (supposedly) eye that tells me silicone lips are ugly. COI is not about having a Wikipedia free of bias, because that is exceedingly difficult. Ideally, we should use our biases to inspire us and provide us with the depth of background knowledge to add useful sources to articles, while restraining our biases from tempting us to remove any conflicting point of view. That said, if one person holds the patent for putting leeches up a rectum, and he edits Wikipedia articles saying that's the greatest thing ever, then that would be a COI. The same situation could exist for a more conventional medical procedure. Wnt (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • A Democrat is not directly vested in a single candidate. If the party chooses a different candidate, they can change allegiance to the other candidate or support their original candidate as an independent. When evidence shows that a form of quackery is invalid - acupuncture, say, or homeopathy - the practitioner community cannot adopt a different practice. They are vested in one single thing, which science says is wrong. You can't stop acupuncture and start doing chiropractic, there's a long training period in each. Read up on Britt Marie Hermes, who invested several years and many tens of thousands of dollars training as a naturopath, only to realise that naturopathy is bogus. That's a seriously difficult thing for anyone to do, and cognitive dissonance mitigates heavily against it. The acupuncture article has a years-long history of practitioners and True Believers trying to rewrite Wikipedia to reflect the fictional world in which meridians and qi exist. The homeopathy article was, for years, dominated by quacks such as Dana Ullman.
      • An acupuncturist or homeopathist editing those articles has a direct financial vested interest in the content they are editing. If they leave content that says their practice is bogus, they suffer financially If they insert content that obscures that fact, they gain financially. It is really pretty simple. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your example is its own disproof. Hermes now has her own Wikipedia article due to her success as a "naturopathy apostate". She is not homeless or working the cart return machine at Walmart. Moreover, your assumption is that a Wikipedia editor will take a thoroughly altruistic position about being selfish. Why can't a qigong practitioner pitch to the suckers by day to pay the bills, then post damning evidence against the practice to Wikipedia by night, under a pseudonym if need be? He knows no one person saying the truth is going to make his bread and butter go away, or it already would have. So no -- your argument is completely unsupportable. And if it were supportable, then we would have to ban plastic surgeons writing about plastic surgery for all the same reasons. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - no more so than an art historian writing about art, a chef writing about food, or a mainstream medical practitioner writing about mainstream medicine. Also, why is this RfC pointless straw poll clogging up a noticeboard? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why yes, it's exactly the same. I mean, it's quite true that chefs, for example, could have a conflict of interest in whether food is an effective treatment for hunger, skewing the question of "Is food necessary?" NPOV demands that we don't let Big Food dominate that question. --Calton | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - for this to be legitimate, we'd have to say that less-legitimate fields of work generate COI for its practioniers - but (for example) conventional medicine doesn't rule doctors out. While I could be sympathetic towards this viewpoint, it topples us down a massive rabbithole and would remove any ability for Wikipedia to claim to neutrally discuss issues - we'd have sacrificed NPOV before even starting. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - not inherently. Being in favour of something is not necessarily COI. The medical and political examples given above apply. Llwyld (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, except to the extent of pages about their specific organizations from which they derive income. I get it, that alt med practitioners differ from other professionals in having a fringe-based perspective, but that's a matter of POV-pushing in which there is no need to worry about the COI guideline. POV-pushing is POV-pushing, regardless of the motive. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No: I agree with everything Only in death wrote, but I think that it leads to the conclusion "no" rather than "yes". Articles touching on alt-med subjects are constrained by our policies on reliable sourcing and deserve to be tightly policed, but COI is not a good lens through which to view the problem. --JBL (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. They have a lack of neutrality and as such their edits should be assessed in the same way we'd treat the edits of a political activist editing the articles on their party or their opponent, but when it comes to something like homeopathy or acupuncture the number of practitioners is so high, any COI is minimal. If someone is advertising a particular firm or a technique only provided by a small number of practitioners of which they're one, then there's a COI, but otherwise provided their edits adhere to NPOV I wouldn't consider it any more problematic than an employee of General Motors editing Internal combustion engine. ‑ Iridescent 20:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Also adding that for once I agree entirely with Pigsonthewing on something; this proposal can essentially be summarised as "someone who works in a field is automatically unqualified to write about that topic in Wikipedia terms", which is a precedent we not only shouldn't be setting, it's a precedent an RFC on a relatively unwatched board like COIN probably couldn't set since it would have implications so far-reaching the board would probably need to sign off on it. ‑ Iridescent 20:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. As per Iri above, although Guy makes a very good point. Experts in Vaginal steaming might be better employed at Goldfinger, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Doctors don't have COI in medicine, nor do lawyers in law. Neither should astrologists in astrology or acupuncturists in acupuncture. COI should apply to their organization, or themselves, but not to the entire field. Levivich (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I concur with Middle 8 who says that this seems like a proposal to change WP:COI. COI is a good policy which exists outside of Wikimedia projects and has a certain definition to mean bias because of money. COI is a problem, and promotionalism for alt med and other passionate topics is a problem, but these are not the same problems. I support efforts to protect Wikipedia from COI and from alt med, but I disagree that the path to resolution is in combining these topics. Anyone can feel free to take protection schemes which work for one model and apply them to others, or even make a general protection scheme which applies to all. COI is not the generic term and concept to describe all problems. Wikimedia projects do not define COI - they adopt this term from much broader, much more developed practice elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - that is just an all around questionable proposal. Would personal trainers have COI about fitness and physical exercise topics? After all it is in their financial interest to have the most positive coverage possible, encouraging more people to use their services. Taxi drivers livelihood can be negatively impacted by popularity of ride-sharing services, do they have automatic COI on that topic? Etc.--Staberinde (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No -- per above arguments. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, per discussion and comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • no per all of the above editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No per Iridescent and the concern that this will form a precedent/slippery slope for stretching the COI definition further and further. We work/get inspired by precedents quite frequently on Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Per Edaham. Yes, we should avoid allowing quacks to use Wikipedia as a forum to promote their quackery, but it is even more important (to the Encyclopedia, if not necessarily to the real world) to distinguish between "bias" and "conflict of interest". I once had an editor accuse me of having a "conflict of interest" in the Rodrigo Duterte article because I stated on-wiki that I disapproved of death squads; having community consensus that a bias is the same as a COI in this one case sets a very dangerous precedent, and leaves the path open for advocates of a particular point of view to write things like this to attempt to silence those with an opposing point of view, which is clearly the opposite of the effect intended by those !voting "yes". (Ironically, both the sender and recipient of the above bogus notice are !voting the same way here, though clearly for opposite reasons.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I think there is a "bright line" between cases like this, where a large number of people would indirectly receive financial benefit by promoting something on Wikipedia to the point where a large portion of the public who rely on Wikipedia for their information accepted it, and cases like what Tristan noir (talk · contribs), Kujakupoet (talk · contribs) and Bagworm (talk · contribs) were trying to pull, where the fringe content they were promoting (and directly advertising on Wikipedia by posting them in the EL sections and citing them as sources for articles) was being pushed by a very, very small number of people in the real world, to the point that it could reasonably be assumed that any Wikipedia editor pushing it had a direct personal connection to the real-world people pushing it; granted, if I could go back in time and deal with those editors again, I might do so differently, but I didn't want anyone calling me a hypocrite, since I suspect I accused those editors of "conflict of interest", using those words, way back when. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No as per Edaham. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not exactly. An altmed practitioner who is editing about altmed subjects, has no more conflict of interest than a conventional healthcare provider who is editing about cough syrup (which doesn't work) or whatever surgery s/he gets paid to do. They might be equally biased, but it's not a COI. For actual COI, see, e.g., employees of a pharmaceutical company editing articles about their own products, employees of hospitals writing articles about their hospitals, cosmetic surgeons creating pages about themselves or techniques they've invented/trademarked/patented, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No as for the most part, they genuinely believe it works and that is the primary driver. And as long as they are not paid, or in some relationship under soft coercion or following an agenda. scope_creepTalk 22:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, per Whatamioing. We let cosmetic surgeons write about cosmetic surgery procedures, which is equally problematic and equally not against policy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - not as a class of editors. Not unless you think lawyers have a COI editing law articles or doctors in general have a COI editing medical articles. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in any meaningful way - To rephrase this "do people who hold a job have a conflict of interest when writing about their field of study?" Replace any of the above jobs, and see if it affects Wikipedia policy "Do road engineers have a conflict of interest when writing about road construction techniques?" "Do farmers have a conflict of interest when writing about agricultural practices?" Not really, in general we don't treat such relationships as a COI. That does not mean we don't reflect existing, mainstream, scientific assessments of quackery as quackery. It just means we don't treat people who hold jobs as somehow under any kind of cloud of suspicion when they write about their field of expertise. Just like we wouldn't treat a professional chemist as somehow under suspicion when they write in our articles about chemistry, we should treat other professions any differently . --Jayron32 14:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Sometimes

    • Sometimes. I'm boldly adding a third option as I don't believe a blanket judgment is useful here. If someone is here to promote a particular point of view, and has a real-life connection to that subject, then they have a COI. However, contributors considered experts in their field should always be welcome, provided they edit according to policies and community norms. The difference between these two is governed by common sense. Bradv🍁 20:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difficult question. I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's an inverse correlation between the legitimacy of a field and the likelihood that a practitioner in that field will edit such articles in a way incompatible with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines. Ultimately, however, I'm not in the "yes" section because I think it largely overlaps with WP:EXTERNALREL. I have no problem with an acupuncturist writing about the history of acupuncture (generally speaking), for example. That said, I'm not in the "no" section because I do think there's one aspect of this that we can say there's an inherently problematic COI: the matter of its legitimacy itself. In other words, I would be a "yes" if the question were phrased "...with regard to the [legitimacy/scientific accuracy/similar] of their field of practice." — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Often, not always. This is a slippery slope - do we want to view legitimate doctors as having a COI in relation to regular medicine? Other fields? Cutting down on medical quackery on Wikipedia is a sound goal, but a blanket assertion of COI is not the way forward.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have a potential COI, but they are fine - as far as their editing does not cause significant objections from others or conflicts. BTW, editing in this specific subject area is not really different from editing in any other subject areas. We edit pages about fairy tales, whatever. It does not matter if a subject belongs to science.My very best wishes (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Threaded discussion

    • Note to closer The result of the previous RfC was no consensus. As we have seen, some editors took that as meaning "practitioners of alternative medicine never have a conflict of interest and have no restrictions with regard to content describing their field of practice" while others took that as meaning "practitioners of alternative medicine always have a conflict of interest and have severe restrictions with regard to content describing their field of practice." I would request that the closing summary be made crystal clear as to what is and is not allowed, and which existing policies apply and how to apply them. A clear explanation will help to avoid re-litigating the meaning of this RfC on multiple pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if we need this in addition to WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, etc., but a lot of No voters seem to be genuinely unaware of how shady alternative medicine is and are AGFing that the typical public presentation of alternative medicine practices is even vaguely sincere and not a result of well-crafted PR work. The majority of alternative medicine consists of treatments that were proven ineffective in controlled trials, and whose existence in the field relies on false marketing, misrepresentation, and acts that would in a reasonable society be widely recognised as blatant hoaxes. It's only PR that keeps presenting decades old tried-and-failed practices as up-and-coming that allows most parts of this industry to thrive, and get grouped together with legitimate but controversial serious controlled medical experiments. I'd recommend everyone to watch a couple of episodes of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!, which while sensationalist and not altogether accurate, shows a few good examples of shameless abuse of facts perpetrated in the course of converting people to alternative medicine. Daß Wölf 18:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another note to closer I have grave reservations about Guy Macon's request, because that's not (at all) what the RfC asks, and many have not attempted to answer. It's a straight yes/no (with a "sometimes" added after eight !votes).
    Nor is this the proper way to change WP:COI, which this is an attempt to do in all but name (although opener Guy Macon acts in good faith). That guideline is clear that simply having a profession is not a COI (see talk archive). Guidelines are to be taken with "common sense and the occasional exception". This RfC contemplates neither ("CAM professionals" is a broad exception, and here "common sense" is common only to a plurality minority). There is either consensus to change the guideline or there isn't. There's our clarity. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 08:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC); revised 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC); plurality --> minority 22:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Middle 8 (Who I believe as a person who is an acupuncturist has a COI, and who believes that he does not have a COI -- thus this RfC) Makes the claim that "WP:COI is clear that a simply having a profession is not a COI", but that language was removed years ago,[132] The current consensus wording of the policy is at WP:EXTERNALREL, which says "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest... Any external relationship -- personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency) -- can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager..." This is a direct contradiction to Middle 8's claim. If your profession is band manager for The Ventures, then simply having that profession is a clear COI which applies to editing our article on the Ventures. In my opinion (and of course Middle 8 disagrees; see User:Middle 8/COI for his argument) the fact that his profession is "acupuncturist" gives him a COI concerning our acupuncture article, same as the band manager. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    False equivalence. Your argument is akin to saying that the manager of the Ventures has a conflict of interest regarding the article "talent manager". That's tosh. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree that the band managers profession alone gives him a conflict of interest on some pages (the policy does say "For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager") but are simply pointing out that he doesn't have a COI on some other pages? Sounds like you are agreeing that the claim "On Wikipedia, simply having a profession is not generally considered a COI" is a false statement if the profession is "band manager" and the page is about the band he manages. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall asking you to speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a couple of pages that may help you to understand what other editors write: Question mark and Question. I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely it follows then Guy that you, being an electrical engineer, couldn't edit any articles that are in any way related to electrical engineering and should disclose your COI in that respect? Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's actually a very good question. If, as is the case with acupuncture, Wikipedia's pages on electronics were based upon multiple reliable sources that say that electricity and electronics don't work, that the results that you get from a high-end laptop computer are indistinguishable from the results from a clay tablet, and that hiring an electronics engineer is a waste of time, then I would have a clear COI and should never edit those pages to imply that electronics actually work.`In fact pretty much any edit I made in that area would be prohibited because of my COI. Why? because the mere existence of those pages and those sources would hurt me financially, just as the mere existence of our acupuncture page hurts Middle 8 financially. As it is, I don't edit anything having to do with electrohydraulic actuators, for example, because is does affect me financially when someone chooses a hydraulic actuator over an electrohydraulic actuator. So if I ever felt a need to edit on that topic, I would disclose my COI, make suggestions on the talk page rather than editing the page directly, and everything else listed at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's awfully specific. It's like saying that an acupuncturist who only uses copper needles is ok to edit other stuff about acupuncture that is done with steel needles. I'm guessing you wouldn't agree with that. The thing is the evidence about acupuncture doesn't show its a waste of time. As people who read the article would be able to know if you'd let us add any studies that show this, like these seven Cochrane reviews. But you never do. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. The example was sound: if the two schools of thought were that electricity is a real thing versus electricity is witchcraft, and the scientific consensus was that electricity is witchcraft, then an electrical engineer would have a COI.
    Remember: we know that it doesn't matter where you put the needles (both from studies and from mutually incompatible schools of acupuncture), we know it doesn't matter if you put the needles in or not (so acupuncturists claim it is so magical that even fake acupuncture works), and significant effects are only found in self-reported outcomes for subjective effects. In science, that means it doesn't work. There's nothing left to explain, the results are fully consistent with the null hypothesis.
    An acupuncturist cannot adapt their practice in line with this evidence. The only ethical course is to stop sticking needles into people, and they have both a quasi-religious imperative and a financial imperative for continuing to stick needles in people. They have invested a lot of time and money in becoming an expert in something, and part of that is indoctrination into the cult that absolutely believes it to be true. So they come here to bring The Truth™, a version of the universe where their beliefs are correct. But Wikipedia is a reality-based project and we can't have fiction presented as fact by people with a vested interest. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, hello, (taps microphone). Is this thing on? The evidence does not show that. The Wikipedia article says that because you work super hard to stop evidence being added.Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for an excellent example of the problem. Sure, for the True Believer, the evidence does not show that. But for the reality-based community (and remember Wikipedia is a reality-based project) it absolutely does.
    There are numerous studies that show the location of needling makes no difference, and none that show the opposite (otherwise there could not be competing schools of acupuncture). In fact this resistance to empirical fact is common to many forms of SCAM. Homeopathy also has competing schools of thought that are mutually exclusive, but members of all of these jointly agree that all studies that appear to validate any school, validate all schools. That's why SCAM is widely understood to be quasi-religious, not scientific, in nature.
    Comparing needling with non-needling is more difficult due to the issue of blinding, and double-blinding is close to impossible. One of the better experiments is Ernst's stage dagger needle trial. A number of well designed studies show to a high degree of certainty that inserting the needles or not, makes no difference. And this is taken by the acupuncturists as validation of acupuncture, because "fake acupuncture works as well as the real thing". That is literally the argument they make.
    And yes, the article says this mainly because it has been watched by a number of reality-based editors who have met and addressed an endless stream of True Believers wanting to reshape reality in the image of their own beliefs by editing Wikipedia, in much the same way that quacks use "legislative alchemy" to mandate by legal fiat that dangerous bullshit is legitimate. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    @Guy Macon: - Really? At the time, you wanted to restore that wording and agreed that SlimVirgin's rewording (which SV made without discussion or controversy, and which SV told you retained the meaning) was an improvement! (All this is in that talk archive.) And you quoted most of EXTERNALREL (re which Andy Mabbett is correct) EXCEPT the relevant paragraph about subject matter experts (with SV's wording).
    Also (and I'm not trying to pick a fight), could you please refrain from putting words in my mouth? I do say I have a COI, just the kind that all subject matter experts have -- itself a spectrum, and I agree CAM is on the far (more conflicted) end, but not uniquely so. This is pretty clearly implied in my !vote and explicitly stated below. Thanks, GM. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 11:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    [EC] Please edit User:Middle 8/COI to clearly disclose that you have a COI. Right now it says "Do practicing acupuncturists have a conflict of interest (COI) when editing acupuncture-related articles? ... On Wikipedia, opinion on the matter is divided..." and "On Wikipedia, simply having a profession is not generally considered a COI" (quoting wording that was removed from the policy years ago). Until I see a clear declaration on your user page that you have a COI (adding an argument that you should be allowed to edit pages about your profession anyway is fine) I stand by my assertion. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm happy with it as is, although I'd prefer that you avoid a tone or other implication that I'm somehow doing something improper (given that my reading of WP:COI is shared by many, if not most, who have commented).
    I also think it's a bit disingenuous for you to imply that the change in wording necessarily changed the meaning when you yourself wanted the original wording to remain, and were satisfied when SV explained that that the meaning remained. You have every right to change your mind, of course. I'm curious why, and it might help move the debate along if you explained. (In any case, I'll do you the courtesy of not repeating that Guy Macon "denies" that he once agreed with my, and the author's intended, reading of the guideline). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC); minor revision 15:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is why we have to codify it at a policy level, because people like you who have a direct vested interest in portraying an archaic alternative to medicine as valid, refuse to acknowledge that this is a conflict with the potential to bias your editing. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "just the kind that all subject matter experts have" ← this exemplifies a problem here. Somebody who is a "subject matter expert" on (say) the history of their local town does not have a confict of interest in "just the same way" as somebody who sells a product for money, particularly if they are heavily invested in that product (through training, reputation and client-base e.g.). The COI becomes acute when the very credibility of that product is in question on Wikipedia, and edits are made which bear directly on that question of the product's credibility. This is just as true for altmed offerings (like acupuncture) as it is for "conventional" medical devices (like the DizzyFIX), or non-medical products (like Amsoil). What you are basically arguing - and I supect fooling yourself into the bargain - is that the potential effect on your wallet is not importanrt. As Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". I have to LOL at some of the votes here from editors who would go ballistic if a Monsanto researcher claimed they were free to edit the Glyphosate article because they were merely a "subject matter expert"! Alexbrn (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, Alex, Cochrane treats CAM professionals' no differently from other specialists, COI-wise. If your argument is obviously correct, why is that so? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 13:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cochrane (whose policy you are misappropriating anyway) is not Wikipedia, most importantly because it is not a consensus-based collaborative project (for which COI is ruinous): its work is professionally reviewed, and it does of course require transparency from its contributors who are held to ethical standards. On wikipedia most fringe POV-pushers hide behind a pseudonym. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Misappropriating Cochrane how?
    Your argument strikes me as special pleading, and as I've shown, this supposed problem is uncommon. The worst POV-pushing isn't coming from declared CAM practitioners. As you noted, it's coming from pseudonymous editors, most of whom declare nothing (I wonder why?). (I am pseudonymous only because of harassment concerns, btw, and was the target of an outing attempt "justified" by COI.) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You implied somehow an altmed practitioner would not have a COI according to Cochrane - but in fact they would be required to disclose any related income sources (and any other relevant associated interest, very broadly drawn: "... relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote ...") on the COI form, and would be assessed. As for anonymity you can't have it both ways: Cochrane has its rules and they include transparency and peer review (itself subject to COI vetting) prior to publication. How you edit here is nothing like that: you are anonymous editor with power to insta-change content. So really the parallel is irrelevant - the "special pleading" is coming from you. We have a lot of trouble with anonymous fringe POV-pushers; in fact non-anonymous ones are more rare, I'd say. Alexbrn (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anons/pseudons who don't declare, yes. Re Cochrane: if they treat CAMmers differently, please show me. Generally: Just revert me if I make a bad edit, but do so because of the content, not the contributor (otherwise be ready to defend it to AE). Your attempt to change the guideline (which is what this is; see my thread-opener & talk archive linked there) obviously isn't going anywhere, so I suggest putting down the stick and leaving the ex-parrothorse be. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not attempting to change anything, but I do want to counter the implication that somehow altmedists don't have a COI here "because Cochrane". Ultimately it's problematic behaviour and editing which will get problem editors in this space sanctioned - and that's a path you've already started on, as came out at your last AE outing ... and that's what we know just from this account you've used. Alexbrn (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your position represents a change, just read that talk page. Cochrane: You misunderstand my argument. Read my sig link on COI (I have one for acu under Cochrane but not WP). In fact, please read the privacy link too. No, the only warning is on this account, and I do regret bringing that AE. That was a bad day, bad week, adverse drug reaction to a prescription acting on the CNS. We're all allowed occasional mistakes, no? --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My dear fellow, we can all make mistakes certainly. But a pattern of mistakes all tending to a certain end could be strong evidence of a COI powering them, even if unconsciously. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, H. sapiens is a brilliant pattern-recognizer. Go for it, but I don't think anyone cares about what happened 4, 5+ years ago. Call it the price of good judgement (scroll to Rita Mae Brown). Even old farts like me do learn, you know. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cochrane is not Wikipedia, but even if it were, they have published some seriously bad analysis by people whose own crappy work dominated the sources they were using. Argumentum ad Cochrane is a fallacious appeal to authority.
    But the issue of "subject matter experts" is a serious point here. A subject matter expert on acupuncture looks like Edzard Ernst or Steve Novella. These are people who critically examine the research looking for overt and covert bias, with a view to finding out if it's real or not. Anyone who makes their living promoting or practicing acupuncture, homeopathy or whatever, is not a subject matter expert. Their status in respect of alt-med is that of theologists in respect of evolutionary biology. They are experts on what true believers believe, but not on the empirical truth of those beliefs. And the unwillingness or inability to accept hat is why a COI exists. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Guy Regarding what you/anybody thinks about what alt-meders/anybody else believes, I have to periodically remind you of this exchange. At the very least be wary of generalizing about people, as well as overgeneralizing COI into something broader and not commonly accepted (see Bluerasberry's !vote [133]). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Not sure this question should be limited to altmed. We already have WP:MEDCOI. Surely anybody who has a financial interest in sellling something specific, has a COI, whether it is in "conventional" medicine (say, specialising in a plastic surgery procedure) or altmed (say, being a rolfer™). Why do we need to have any kind of special treatment for altmed specialists? - they're already covered. Alexbrn (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As a wise person going by the name of Alexbrn once wrote:
    "It is a false equivalence between (most) altmed practitioners and 'western-medicine MDs'. The latter operate in a wide field and if certain therapies and products are found useless they simply adjust to new ones. In altmed the therapy is usually one specific intervention and so there is no 'off ramp' - the practitioner's livelihood is thus strongly bound to assessments of that therapy's worth. So, an advocate of crystal therapy does not operate in a way which responds to evidence. Of course in conventional medicine too editors here have COIs when they have close links to particular medical products or therapies; problems like that happen here often too."[134] (Posted by Alexbrn to Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest on 11 May 2015 UTC)
    I'm just saying. :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Acupuncture Program - Johns Hopkins Medicine. I, for one, welcome our expert editors from Johns Hopkins School of Medicine one of the topped ranked medical schools in the world. Please provide real examples where this has been a problem so we can come up with a proposal more precise and less sweeping. -- GreenC 19:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Middle 8 has consistently refused to admit he has a COI with respect to acupuncture. jps (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not possible to have a COI with respect to acupuncture. Unless he is editing in favor of his products, services or institution. It is looking like this RfC is really about a single user, User:Middle 8. -- GreenC 01:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's ludicrous to claim it is impossible to have a COI with respect to acupuncture when people make money off of it in spite of the lack of evidence for its efficacy. jps (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this is one of the more ridiculous assertions I've seen here yet? "Not possible"? If someone's income depends on whether potential patients are willing to pay for treatment they believe to be effective -- or at least not snake oil -- then damned right that that someone has a blindingly obvious COI. You asked for an example, and you got one, so don't make sweeping unsupported statements of your own. --Calton | Talk 18:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස: wrote: User:Middle 8 has consistently refused to admit he has a COI with respect to acupuncture -- Actually, I have so admitted, just not in the way you would've preferred.[135][136] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That you are an unethical, conflicted editor who has used Wikipedia to make money for your various alternative medicine ventures is something with which I can agree, certainly. jps (talk) 21:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Climb down off that high horse, the weather's nicer down here. I've been on long-term leave and haven't made money from my "alt-med venture" in quite awhile. I used to talk to my patients about the evidence base for acu (once I understood it) and the Wikipedia article (partly out of curiosity, partly a sense of ethical obligation). Most hadn't read it. The very few who had invariably thought the acu article so ridiculously skeptic-POV'd that they discounted it and even had a boomerang reaction. (The alternative medicine article today is almost hilariously bad in that way, btw.) So, you'll be glad to hear that if anything my efforts probably hurt my bottom line. Back when I had one from acu. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon: Why, what a brilliant young man I was back then! I think my view is is still essentially the same - whether altmed or not, people financially interested in something have a COI. Alexbrn (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon and Alexbrn: The "off ramp" is the same as for any non-CAM specialist: "I can't help you, let me refer you elsewhere". "--CHORTLE!" -- I know, that's the response; "how could any alt-meder be ethical that way". Well, it happens, just as non-CAM specialists fail to dismiss patients when they should. That's another reason the difference between CAM and regular medical COI is more about degree than kind, and why Cochrane doesn't distinguish between the two. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Johns Hopins, see Medicine with a side of mysticism: Top hospitals promote unproven therapies. Key quote:
    "They’re among the nation’s premier medical centers, at the leading edge of scientific research. Yet hospitals affiliated with Yale, Duke, Johns Hopkins, and other top medical research centers also aggressively promote alternative therapies with little or no scientific backing. They offer 'energy healing' to help treat multiple sclerosis, acupuncture for infertility, and homeopathic bee venom for fibromyalgia. A public forum hosted by the University of Florida’s hospital even promises to explain how herbal therapy can reverse Alzheimer’s. (It can’t.)... Some hospitals have built luxurious, spa-like wellness centers to draw patients for spiritual healing, homeopathy, and more. And they’re promoting such treatments for a wide array of conditions, including depression, heart disease, cancer, and chronic pain. Duke even markets a pediatric program that suggests on its website that alternative medicine, including 'detoxification programs' and 'botanical medicines,' can help children with conditions ranging from autism to asthma to ADHD. 'We’ve become witch doctors,' said Dr. Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at the Yale School of Medicine and a longtime critic of alternative medicine."
    As our article on Alternative medicine says, "The scientific consensus is that alternative therapies either do not, or cannot, work. In some cases laws of nature are violated by their basic claims; in others the treatment is so much worse that its use is unethical. Alternative practices, products, and therapies range from only ineffective to having known harmful and toxic effects." --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim of "scientific consensus" is unsourced. Sounds about right. How can you source consensus when major scientific medical institutions like Johns Hopkins are using alt medicine. Evidently there is no consensus. Unless you believe these institutions are "witch doctors" says Dr. Steven Novella. Reminds me of Elizabeth Holmes who called the WSJ a "tabloid" when they published something she didn't like. -- GreenC 01:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:LEADCITE, that is sourced in the body. Determination of scientific consensus is not through whether reputed medical institutions use alt medicine but through what high-quality WP:MEDRS sources say. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok found it. Four sources dated 1995,1997,2002,2004 nearly a generation old.. It's also asserting a strong statement of broad consensus which would be difficult to demonstrate in four sources, unless those sources are directly asserting the statement. JH is to medical scientific research, as Stanford is to computer science and MIT is to engineering. They are the establishment, and publishers of reliable sources. There is a Johns Hopkins book in the Bibliography, though not chosen as a source. It looks like core establishment has been changing over the past generation, and Wikipedia is still fighting the altmed battles I recall from the early 2000s. At the very least, a re-examination of what the consensus is these days would be a useful exercise. I suspect there would be such conflicting opinion no clear consensus would emerge, or least not the unqualified one currently claimed with those 4 old sources. -- GreenC 16:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments like this are prima facie evidence of intellectual vapidity. The year 2004 is described as being "nearly a generation old", entire institutions are held up as paragons of research as though there is no possibility for problems to occur among individuals or groups when they're employed by such a beast, and then further absurdities are entertained that somehow the scientific consensus doesn't exist that acupuncture has no evidence for its efficacy. If we took WP:CIR seriously, this would be grounds for topic banning. jps (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The average of those 4 dates centers around 2000 which is about 19 years ago, 20 years is a generation. And you don't need to threaten me with banning. I am not intellectually vapid, are you intellectually vapid? You've got a problem, it's not me, it's time. Consensus changes and a lot has happened since GWB took office. Marijuana is becoming more legal etc., there is a broad trend in health care encompassing alternative therapies that reflects generational changes in the population at large who are more accepting than previous. As the contradictions between Wikipedia and the real world continue to build you will become increasingly embattled. The right action is to keep Wikipedia up to date. -- GreenC 23:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You think a generation is 20 years, eh, buster? "Marijuana is becoming legal, etc." WOW! SUCH GREAT arguments! Keep trying, though. You continue to make a wonderful case that you lack the intellectual heft necessary to render an informed opinion on this subject. jps (talk)
    @jps, Galobtter, Guy Macon, GreenC, Alexbrn Well, we do have the hefty consensus (yes, it says consensus) of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that "Nonpharmacologic interventions for pain treatment, including acupuncture, physical therapy and exercise, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and mindfulness meditation, also are powerful tools in the management of chronic pain."[137] Yes, I am quoting accurately and in context -- the NAM looked at several nonpharmacologic pain treatments [138] and found favorably for a few of them including acu. (Source: NAM consensus report Pain Management and the Opioid Epidemic: Balancing Societal and Individual Benefits and Risks of Prescription Opioid Use[self-published source?? we'd better find something wrong with it and fast or the sky's going to fall. someone alert the bloggers!])
    To be clear: this is the sci consensus (or at least the large majority view, given the source, and others) about acupuncture's clinical value. That is not to be confused with the sci consensus about its efficacy compared to sham acupuncture (perhaps a small analgesic effect). Pretty impressive example of how researchers and clinicians think differently, I'd say. After all, it's perverse to { use a treatment that's (mostly) a placebo | not use a treatment that helps certain difficult-to-treat pain patients }.
    If only we had editors able to hold these two seemingly opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 00:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    jps, your personal attacks, YELLING, insults, name calling and threats mark you as someone not worth responding to, it is misdirection. Middle 8 those are good sources. How might we incorporate this? -- GreenC 01:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @GreenC - Methodically and patiently. ;-) More than a few skeptical heads are going to spin in disbelief that this source can possibly say what it says (it's just one source, various parts linked to), and contortions to exclude it will ensue. But the source is crystal clear, so it can't be excluded for long, as long as we stick close to it when citing. I'll post something soon at acu & other pertinent articles. Cheers --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 03:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The source is not commenting on alternative medicine. It is commenting on pain management and the opioid crisis. It is reminiscent of problems we have always had with POV-pushers like yourself cherry-picking sources that made them feel better about their pet pseudosciences. Also, this source is off-topic for this discussion of COI, of course. A better question might be, do you possibly have a COI with respect to alternative medicine? jps (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jps: POV-pushers like yourself cherry-picking sources that made them feel better about their pet pseudosciences. looks like part of a pattern of you making personal comments about editors you disagree with on this thread. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස:. fix ping. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @jps And the contortions begin. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    ..looks like part of a pattern of you making personal comments about editors you disagree with...
    Actually, it looks like an accurate description of a particular phenomenon. --Calton | Talk 18:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MEDCOI seems to be fine for this. It says that folks with a COI need to declare it. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I don't mean to say that western medical knowledge is the end-all and be-all of health related articles. If traditional or other alt-med procedures are used and notable they should be reported, but that doesn't mean they get a pass on reporting scientific studies, or reporting when there have been no scientific studies. That is the domain of western medicine. Anybody, alt-med or otherwise, who has a COI and doesn't declare it is walking on thin ice, especially if they don't accurately report the scientific evidence. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At least one user (See User talk:Roxy the dog#CAM COI RfC IDHT (smh) and User:Middle 8/COI) has declared[139] that it is perfectly OK for a practicing acupuncturist to edit our acupuncture article, and he quotes the 2015 RfC listed above as support for that assertion. So here we are, revisiting the question with a new RfC to see whether the community wants to uphold or overturn the previous RfC. I would assume that if you were to try to invoke WP:MEDCOI he would point to the same RfC as allowing him to edit despite having a clear COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. The previous RfC doesn't need to be "overturned" because it was inconclusive (no consensus). But we do need clarity. It's a bit naughty for any altmed specialist to claim that "no consensus" result gave a green light for them to freely edit an article on their specialism. Alexbrn (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well frankly it does. No consensus means exactly that. There is no consensus that those particular workers are inherantly conflicted and should be prohibited from editing articles directly in the topic area in which they are employed (which was the obvious goal of the RFC). I suspect if the question was phrased more generically it would gain clearer consensus. "Do you have a COI in the topic area in which you are employed or otherwise recieve financial renumeration" would either be no or yes. As it stands, singling out one specific industry will end up with 'yeah sometimes'. But no one wants to ask that question because it would prevent all sorts of editors editing their favored topics, or it would prevent none. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no consensus that that they are, and no consensus that they aren't. Are you familiar with the scottish verdict? But okay, if we're saying anything but an unequivocal finding of "yes" here shall be interpreted as granting altmed folk free reign to edit on their own specialisms, then that at least clarifies how - in community terms - the result will be taken. Alexbrn (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes [cynic] its what allows people in Scotland to have a 2nd bite in the civil courts when they dont get the result they want in the criminal ones [/cynic]. But that is a very different kettle of fish from an ENWP no consensus result. ENWP is fundementally 'we cant agree'. A not proven verdict is most often deployed in Scotland where the Jury think the person is guilty but the evidence isnt there, or cannot be corroborated. Its not a lack of agreement, its a lack of supporting evidence. Personally I would be more than happy to ban all Altmed practitioners from their relevant topic areas, but thats a thin end of the wedge which is what I suspect led to the original result. If we are going to contemplate going that route, just directly do a proposal for it rather than using the roundabout COI for it (which by policy doesnt actually prohibit them even if it is declared they have a conflict). Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is that editors (well one anyway) are using the previous RfC to claim an exemption from our general COI provisions in a kind of "Wikipedia has cleared me" way. As WP:MEDCOI states "Editing on topics where one is involved or closely related, especially when there is potential financial gain, is discouraged". I think that should be applied to altmed just as it is to conventional medicine. I sort of agree with your general point though, because ultimately all these things are gameable by conflicted editors, and it's POV editing and associated behaviour which will get them in the end. Alexbrn (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Acupuncturists are not bound by MEDCOI since acupuncture isnt medicine *Pigeon Cat Pigeon*. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The vaunted Johns Hopkins Integrative Medicine Acupuncture Program as described on their own website:

    Acupuncture and massage appointments are now available at our downtown campus for cancer patients and their caregivers (family and all healthcare providers) at the Hackerman-Patz Pavilion, located just across the street from the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center. Massage therapy includes deep tissue, oncology massage, and other types. Acupuncture and massage therapy make excellent gifts! Please call [phone number redacted] to make an appointment or obtain a gift certificate.[1]

     Spintendo  12:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In shock news, product of US for-profit health system sells useless procedures to vulnerable people... News at 11. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (acknowledging my COI as a physician and faculty member at Johns Hopkins, and also that I don't speak for JH here) Johns Hopkins is a not-for-profit entity (it's inaccurate to describe it as for-profit). Also, I personally believe that they (the integrative medicine group) should disclaim acupuncture as a placebo (and there is some evidence that placebos work for self-reported conditions, even when the placebo is labeled as such). — soupvector (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a quick look at Talk:Acupuncture and see quite a few people quoting MEDRS. It seems to me if "

    For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.

    " is held to apply to acupuncture, then the whole of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Medicine applies. In any case, I don't see that MEDCOI places any restrictions or limits that COI doesn't already. Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon and Alexbrn: Actually what surprised me was that editors took the "no consensus" to mean "yes, let's call an editor's profession a COI and use it as a reason to revert".[140][141] But you're putting the conclusion-cart before the premise-horse when you say that by not immediately stopping editing I'm "claim[ing] an exemption from our general COI provisions". The question is whether (or to what extent) those provisions even apply. It sounds like you want the "no consensus" closing to be taken the same way we'd take a "Yes (there's a COI)" closing (i.e. CAMmers stop editing in their area) -- right? If not, then what's the difference?
    What I gleaned from the first RfC's (non-)result was something I knew anyway: "disclose my profession and edit with care" (basically the way the grownups at Cochrane handle it both for CAM and non-CAM specialties). I didn't feel I was "given a green light"; I felt always had a flashing yellow one. The difference between a "no consensus" and a "No (no COI)" is the difference between a flashing yellow and a conservative green. A "no" doesn't say "be too bold", but it does mean these debates, and attendant comments[142][143][144][145][146] that are way lower on Graham's Hierarchy than should be tolerated on a talk page, finally wind down.
    BTW, the problem this RfC seeks to solve is demonstrably minuscule. (See comment "How big is the problem really?" below) --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 02:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Johns Hopkins Medicine. "Massage and Acupuncture: Integrative Medicine and Digestive Center". www.hopkinsmedicine.org.
    • What a silly RFC. It's like asking "Are scientific journals reliable source?". There is no yes/no answer. Seems to me some editors are just looking for hammer with which to hit editors they disagree with and a way of deciding who is "one of us" (Horray!) vs "one of them" (Oh No!). I encourage folks to read the !votes by MastCell and WhatAmIDoing in the previous RFC. As noted, while some AltMed requires such a degree of impossibleness as to be unreasonable (homeopathy) others are more complicated (when does a diet become mainstream?). And WhatAmIDoing points out that COI is not the issue, but POV pushing may be. And quite possible for a practitioner in WM to push their POV and even to earn from one specific treatment from which they have invested money on equipment, training and promotion. Where I disagree with some is that I think there is a fair amount of inertia in WM towards shifting treatment in the face of new evidence (or of continuing to use and promote a treatment that never had much or any evidence). Recent scandals with surgical implants demonstrate that quite amply. I'd rather we were focussing more on whether someone was making helpful edits (or not) than who they are. -- Colin°Talk 15:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It certainly is not COI per the existing guideline (WP:COI). If you wish to change the guideline, it should be taken to the village pump where changes to guidelines are made. TFD (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's odd. The very first sentence of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest reads, "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships." Given that whether the public accepts the efficacy of acupuncture or other "alternative medicine" has a direct effect on the customer base and finances of acupuncturists and other alt-med practitioners, it applies. How did you miss that?
      • Or how did you miss this bit from WP:ACTUALCOI?: "An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised." Like, for example, whether acupuncture is efficacious or just bunk, which certainly affects sales.
      • I mean, it's right there in the guideline. If you wish to change the guideline, it should be taken to the village pump where changes to guidelines are made. --Calton | Talk 11:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    hatting off-topic diversion
      • The problem is when there are subjects like transcendental meditation where you have a well-documented conflict of interest, and acupuncture where others are so-documemented, the self-proclaimed "expertise" is little more than a smokescreen for charlatanism and promotionalism. It is fine to have the input from true believers, like yourself, into the content of an article on Wikipedia, but to pretend that they are somehow needed to write a good article on a subject that is total woo is irresponsible. In fact, the best people to write such articles are those with the technical knowledge in related fields (medicine, science) who haven't been brainwashed in the way you have been. jps (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? jps. There 's nothing I could say that condemns you more than the way you have condemned yourself by attacking editors who in good faith are commenting here.Littleolive oil (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That you see this as an attack is exactly the problem here. You have not been forthcoming or honest about your own conflicted associations and beliefs when contributing here and have been given a pass for this in spite of a well-documented history of problems. I am not attacking you, I am pointing out the problem with your position and the position of others who are similarly conflicted. I think you can be a value to Wikipedia, but the problem is that you have been a gatekeeper yourself which has caused the quality of content in areas where you have a conflict of interest to deteriorate. jps (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I wasn't referring so much to your attack on me. Its old news. I was referring to your personal insults to GreenC and Middle 8 which changed the tenor of this page and discussion. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I just warned Jps on their talk page for making 4 PAs against 3 editors in this discussion. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is absolutely an unproductive conversation with a lot of old history and implicit personal attacks dredging up old news, long settled. Stop. Now. Best we have someone hat this as off-topic. In fact, I will. Montanabw(talk) 00:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't need to use the conflict of interest policy to deal with POV-pushing editors in complementary and alternative medicine, because ArbCom discretionary sanctions are a satisfactory draconian remedy. (We sometimes need draconian remedies, and this one is sufficiently draconian.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to agree with Robert McClenon on this. Alternative medicine is one of those topics like politics and Gibralter where emotions run high and ARBCOM remedies are in place. They do the job. I also agree with Colin that even mainstream medical sources can sometimes have biases exposed and are not to be taken as perfect gospel. As always, our alphabet soup of policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and even most of the time WP:MEDRS and SCIRS) usually provide the guidance needed. Time to stop beating this dead horse. Montanabw(talk) 00:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This RfC is part of an ongoing attempt to vilify anyone who adds information that speaks to the effectiveness of any kind of alternative medicine, or any other topic the pseudoskeptics have declared to be pseudoscience. The things listed in the RfC are chosen to make it look as kooky as possible and they betray the poster's biases. What they are really talking about is acupuncture and Chinese Traditional Medicine, which they repeatedly claim are pseudoscience. Such a claim reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. As I have said before here "Science is a method, not a list of things that are right and things that are wrong. The scientific study of any phenomena is not pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is bad science. Science not done right. If the method is followed it is ipso facto science, no matter what it is studying." and "Science is about examining the evidence. Suppressing information about whole subject areas because one has decided are dodgy is not science. There is a name for it though. It is a witch hunt." See here "Yes, stop your COI editing, it’s disgusting that you have the bare-faced gall to involve yourself in this article. You already know this. Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)".[reply]
    Moreover this is a content dispute disguised as an RfC. At AcupunctureUser:Middle 8 made this edit:

    The Joint Commission requires the organizations it accredits to provide complementary, non-pharmacologic pain treatments (e.g. acupuncture) for patients who may benefit from them, such use potentially reducing the need for opioids. The Joint Commission allows organizations to choose which type(s) of complementary treatment to provide — it mandates none in particular because the evidence base for these treatments varies widely and is incomplete.

    This text is cited to this page. See Joint Commission for info on this body.
    User:Roxy the dog reverted it claiming it was a COI edit. I reverted it back as it is accurate, well sourced information and I have no COI. User:JzG now seems to be claiming the source is not reliable "Neither is a self-sourced statement on the website of a trade body that has clearly been the subject of industry lobbying." I contend that his source is reliable, especially for statements about their own policies, which is what this is. These same editors have been removing well sourced information from the Acupuncture page for some time. See for example here where these same editors argue that an IPD meta review, the gold standard of systematic review, is not a reliable source. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be your view, but it's an assumption of bad faith. It's not about vilifying people who add information that speaks to the effectiveness of any kind of alternative medicine, it's about recognising that someone who is a practitioner of alternative medicine is not neutral when promoting the validity of that form of alternative medicine. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia, and content that promotes fantastical nonsense like reiki, homeopathy, acupuncture and so on as if it were valid, has no place here. Practitioners and believers can help us by explaining their beliefs and views on things, just as creationists can help us to describe the creationist mindset, but as soon as they start trying to assert that their beliefs are correct, when objectively they are not, we have a problem. This is usually seen as a COI for the simple and obvious reason that a quack's business depends on the quackery being treated as legitimate, so describing the quackery as legitimate on Wikipedia, whether motivated by greed or by quasi-religious belief, has the effect of boosting their business. As long as practitioners stick to the talk page and accept consensus, Wikipedia doesn't have a problem. And if they don't, well, we have the example of DanaUllman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 10:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • How big is the problem really? Obviously we're headed for another "no consensus", but has anyone wondered? Which articles/editors are afflicted, and how much trouble could've been saved if the last RfC had closed with a "Yes"?
    To answer this, I looked at the most common CAM's,[147] checking article talk for any mention of "COI" or "Conflict of interest" regarding specific editors editing in their profession. Here's the last time anyone raised a concern:
    Obviously.... an urgent problem.
    In the last three years, I've edited acupuncture a total of eight times, btw. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC); minor rearr of table chronologically 01:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably better if you don't try to set yourself up as an arbiter of fact on this, given that you have a vested interest in acupuncture.Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not arbiting, reporting. Anyone may verify. I may have missed a couple things, but I think we both realize that if it's grossly wrong, that's likely to be taken as bad faith. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 06:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And what happens if research shows (as in fact it does) that acupuncture is invalid? A research programme made up of acupuncturists has a seriously hard time adapting its practices to exclude the refuted parts of acupuncture, such as meridians and qi, so will have a close to impossible task accepting evidence that "real" acupuncture is no better than fake, as science shows. Instead they say, literally, that acupuncture is so powerful that even fake acupuncture works. Yes, really. Guy (Help!) 01:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC) This comment was in response to GreenC's !vote, I have moved it into the discussion section for the sake of organizationTornado chaser (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough there is a whole bunch of evidence cited to support the argument that acupuncture doesn't work already in the article. That's what we do, we include whatever evidence there is, except unless of course it supports acupuncture. Then it must be killed with fire because it's bad. You seem to be saying, as you often do, that your opinion about the quality of research is more important than citing reliable sources and that some people just can't be trusted because they hold an opinion you don't and so they must be excluded. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and you and Middle 8 are devoting most of your on-wiki time to obscuring it. It's almost as if your business benefits from obscuring the reality-based view, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (Has Morgan Leigh disclosed their profession?) FWIW, Guy, pls see my comment above. addendum: Also, ML and I aren't arguing against "negative" content (heck, I'll be adding some, from Harrison's, which says acu's no good for a lot more than they say it's good for). You, however, are plainly trying to suppress anything favorable (my favorite example being that you refuse to include NICE guidelines because Wikipedia is not is so a crystal ball). But this demolishes your contention that the sci consensus is that acu is "bollocks" (it's obviously more complicated). --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC) addendum 17:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC); abridged 17:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Guy is mischarachterising the edits Middle 8 and I are attempting to make while trying to red herring about potential COIs. Strangely they haven’t divulged their profession.
    A perusal of the history will show that Middle 8 and I are not trying to remove anything. We are trying to add high quality sources to the article. See here for examples. However our actions are being continually blocked.
    JzG referred to these sources, including an IPD meta review, the gold standard of systematic review as the "optimistic findings of True Believers".
    I suggested no less than seven Cochrane reviews that provided evidence for acupuncture however, according to the personal opinions, and no other evidence, despite repeated requests for some, of Alexbrn, Roxy the dog, MrBill3 and JzG, these sources are either too old or pro fringe and none of them are good enough to be cited. Which is super odd, because in other places on Wikipedia these same editors can be seen lauding Cochrane Reviews... Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternative hypothesis: I am one of the group of reality-based editors resisting the endless POV-pushing of true believers, at least some of whom (specifically including Middle 8) have a direct financial incentive to portray acupuncture as more valid than it is. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DGG: There's a critical difference between medical doctors and quacks in respect of specific treatments. A doctor would only have a COI in respect of drug treatments if the question is whether drugs work at all, not whether a specific drug works. A quack is typically only able to practice a specific quackery - a homeopathist cannot switch to some other quackery when the evidence shows that homeopathy does not work. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    To use different examples than I used before, there is equivocal evidence about whether medical or surgical therapy is best for many spine problems. A non-surgical neurologist can't switch to doing surgery, if that turns out to actually have the best evidence. A surgeon can switch to not doing surgery, if that has the best evidence, but it would cut his income in half. And if the best evidence turns out to be that neither is better than placebo, and patients can be convinced to actually go by the evidence, they're both out of business in this field. If people were convinced by the current recommendation against routine PSA screening, many urologists would similarly lose most of their income. There are similar disputes about the indications for surgery in many other fields, and in many surgical fields about which specialty should do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DGG: Yes, in those edge cases a COI would exist. Ditto for a psychotherapist where there is a question over drugs v. psychotherapy for a mental illness - but not for a psychiatrist, who could use either without any particular problem.
    I suspect we might both agree with Edzard Ernst here:
    If someone published evidence to show that a new drug is ineffective, most GPs would simply use another one. If, however, someone demonstrates that acupuncture is a placebo, acupuncturists would automatically fear for their cash flow.
    In other words, in alternative medicine, such conflicts of interest tend to be very acute, powerful and personal. Consequently, enthusiasts of alternative medicine are often incapable or unwilling to look upon criticism as anything other than an attack on their income, their beliefs, their status, or their person.
    That is absolutely consistent with what we have seen on articles on homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki and dozens of other SCAM topics. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break 1

    I'd like to point out that a No vote is a vote for Quackery and Medical Fraud. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:06, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That may be your opinion, but that does not make it true. Please argue using logic and evidence. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Acupuncturists charge their victims real money, for doing nothing helpful. This is fraudulent. A fraudulent doctor is struck off. Why should we allow frauds to edit fraudulently? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC) QED. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Acupuncture was endorsed by the NAM [148] for pain treatment. I'm sure they consider it quackery, pseudoscience, fraud etc.[sarcasm] --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a single statement from a 456 page book that is unrelated to evaluating the claims of acupuncture as your new standard bearer is sadly typical of your horrible and misleading propaganda in favor of sticking needles in people because you believe in magic. jps (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ජපස: This is the fifth time you have made a personal attack on this thread, I will seriously consider reporting you if you do it again. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again you ignore the substance of what jps wrote and choose to back the quack. By all means chide jps (and me) for being blunt or report us to ANI, but don't skip evaluating the substance. Was it a single statement? From a 456 page book? Was the book unrelated to evaluating the claims of acupuncture? If so, wouldn't you think that is a pretty serious charge? Johnuniq (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Robust criticism of your terrible arguments is not a personal attack, however often you assert otherwise. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (OD for sake of formatting below) @ jps, Johnuniq - I try to at least peruse sources before commenting on them. NAM's endorsement of acupuncture is not an incidental observation -- they devote a chapter section to a half-dozen non-pharma treatments for pain, endorsing four of them including acu.[149] There are two paragraphs on acu, plus a summary paragraph for all modalities endorsed. Whether that strikes one as adequate or not, they're the NAM and don't need to "show their work".

    In order to prevent selective quoting, I'm pasting all three para's below in a nifty box. NAM's endorsement is not unqualified: they correctly note the RCT findings showing sham acu very nearly or as good as real acu, and although they conclude that it's a "powerful tool", they also say it "may" help, not that it "does". But it is still an endorsement -- of acu's clinical value, which (like the rest of the report) represents the position of the National Academies.[150]

    I cite NAM here not to say "acu is awesome,!!", but simply to refute stuff like this -- because the late great Jytdog was spot-on about research vs. clinical practice.

    PAIN MANAGEMENT AND THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC > Chapter 2: Pain Management and the Intersection of Pain and Opioid Use Disorder p.49
    Section: Nonpharmacologic Treatments p.84

    • Acupuncture pp 84-85

    The use of acupuncture for the treatment of pain has become widespread in recent decades. Acupuncture is a key component of traditional Chinese medicine that involves insertion of needles through the skin to acupuncture points. Pressure, heat, electrical current, laser light, and other means also may be used to stimulate these points. Investigations have demonstrated that the nervous system, neurotransmitters, and other endogenous substances respond to the needling stimulation to induce analgesia (Foster and Sweeney, 1987). It has been shown that acupuncture analgesia is mediated by opioids produced in the periaqueductal gray and can be reversed by naloxone, an opioid antagonist (Cheng and Pomeranz, 1980). Recent studies also suggest activation of cannabinoid receptors as a possible mechanism of action (Gondim et al., 2012).

    Systematic reviews evaluating the effect of acupuncture in treating pain have revealed mixed results. Some reviews have found minimal or no effect (Lee et al., 2008; Madsen et al., 2009), while others have found acupuncture to be superior to sham acupuncture and placebo (Berman et al., 1999; White et al., 2007), and still others have concluded that data are insufficient to support a recommendation (Furlan et al., 2005; Paley et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2016a; van Tulder et al., 1999). Recent reviews and meta-analyses examining the effect of acupuncture on musculoskeletal pain (neck and back pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache and shoulder pain, fibromyalgia) have found that overall, acupuncture is superior to sham and no acupuncture, but with relatively modest differences between true and sham acupuncture (Vickers et al., 2012; Yuan et al., 2016). Although it has been suggested that acupuncture is an effective treatment for pain, additional factors, such as potent placebo and context effects, may play a role in its observed effect as well (Linde et al., 2010a,b; Vickers et al., 2012). It also has been suggested that acupuncture may have value in the treatment of chronic and tension headaches (Linde et al., 2009b; Vickers et al., 2012), as well as in prophylactic treatment for migraine (Linde et al., 2009a). Additional RCTs are needed to determine the effect of acupuncture on neuropathic and postsurgical pain.

    (goes on to discuss other non-pharm treatments)....

    • Summary p.91 (duplicated in introductory material [151])

    Nonpharmacologic interventions for pain treatment, including acupuncture, physical therapy and exercise, CBT, and mindfulness meditation, represent powerful tools in the management of chronic pain. Many are components of successful self-management. While further research is needed to better understand the mechanism of action and the appropriate dosage and delivery for some nonpharmacologic approaches, they may provide effective pain relief for many patients in place of or in combination with pharmacologic approaches.

    ....end of post about NAM --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    And when you look up the studies they cite, you find things like: This review includes trials in which some of the reviewers were involved, as follows: Allais 2002 ‐ Gianni Allais; Jena 2008 ‐ Benno Brinkhaus; Linde K 2005 ‐ Benno Brinkhaus and Klaus Linde; Streng 2006 ‐ Klaus Linde; and Vickers 2004 ‐ Andrew Vickers. These trials were reviewed by at least two other members of the review team. Gianni Allais, Benno Brinkhaus, Yutong Fei, and Michael Mehring use acupuncture in their clinical work. Adrian White has used acupuncture in the past but has retired from clinical practice. Within the last three years (June 2013 to May 2016): Gianni Allais received fees for teaching acupuncture in private schools; Klaus Linde once received a fee from the German Medical Acupuncture Society for speaking about research at a conference; Benno Brinkhaus has received fees for presenting research findings at meetings of acupuncture societies in various countries; Adrian White is employed by the British Medical Acupuncture Society as a journal editor and has received fees for lecturing on acupuncture on several occasions.
    Absolutely classic SCAM research, conducted by True Believers, with the most positive results in the worst studies and the least positive results in the most robust studies.
    Linde does not seem to have learned anything from the fiasco of his reviews arguing that homeopathy works. But that's as nothing compared to practitoners - for example Dana Ullman, who insisted on citing superseded work by Linde even after Linde himself had pointed out that the conclusions were no longer tenable. Guy (Help!) 19:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, better exclude this source too.[sarcasm] See WP:TE, 2.6 and 2.16. We can't assume that their deliberations were limited to the sources you impeach. As I said, they're the NAM and are not obliged to "show (all) their work". --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC); added sentence 19:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Otherwise excellent sources do make mistakes and it isn't hard to see where NAM went wrong in their 1.5 paragraphs out of 1500. Of course, those who LOVE acupuncture will want to see reference to this afterthought reflected in Wikipedia immediately just so that people who are struggling with pain and opoid addiction get the real deal. *rolleyes* jps (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The very first sentence in the chapter [152] says it discusses two broad areas, the second of which is the effectiveness of pain treatments, including non-pharm ones -- so not exactly an afterthought. If a sufficiently strong source thinks NAM made a mistake, then naturally we include that too. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    All this would be so much easier if there were some remotely plausible mechanism by which acupuncture might work, a single set of acupoints arrived at by multiple traditions through independent experimentation, and robust evidence of objective effect. In the absence of these things we have a lot of ideologically motivated pseudoscience, which will work for a while but not indefinitely (hence the death of homeopathy on the NHS in the UK). Guy (Help!) 23:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I think part of the problem is demonstrated by Guy Macon's comment: "I would request that the closing summary be made crystal clear as to what is and is not allowed, and which existing policies apply and how to apply them. A clear explanation will help to avoid re-litigating the meaning of this RfC on multiple pages." He re-opened this RFC without really appreciating the diverse comments on the previous one would simply be repeated, and believing somehow that a consensus would develop simply by opening a poll with two choices. He also believes some divine closing admin is going to have greater wisdom than the community and be able to provide "crystal clear" advice that applies in all situations and with whatever Guy Macon believes is "Alt Med". It seems there are a bunch of editors who have a fundamental difficulty with people who hold different beliefs than them, and simply want rid of them, and who hold a frankly religious and naively overconfident belief in Western Medicine. Just for the record: I think homeopathy is nonsense, think Western medicine is generally great. But, a few examples:

    • When surgery is just a stitch-up: "If evidence is the line that separates robust science from squishy pseudoscience, and if that evidence is missing in many cases of surgery, what is the difference between a homeopath and a surgeon? You’d hope that it is the way they react if they find out their treatments don’t work." There's a difference between "hope" and some of the assured statements above that they do change, stop and make efforts to prevent a recurrence. Sometimes a class-action lawsuit seems to be required.
    • Doctors write 10m needless antibiotics prescriptions a year, says Nice This is still going on. According to the CDC "At least 30% of antibiotic courses prescribed in the outpatient setting are unnecessary, meaning no antibiotic was needed at all." and "Antibiotic resistance is one of the most urgent threats to the public’s health." Damn there's a weird discontinuity there between doctors being held up as rational and evidence based, and able to change their minds, and yet still prescribing not just sugar pills but sugar pills that cause antibiotic resistance. Makes homeopathy look tame. The vets are even worse.
    • No evidence cough medicines work, with one in seven patients experiencing negative side effects, study finds Yet another dangerous "sugar pill" prescribed by those whacky doctors of Western medicine. When I visited my GP a few years ago, with a persistent cough after a bad cold, I was advised to buy a well known cough medicine brand and take twice the recommended dose.

    I like the comment by User:Rhododendrites: "I'm sympathetic to the idea that there's an inverse correlation between the legitimacy of a field and the likelihood that a practitioner in that field will edit such articles in a way incompatible with Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." But I don't think we can be much more specific than that, and not hard to find examples of terrible editing behaviour and terrible edits among editors who claim to practice WM or align themselves with those who do. -- Colin°Talk 18:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • At the risk of disrupting things with an outside opinion, I think some contributors here might be interested in what Edzard Ernst (who has actually spent his career first providing then researching altmed) has to say on the topic: link. Alexbrn (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, Alex. I would point out that Ernst's evaluation closely mirrors mine, but for some reason is considered inflammatory by many at Wikipedia (including those who claim, in private, to agree with my general argument). Sigh. jps (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think some contributors here might be interested to know that Ernst was pushed out of his academic position and the journal he started was closed down after he broke "every professional code of scientific behaviour". Note that this is not my opinion but that of Richard Horton the editor of The Lancet. Here's a source (The Times, Monday 29 August 2005) Strangely he is still oft cited in articles... Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should be honest that Ernst was criticized by Horton for publishing details of a study that had been commandeered by alternative medicine propaganda. He whistle-blew and The Lancet was caught with egg on their face. This is why he continues to be upheld as a great source for information here and elsewhere. It's nice to have Prince Charles on your side, I guess. jps (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ernst's concept (here) of an "idealogical COI" (which I'd simply call "fanaticism") is one of the best examples yet of a type of bias non-unique to CAMmers. Plus he deprecates the money side relative to the idealogy. Thus not much of an argument for a "Yes" here. Just FWIW. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?); edited first sentence to make it clear I'm talking about Ernst's concept of COI and not a COI he himself has: 20:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your COI, to be clear (which I'd simply call "intellectual bankruptcy") is a devotion to a belief in the ideas to which you've dedicated your life. The problem comes when such ideas are demonstrably pseudoscientific as they are in the choices you have made. I am somewhat sympathetic to the argument that COI doesn't really do justice to this as a description of the ideological problem (WP:POV Push isn't quite right either). It's an issue we've had on Wikipedia since it was founded. We need experts to help us make content and I think your experience as a practitioner of acupuncture is valuable for us so that you can help contextualize how people who engage in this particular brand of pseudomedicine actually do the dirty work and justify their beliefs. That's useful information. What you are singularly unable to do is offer decent analysis of the scientific evidence. This is mostly because you are committed to a false belief so dramatically that you are simply unwilling to make a disinterested accounting of the subject. That's not exactly a "COI", but Wikipedia does not afford us very many tools to describe problem editors like yourself, so we will continue to revisit it until you get the message. jps (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Alexbrn, there have certainly been cases in the past of our holding eminent theologians as having a COI when it comes to religion. (Don't ask me where to find the cases, although digging through the archives of Historicity of Jesus should turn up a few.) Where one draws the line between "non-neutral" and "COI" is a matter of semantics, but "true believers in something are the best qualified to explain the beliefs but the worst qualified to explain whether the beliefs are true" is a well-established principle both regarding Wikipedia and regarding writing in general. ‑ Iridescent 20:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty much, yes. CoS IPs are blocked and CoS cultists are essentially banned from those articles. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morgan Leigh: Ernst was pushed out because he did not follow the party line. There was interference from Prince Charles, a well-known supporter of woo. His "crime" was to publish studies that honestly investigate the claims of alternative medicine rather than promote it, as most alt-med studies do. The main function of alt-med journals is to publish pseudoscience and give an appearance of legitimacy - that's why we generally exclude them per WP:MEDRS. They are a marketing tool not a scientific enterprise.
    Ernst's Law: if you are studying alternative medicine and quacks do not hate you, you are not doing your job. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexbrn, my problem is the arguments, although strong against Alt Med, are also damning of some in WM. I fully accept there are big differences, and plenty good evidence-based medicine occurs and lives saved, people made healthier. But several people have claimed assuredly that WM doctors happily shift to alternative treatments when demonstrated to be superior or ineffective. And all such a claim needs are a few big counter examples, as I have given above. For heart-sink problems like a persistent cough or a patient at the GP surgery with a viral infection, doctors can be just as stupid and irrational as a homeopath, giving out medicines they should know are ineffective, have side effects and can cause long term problems. My dentist recommends a particular kind of crown, not because it is currently the "Which Best Buy" in some medical journal, but because a few years ago he spent a fortune buying a machine that makes it in his surgery, rather than using a lab. In an epilepsy journal I read some years ago, there was an advert for Keppra (Levetiracetam) that showed a young attractive violinist. Clearly the impression was that this drug did not impair one's intellectual or coordination abilities. They didn't quote some figure from a scientific study, but used exactly the same technique that BMW use to sell cars or Channel to sell perfume. They wouldn't do that if it didn't work. We are all just humans. Irrationality and stupidity is part of human nature. I know that in 20 years time, when some relative of mine dies from a bacterial infection that previously was treatable, I won't be cursing and swearing at the homeopaths. I thought Wikipedians were supposed to judge the edits, not the editor? -- Colin°Talk 09:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points but we know that some medical staff kill patients through malice or incompetence. The issue is not whether some doctors are bad, but whether a doctor has an inherent COI when editing a medical article using MEDRS. The answer is no—some doctors are bad but most aren't. By contrast, an alt-med practioner believes in their work (although some might not believe and merely be unethical) and that belief is maintained against scientific evidence. Such people have a COI when editing alt-med topics. Dealing with enthusiasts at alt-med articles is hard enough without a pretence that no COI exists. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing two issues. There's no suggestion that antibiotics don't work, and the leading critics of overuse of antimicrobials are reality-based doctors (e.g. Prof. Dame Sally Davies, author of The Drugs Don't Work). Educating the public to stop demanding ABs for viral infections is seen as a significant problem in the medical fraternity. The DeHavilland Comet had a widely publicised series of crashes due to explosive decompression caused by fatigue at the corners of the windows. Aeronautical engineers worked this out and solved the problem. At no point did magic carpets become a realistic alternative.
    The issue is not that the "antiobiotic apocalypse" may result in the resurgence of microbial infections as a cause of mass death. Antibiotics have, to date, saved billions of lives and a huge burden of suffering. Prescribing practices may indeed undermine that, and it would be terrible, but the total number of lives provably saved by homeopathy is zero, in all of history, and the total number of people who have died from relying on quack remedies instead of reality-based medicine is non-zero.
    Our article on antibiotics should and does reference overuse and resistance. That is an important part of our message to inform. In the same way, our articles on homeopathy, acupuncture and so on should and do point out that they have no objective effect. The correct alternative to ABs for a viral infection is water and sleep, not acupuncture or homeopathy. Guy (Help!) 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In recent years a better understanding of the placebo effect has led to new insights about how certain alternative medicine treatments can work, even if they don't work better than a placebo. So, I think the best way forward to deal with this subject is to simply edit these new insights published in leading peer reviewed journals into these articles. There are a large number of such results, just a few weeks ago it was reported that the old debunked idea that eating dairy products causes mucus formation to increase is actually true for people who believe in this, but they'll also have that reaction when they eat soy based products when they are told that it is dairy. If they eat dairy and are told that it is 100% soy based, then they don't get any reaction. This sort of information should be edited into the articles. Count Iblis (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Le sigh. That is their narrative, sure, because they now have to acknowledge that homeopathy, acupuncture and the rest are indistinguishable from placebo, but the "placebo effect" is not a thing. The myth of the placebo stems from a 1955 study titles The Powerful Placebo, but subsequent reanalysis has shown that not one of its conclusions is supportable from the actual data. The leading proponent of the "placebo effect" right now is Ted Kaptchuk - an acupuncture proponent. In the reality based community it is accepted that "works no better than placebo" means "doesn't work", because placebo is a proxy for cognitive biases, observational errors, natural course of disease and so on. The "placebo effect" is visible only in self-reported outcomes for subjective effects. What it actually means is not that anyone gets better, but that if you tell them confidently that they feel better, they will agree. That's all. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a "somewhat narrow" description of the placebo effect. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's accurate. The role of placebo in clinical trials is not to compare with a "placebo effect", but to eliminate bias. If a treatment is indistinguishable from placebo, it is, by definition, indistinguishable from experimental error, and it doesn't work. Even if the placebo effect were real, that would be a terrible reason for supporting people who pretend that inert treatments are something other than inert, because the cult of alt-med does not recognise limitations on scope of practice and even when they publicly admit their treatments are placebos they say something else in private. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If people feel they are getting a treatment that works for them then even if they are actually being fooled by all sorts of psychological processes here, they will tend to change their behavior which can have real health effects. E.g., a placebo treatment for pain may make people start to exercise again and that can cause them to sleep better, eat better etc. etc. A study done on elderly people in a nursing home found that if you reduce the care people get there by forcing people to do more for themselves, their health tends to improve dramatically. So, there may even be a placebo cure for old age. As mentioned here:
    "And while retiring early is generally thought to be better for your health, in some circumstances giving up work might achieve the opposite. One study of blue collar workers in Austria found that men who retired three and a half years early were 13% more likely to die by the age of 67 – particularly if they were single, lonely and used it as an opportunity to reduce their physical activity. South-west of Japan’s main islands, in the East China Sea, is a tropical outpost that seems to back this up. Okinawa is famed for its high proportion of centenarians; it’s been estimated that roughly one in every 2,000 people there are over the age of 100.
    Over the years, researchers studying this remarkable place have noticed several aspects of the Okinawan lifestyle that might explain their longevity. These include eating lots of vegetables and fewer calories overall than the average American – but also their attitude to work. There is no word for “retirement” in the Okinawan language; the locals, many of whom grew up as farmers and fisherpeople, may carry on working until they die. Elderly residents live by the principle of “ikigai”, which is loosely translated as “having a reason to get up in the morning”. " Count Iblis (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, good mental health is a positive indicator for good physical health, though positive attitude has no impact once an organic disease exists and in some cases, e.g. cancer, actually turns out to correlate with worse outcomes. That is, obviously, not a reason to support charlatans and their bogus claims. It doesn't matter if sticking needles in peopel and lying to them makes them feel a bit better, there are less risky ways of obtaining identical benefit which do not rely on deceit. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Colin: There is no such thing as "Western medicine". There's just medicine. Nothing about antibiotics makes them Western. Eastern "medicine" is not medicine, it's superstition - TCM is largely a creation of Mao (see barefoot doctor). The whole industry of traditional/herbal/Chinese/alternative medicine is simply an organised effort by practitioners of refuted therapies to retain their business. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantics. It's stylistically awkward to talk about "Chinese medicine" (which is what it's called) vs. "medicine", just as talking about "Jones" vs. "John Jones" is awkward. I call it "biomedicine" in such contexts. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 14:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Semantics. I call it "real medicine" and what you do is called "quackery." I'm curious as to how you M8 resolve the ethical dilemma of treating your victims with quackery? It seems wrong for you to take their money for nothing somehow. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not semantics. By definition, alternative medicine either hasn't been proven to work, or has been proven not to. The term for alternative medicine that has been proven to work is: medicine. There is no Western medicine or Eastern medicine. There is medicine that works, and superstition. Practitioners of superstition use terms like Western medicine or allopathy to give the false impression of equivalence between their beliefs and the scientific practice of medicine. I will acknowledge that the near-impossibility of proper blinding has led a significant minority in the medical world to believe that acupuncture has something to it, but the trajectory of findings by Copchrane, MHRA, NICE and other bodies is clear: more sophisticated ways of blinding have show the claims of acupuncture to be as illusory as its purported mechanisms. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to <s>[[Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: Do alternative medicine practitioners have a conflict of interest?]]</s> Restored. --Calton | Talk 13:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • JzG apologies if I'm not using the rational sceptic approved vocabulary. I was using the term that AlexBrn used in the sentence I disagreed with: "It is a false equivalence between (most) altmed practitioners and 'western-medicine MDs'. The latter operate in a wide field and if certain therapies and products are found useless they simply adjust to new ones.". So, please don't lecture me on vocab. I'm really really very aware of all the nonsense in AltMed. You and he have both claimed that conventional medicine practitioners are evidence based and swiftly shift with new evidence.
    You gave one example of knee surgery: "Consider, for example, knee arthroscopy for arthritis. This was tested in well controlled experiments and found to be no better than placebo. The professional community recognised that this means it does not work, so they stopped doing it. Surgeons who performed knee arthroscopy did not have a problem with that". But your story doesn't fit the facts. The guidance in 2017 was made when "1 million knee arthroscopies are performed each year in the United States, at a cost of more than $3 billion". The linked article says the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons complained that "the recommendations are too stringent and don’t take into account the needs of individual patients" (AAOS make no mention of lack-of-evidence here). The article also says that "several studies in the past 15 years that have raised questions about knee arthroscopy. At least four studies in The New England Journal of Medicine found that arthroscopy wasn’t effective for arthritis pain in older adults." The BJM recommendation says "Arthroscopic knee surgery for degenerative knee disease is the most common orthopaedic procedure in countries with available data and on a global scale is performed more than two million times each year" Hmm so we have a $3 billion a year (US alone) industry performing pointless operations that (typical for surgery) probably had no strong evidence to begin with, and for which studies over 15 years have been saying are pointless. I haven't found a source to backup your claim "they stopped doing it". They went from two million operations globally to zero overnight? Really?
    This isn't just about doctors that are so bad they should be struck off. A colleague went to their GP with occasionally sore hands. Possibly arthritis the doctor said. What should I do? Well we don't have anything that will prevent it. If it gets really bad, there are some pain killers. You could try taking cod liver oil or glucosamine tablets. He said there isn't good evidence they work, but some patients swear they help. So worth a try perhaps. And that was it. That's all he could suggest.
    Or consider tonsillectomy... oh, look that one up yourself.
    My point is that conventional medicine, where we have effective treatments, is often evidence based and goes with best practice. But where we lack effective treatments (coughs, common viral infections, preventing arthritis, painful knees) the doctors don't go with the evidence. They naturally want too help, they naturally don't want to look incompetent and useless, so they suggest and prescribe rubbish that doesn't work or worse, book you in for surgery that doesn't work, or give you pills that kill off the good bacteria in your gut. The key thing is that the AltMed folk deal with incurable conditions too. Nobody goes to the homeopath with a broken bone or visits a herbalist for sepsis. There's plenty evidence that for these areas without effective treatment, conventional medicine lets patients down too. And $3 billion a year for a sham knee operation sounds like a recipe for COI to me. Should we ban surgeons from articles too? -- Colin°Talk 17:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire field of medicine is a work in progress, and even cherished long-standing practices can be and are discarded when found to be ineffective or harmful. But in all of science it has al;ways been true that some ideas die only with the last of their proponents. Nonetheless, evidence is absolutely the key to this discussion. When the evidence shows a specific drug, or even a class of drugs, to be ineffective or harmful, doctors will stop using them. Yes, it may take longer than it should, but practice will change. When the evidence shows a class of woo to be ineffective, the practitioners have nowhere to go. They fight tooth and nail to preserve their business and their practice. Just look at the years-long rearguard action fought by homeopathists in the UK, which is only now coming to a close with the last Clinical Commissioning Group dropping NHS funding of homeopathy. Even now there are a small number of doctors who will hand out private prescriptions for magic sugar, and Scotland still has at least one homeopathic hospital. We have known since 1842 that homeopathy is a crock of shit, but believers have sustained it by a combination of politicking, propaganda and pseudoscience. Exactly the same for acupuncture.
    And there's the point: someone who is a practitioner of one of these forms of woo cannot edit neutrally, because their worldview is not anchored in reality. Their livelihood depends on promoting the view that the scientific community is wrong - in the case of homeopathy, spectacularly wrong about everything.
    When your business depends on the reflection of falsehood as fact, that is a material conflict of interest on Wikipedia. Our rules on COI are about vested interests that drive people to advance a non-neutral POV. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thousands of American orthopaedic surgeons paid for their golf memberships and audi sports cars by performing useless operations on millions of people, many no doubt performing that one operation day in day out, with goodness knows how many millions of lost days of work and pay, not to mention the bills, for those with the bad knees. If they'd gone to a homeopath instead, they'd have been better off. Yes homeopathy is bunk and no I don't advocate NHS paying for it. It is rather hard, morally, to choose between a deluded homeopath and a sham surgeon. Keep repeating "doctors will stop using them" all you like, it simply isn't true. Go look into neuropathic pain and tell me how many millions of prescriptions are being written for drugs we know don't work. They prescribe them, because we haven't found drugs that do reliably work. You say "evidence is key to this discussion" but the evidence is that you were not truthful about the knee surgery -- the doctors did not stop doing it when trials found it didn't work. I doubt they ever had good trials in the first place. It was all just some blokes with knives and a knowledge of anatomy and a hunch. So, if you can't be truthful in your facts, you aren't any better than the folk you are trying to block and I'm done arguing. -- Colin°Talk 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am about 35% sympathetic with your point, Colin, but I think there is a big difference here and that is that we have documented issues with altmed proponents and sympathizers making a mess of content at Wikipedia while simultaneously carrying on about how it is those who are opposed to their whitewashing who are the real villains. Have you seen much evidence that there are orthopedic surgeons asserting ownership over the articles about the subjects you would like to properly characterize? I guess the strong argument here is that there is a parallel issue with so-called "bad medicine" (to coin a Ben Goldacre phrase) that Wikipedia should be aware of. But when it comes to actual editors and their actions, where is the group of surgeons and their comrades-in-arms who are pushing content that is dubious at best and misleading at worst? jps (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    jps Ok, now your argument is about editors POV pushing and making bad edits, which we have policy and guidelines about. Any complaints and actions will be due to what they have done and written on wiki. This proposal is about topic banning (from article space) a set of editors because of who they are, and their profession. I think we need to be vary wary of crossing that line, because it is in conflict with our basic principles of allowing anyone to edit and of judging the edits not the editor. Arguments proposed here are that we should ban these people because they believe in treatments that have no evidence and who carry on performing and believing in that treatment even after the treatment has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective. This apparently makes them so irrational that we shouldn't allow them to edit the topic at all. But I have demonstrated that the same irrationality occurs with ineffective areas of conventional medicine.
    I'm well aware there are a large bunch of editors who are here as a hobby to combat "woo" or whatever they want to call it. They like bashing the nutcases on "the other side" of the battle, and spend their evenings going through their watchlists reverting nearly everything. They get very upset with anyone who appears to give "them" an inch, and are so polarised that it is unthinkable for them to admit their "own side" has flaws. You'll be aware of confirmation bias. If one's life on Wikipedia is to do battle with AltMed then that's where you'll see problems, and you won't really pick up on any COI editing from "your side". Further, if all you read are medical journals, then you'll get a rather biased viewpoint. Much as medical editors hate journalists, it took a journalist to expose the MMR fraud, and there's been recent journalism in The Guardian about surgical implants. What the NEJM/BMJ won't tend to say is how much a treatment is used/performed and plot that over time. It was rather unusual for the BMJ to give figures for the knee surgery. They note that existing guidelines "generally discourage arthroscopy for ...." but still note that it is "the most common orthopaedic procedure". What they don't do is add any journalistic outrage at those conflicting facts, or desire to find out why and how that could be prevented in future.
    I don't think Guy is a bad chap, but his story was as crap and madey-uppy as a Daily Mail article. He took a bit of truth "A big study has concluded this surgery is pointless" and mixed in his world-view about how rational and evidence-based doctors are compared to AltMed, and wanted desperately for it to fit his argument that AltMed was fixed doing the same procedure whereas conventional medical doctors would switch to alternatives. Well the alternative for knee surgery is exercise, according to the BMJ, and exercise doesn't pay for the Audi. The truth is these surgeons have been ignoring the facts for 15 years, and I'm doubtful they have all stopped. I'll guess many in the AAOS are conveniently finding that their patients have exceptional circumstances that indicate the procedure.
    I'd be very very surprised if there wasn't POV pushing from industry/conventional medicine. There are some barriers to financial COI (e.g. a UK GP doesn't earn from the drug they write a prescription for) but there are other motivators than money. I don't disagree there is a lot of POV pushing for AltMed, and that it is a problem for Wikipedia. But any argument has to be rooted in honesty rather than stories made up that support your pre-existing world view. -- Colin°Talk 10:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a little confused by why you went into such a protracted response. Is your goal here to help us come to a mutual understanding or just to brow beat? It's absolutely the case that COI is a haphazard justification (I agreed with you on that!), but the POV pushing WP:PAGs do not quite address the problem as witnessed by us. I cannot decide whether you think NuclearWarfare is on the take or not from your comments below, but while I can point to dozens of problematic instances of AltMed POV-pushers who I think represent something more than just POV-pushing (there are vested IRL interests present here that are not present in the motivations for those who are fans of Star Wars versus Star Trek, for example), I find your examples to be less than convincing just considering the volume of problems I've witnessed. Your single edit below and a reference to certain removals seem to be your evidence of something rotten in the state of Wikipedia medical articles. Let's put it out there: Is there a conspiracy of Audi-driving surgeons campaigning this way? If so, I'm not seeing it. I DO see the campaign of the alt med. They publish of-wiki articles [153][154][155], write petitions (www change org/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing) on the subject and have even set up kickstarter pages [156]! jps (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    jps confirmation bias is all about what you don't "witness". The Arthroscopy page used to say it was "ineffective for treating osteoarthritis" then was changed by a well known editor to say "it is not clear whether it is a more effective treatment for treating osteoarthritis" along with other misrepresentations of our sources and an unsourced personal conclusion. It took two years for the article to be fixed and that removed, by some IP. Consider if someone had modified an AltMed article from "ineffective" to "not clear" and from "no benefit" to "small benefit"? How long would that last? Minutes? Seconds? For two years, Wikipedia helped ensure that anyone reading our article on the surgery was left confused and would then probably choose to believe what their surgeon said instead. If looking by chance at one conventional medicine page turns up two years of misinformation in promotion of a treatment that had been debunked a decade before, I'm not at all confident the rest of our pages are in a good shape, or free from POV pushing edits. As for your links, those are like stupid burglars boasting down the pub. I don't seriously think any professional level editing of Wikipedia would be advertised at all. Indeed, Wikipedia is no longer as important as it was when the web was young. Plenty competing sites for medical information. -- Colin°Talk 18:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like your argument is hitting up close to one that is non-falsifiable in the sense that you do not find it surprising there is no evidence that there are surgeons manipulating the content on Wikipedia since they will be better organized and perhaps more stealthy than the stupid burglars. You are absolutely right that I am operating under confirmation bias since my experience is as a contributor to Wikipedia rather than a researcher. I honestly do not know if there is evidence that your concern is equal to or greater than my concern. All I can say is what my evidence for it is (which I posted) and can compare it to your evidence (a diff by NW that lasted a year). Your evidence may convince others and perhaps I am compromised by my confirmation bias, but I think we can let our comparison of the problems speak for themselves. NW is a much more competent intellectual than the people I've linked to, I would argue, so I will concede that point at least! jps (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    jps well yes I agree it is difficult to prove that argument: at least I'm straight wrt what I'm speculating about rather than just telling made-up Daily Mail-level stories about knee doctors, that turn out to be a textbook example of the opposite. I don't know if anyone has seriously investigated, and its fairly clear everyone is more focused on the AltMed errors than the knee surgery errors in articles. Consider for example, the illegal off-label promotion of Neurontin, which resulted in a $430 million fine for Pfizer. It is a well documented story and a large number of techniques were used to promote the drug for several conditions without all the hassle of RCTs and regulatory approval. Why would Wikipedia be exempt from this kind of underhand promotion activity today? Clearly the cost of being caught can be huge, hence why you won't see those silly websites and fundraisers. There is a well known concern with some patient charities and fake "grassroots" campaigns, encouraging NICE or NHS funding to approve/pay for extremely expensive and doubtfully effective drugs, particularly with cancer. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some "well meaning" POV edits in that area. I see below WhatAmIDoing has some examples of plastic surgery and makes the argument for all elective procedures.
    Guy repeatedly makes the well known claim that there isn't "X medicine" or "Y medicine" but only "medicine that works and superstition". This sounds great, but is not only a gross and naive oversimplification of reality but ignores practice. Medicine, throughout the ages, as been about the practice of trying to make people/oneself better and healthier. It is medicine whether that practice is grounded in modern evidence-based science, or the hunch of a surgeon with the latest untested implant, or the dad buying cough syrup for their child, or some eastern religion. It is medicine whether that practice is effective or not. Cancer doctors are practising medicine even if sometimes their treatment involves crossing one's fingers and hoping for the best, knowing the best is unlikely but they have nothing better yet. I don't think the problem with AltMed is comparable to conventional med -- for a start conventional med does have plenty drugs and operations and treatments that do work, so no need to make up stuff about that. The area is more of an issue for those areas where medicine is ineffective. And then, I wonder if the distinction between the two is as large as some would like to think it is. -- Colin°Talk 09:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are comparing the worst possible scenario for doctors (that it is likely a doctor would, for example, boost knee surgery in articles to improve their income) with the best possible scenario for those who profit from anti-science (that, for example, an acupuncturist might do something other than boost the idea that acupuncture is great). Johnuniq (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Johnuniq I'm not comparing two scenarios at all. I'm concentrating only on the repeated claim by several users that an important difference between AltMed and Conventional medicine is that doctors are evidence based and switch treatments when better evidence arises, whereas AltMed practitioners are not and therefore should not be allowed to edit. Let's be honest, the "worse possible scenario" is performing millions of operations on knees for decades, and Wikipedia is not really important in the grand scheme of things. jps and yourself both seem sceptical that someone might alter the knee article to make it seem less bad, so I looked at the history.

    • On July 2014 User:NuclearWarfare whitewashed the knee part of the Arthroscopy article. The existing text "current evidence is that surgery is ineffective for treating osteoarthritis" was replaced with "it is not clear whether it is a more effective treatment for treating osteoarthritis than more conservative therapies." In a new subsection the conclusion shifts from negative "no benefit" to positive "patients undergoing APM recover at high rates" and "differences [between trial groups] are small". The "are small" claim is scientific nonsense. The paper says "did not differ significantly" which is all that matters. The second source cited by NW says "not superior". The fifth source (from 2013) cited by NW concludes "The the results of this randomized, sham-controlled trial show that arthroscopic partial medial meniscectomy provides no significant benefit over sham surgery in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear and no knee osteoarthritis. These results argue against the current practice of performing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in patients with a degenerative meniscal tear". Following a bunch of 5 citations is the unsourced conclusion by NW: "It is unclear which treatment is most clinically- or cost-effective."
    • Another feature of the history is that although article text about landmark notable and interesting trials have been added (from as far back as 2008 by WhatAmIDoing and others), they keep getting removed in favour of citing meta-analysis or reviews per MEDRS. While these reviews are stronger sources, the background and history of research, not to mention the 15 years of trying to demonstrate how useless this op is, is lost. The reader no longer gets an explanation of why the treatment has been found ineffective but is just told it is. The famous placebo surgery pioneered by the Moseley study from 2002, which is highly cited and even mentioned on popular medical TV documentaries, no longer gets mentioned here, though is briefly noted in Sham surgery.

    So, hmm, I'm a bit concerned about the iffy edit by NuclearWarfare to be honest. Trying to make the very clear science appear "unclear" is classic disinformation used over the years from smoking to global warming conspiracy theorists. -- Colin°Talk 22:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


    • Alternative medicine is certainly not free of problems also w.r.t. editing Wikipedia here. However unlike real medicine it isn't responsible for millions of premature deaths per year. A quarter the population in Western nations will die prematurely as a result of bad medical advice about their diets. We're told in official sources that a healthy diet must contain dairy, meat or fish, refined oils and fats, whole grains, vegetables and fruits. The latter 3 items are indeed healthy to include, but the overall makeup of this sort of a diet is extremely unhealthy, it leads to atherosclerosis in almost 100% of the population, which then causes heart attacks and strokes in about 25% of the population.
    • Populations that eat a mostly plant-based diet are almost free of cardiovascular disease. Many studies have been done some recently, and quite a few many years ago confirming this using many different methods. But, such results are overwhelmed by the much larger number of studies looking into variations of our own diet looking for correlations between things like fat intake, carb intake, salt intake and cardiovascular disease. The latter type of studies are then included in review articles, they involve large numbers of unhealthy Western people, the highly statistically significant results make them more valuable in the eyes of the medical profession and they then form the basis of official medical advice and guidelines. Cardiologist are educated based on the results of such studies.
    • Very occasionally the propaganda we're fed about our own diet is interrupted by news items like this read this: "Cardiologists are generally convinced that blood pressure inevitably increases with age. Now a new study calls this belief into question." As a result of such mistakes, we're exposed to a risk of cardiovascular disease that is about 100 times larger than the natural risk we would be exposed to if we all stuck to a mainly planted-base, whole food diet, supplemented by small amounts of meat and fish. We're only told that we can lower our risk by 30% by switching to the Mediterranean diet. So, we're only told about a healthier option that gives us a 70 times higher risk instead of the usual 100 times higher risk.
    • Why are the results from statistical studies on Western populations wrong? As pointed out here, a healthy diet that reduces cardiovascular disease risk to almost zero is a mainly planted-based diet that provides less than 20% of the calories from fat. This means that you need to eat a massive amount of whole grain carbs, you should also eat a large amount of fruits and vegetables. On such a diet, you'll get your proteins from plant sources, you only need to eat small amounts of meat and fish to obtain vitamin B12. So, the fundamental flaw of the Western diet is the high fat content. This would cause massive nutritional deficiencies that are only averted by eating lots of meat and dairy. So, the shortage of protein is made up for by eating meat and dairy, the shortage of calcium is made up for by eating dairy. However, by plugging holes in our diet this way that prevents malnutrition on the short run, we may leave holes open that cause diseases on the very long run. E.g. meat and dairy don't contain fiber which we now know is good for cardiovascular health. Fat itself can be neutral or even slightly heart healthy for our diet to still cause cardiovascular problems down the line. It's impossible to see this problem when doing research on a population that is almost 100% sticking to the same sort of diet. Count Iblis (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know that? MDs have little training in nutrition science. And bona fide nutrition experts, e.g. prof. dr. Martijn B. Katan, a highly cited scientist, do no deal in such alarmism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's study populations who get almost all their nutrients from planted-based foods. Example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5. And note this debunking of the story that Eskimos don't get heart disease.
    Now the bona fide nutrition experts are aware of all this, but they have taken the view that since most people are not going to eat a mainly plant-based diet that it's a waste of time and resources to do a lot of research into this. Their main focus is to do research on small variants of the diet we already eat, they think that it's going to be difficult enough to get people to eat just a bit more vegetables. They fear that if they're told to eat a lot more vegetables, then they'll give up completely on trying to eat healthier. We can read here: "Dr Aune said the findings did not mean the five-a-day message needed to change.He told the BBC: "There are many different considerations if changing policy, it's not just the health effects - is it feasible? "But our findings are quite clear in that they do support five a day, but there are even some further benefits for higher intakes." Dr Alison Tedstone, chief nutritionist at Public Health England, said: "The five-a-day target is the foundation of a healthy balanced diet and is an achievable way to help prevent a number of diseases. "Whilst consuming more than five portions of fruit and vegetables a day may be desirable... adding pressure to consume more fruit and vegetables creates an unrealistic expectation."" Count Iblis (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary break 2

    As can be clearly seen from this edit,[158] ("is it OK for others editors to act like he must follow COIADVICE?"), Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is committed to his claim that he is exempt from WP:COIADVICE. For those of you who have voted no on this RfC, do you agree with Middle 8's assertion? Should I ask Middle 8 to follow COIADVICE, or should I ask the authors of the edits Middle 8 cites[159][160] (Roxy the dog and Guy) to stop acting as if he is required to follow COIADVICE? Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. Which is it? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • If there is a consensus that being an acupuncturist is not inherently a COI when editing acupuncture related articles, then you should only ask Middle 8 to follow COIADVICE if you are aware of some more direct conflict of interest such as being paid to edit, or editing related to their specific acupuncture practice, but just being an acupuncturist is fine. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Your COI leads to your relentless advocacy. A topic ban would solve that pretty simply and remove the drama. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What COI? I take no position on a topic ban, but a TBAN should only be used if Middle 8 is POV-pushing, there is no consensus that acupuncturists have a COI on acupuncture articles, so such questionable accusations should not be used to sanction(or threaten to sanction) anyone. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Plastic surgeons

    So I've been thinking about this a bit more. I think the RFC is poorly framed, and I do wonder about the motivation (what exactly triggered this?), but let's see if we can get some good out of this discussion.

    Let's talk about practical reality: We have had a huge amount of trouble with a few altmed folks. (A few, including a long-time homeopathy promoter, have actually helped us achieve NPOV.)

    Do you know who else we have ongoing trouble with? Plastic surgeons. Specifically, the ambitious cosmetic sort. The "plastic surgeons" that specialize in functional repairs to hands or deal with major medical problems, like reconstruction after trauma or cancer, don't seem to bother us much, but the ones who do optional aesthetic work, like face lifts and breast augmentation, have been serious and sometimes subtle pests for years. The old hands will remember when we suddenly sprouted a huge number of articles about plastic surgeons in Alaska (possibly all of them – it seemed to be a project by some medical association there). Self-citations to trivial publications happen all the time. It seems like every other one plastic surgeon has trademarked something, and everyone with a trademark wants it in the English Wikipedia. We really need before-and-after photos for some of these surgeries, and we get them ...but not realistic or typical ones. We only get the wildly successful cases, usually involving gorgeous women, and you can click through on the picture to get contact information for the doctor's office. Find the photo you like on Wikipedia, and click through to schedule your own.

    When I read the question at top of this RFC, it feels like we're being asked to treat an everyday altmed practitioner as being materially different from these "conventional, science-based medicine" physicians who make money by advertising their skills and products to women who want to look younger than they are. Given the long history of personal self-promotion by surgeons who earn their money through purely optional medical procedures, I'm really not sure why we would welcome the cosmetic surgeon but reject the massage therapist.

    Also, in setting this up as an either-or, what do we do with dual-licensed healthcare professionals? A huge proportion of American physicians refer pain patients for chiropractic, acupuncture, and massage therapy. AIUI, MDs are legally able to perform any medical procedure and prescribe any treatment in the US, and I'm aware of one MD who does both conventional medicine and acupuncture. Is it logical say that the doctor has no COI if she writes that medically supervised treatments for acne are more effective than over-the-counter remedies, but she has a COI if she adds the name of a traditional acupuncture pattern, or adds a source that says it's useless for cancer, or removes overly favorable information? That doesn't seem logical to me. I think what we are really struggling with here is the problem of POV pushing, not COI. We have our pro-science POV pushers, and we have anti-science POV pushers on the altmed articles. When I look at this RFC, I wonder whether one of our steadfast anti-woo warriors is just seeking another tool to stymie the altmed POV pushers, rather than dealing with an actual problem of COI. Because, if – as he says above – any pro-acupuncture edit is a financial COI for a person who earns a living through acupuncture, then presumably any pro-optional-aesthetic-surgery edit is also a financial COI for a person who earns a living through optional aesthetic surgeries. And if that's true, then the question shouldn't be about altmed practitioners; it should be about all healthcare providers that provide elective treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Strongly agree! COI is manageable through disclosure; POV-pushing is the main problem, not addressed by the RFC as formed. — soupvector (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's self-promotion, not POV-pushing, though. And yes it's a problem. I agree with soupvector up to a point, but with proponents of quackery it is extremely rare to find any proposed content that does not serve to suggest spurious legitimacy. WhatamIdoing, which homeopathist helped to achieve NPOV? Guy (Help!) 07:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a difference between an elective medical treatment, and ineffective Alt-Med fraud. They are not providing health care. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    File:Using laser on legs.jpg
    "Laser hair removal - "not" providing health care!!" – even though it was originally only available from (mainstream medicine) physicians.
    What makes you think that common cosmetic procedures, such as laser hair removal and botox injections, should usually count as "providing health care"? There's no healthcare payer in the world that thinks botox to hide wrinkles is "health care". WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it depends on the content. Declaring that your invented procedure is better than the next guy's is self-promotion and POV pushing. (I don't remember the name of the old homeopathy editor, who is doubtless inactive by now. I do remember someone talking about the situation a few years ago, contrasting the one proponent, who worked within the rules to create descriptions that were recognizable both to the pro-homeopathy minority and the anti-homeopathy majority, vs the typical proponent.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, the inventor of a procedure would have a COI as well as likely POV / PROMO issues. But the example is illuminating. The proponent of a specific surgical procedure has a COI for that procedure but probably not for surgery per se, whereas in the case of, say, acupuncture, there is only sticking needles in people - it's a single homogeneous suject and someone who earns their living selling it can't really separate out any edit from their immediate financial stake in it. Guy (Help!) 11:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But in practice there is more to acupuncture than sticking needles in people (precisely because sticking needles in people doesn't do anything useful). So, the people who have been able to make a living out of such a practice, tend to do things that their patients are satisfied about (which is mostly talking to them about their personal lives). While they could abuse Wikipedia to get more customers, they obviously can't advertise their specific practice, they need to write something that fits into the generic topic area and there is nothing specifically about sticking needles in people specifically that makes their business successful. So, they would not be able to write down on a Wiki page about acupuncture why everyone needs to visit their business and not their competitor's business. Count Iblis (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim "acupuncture ... is only sticking needles in people - it's a single homogeneous subject " isn't considered useful by researchers, who clearly have been wasting their time investigating it for all sorts of specific conditions. I guess they should just have poked themselves in the thumb with a needle, noticed their back pain was just as bad as ever, and written off that entire subject. It really doesn't help to drag this down to political-campaign level of over-simplification and polarisation. Plenty doctors are prescribing medicines or treatments that have no evidence of effect, or evidence of no effect, often off-label, and typically in areas where we lack effective medicine or treatment alternatives.[161]. Some of them may be doing so out of desperate care for their acutely ill cancer patients, and others may just be stringing along someone with untreatable pain who has already tried all the approved treatments, and has a fat wallet. As one gets older, one comes across an increasing number of ailments that aren't effectively treatable. AltMed is not alone in exploiting this situation. -- Colin°Talk 13:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but I would say that there does exist a treatment that has its roots in alternative medicine that does work well here, namely exercise. It's not prescribed all that much by doctors because patients tend not to like do do this. As we can read here: "If exercise was a pill, everyone would be taking it". Count Iblis (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, how would Wikipedia, had it existed in the 1930s, have covered health and fitness clubs? We can read here: "In 1936, he opened the nation's first health and fitness club in Oakland, California,[12] where he offered supervised weight and exercise training and gave nutritional advice. His primary goal was to encourage and motivate his clients to improve their overall health. Doctors, however, advised their patients to stay away from his health club, a business totally unheard of at the time, and warned their patients that "LaLanne was an exercise 'nut,' whose programs would make them 'muscle-bound' and cause severe medical problems."[12] LaLanne recalls the initial reaction of doctors to his promotion of weight-lifting:
    “People thought I was a charlatan and a nut. The doctors were against me‍—‌they said that working out with weights would give people heart attacks and they would lose their sex drive.[5]"". Count Iblis (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do plastic surgeons have a code of practice? a regulatory body? LASIK eye surgeons who spam the project? Are those bodies effective? how about alt-medists? What happens to alt meddlers whose victims end up dead after an alt med procedure? What do alt-med governing bodies do to rogue practitioners? Differences between how real medicine regulates itself, and quackery, are very telling. Foxes, chickens and chicken coups. Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regulation of alternative medicine. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Some slash and burn needed there!! Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And the difference in regulation between what you call "real medicine" and what you call "quackery" is what exactly? Your foxes/chickens comment seems to imply conventional medicine is policed by independent third parties? Instead it relies rather a lot of doctors making formal complaints about each other, which they are understandably loathe to do. Sometimes it relies on class action lawsuits against companies making unsafe implants. Harold Shipman probably murdered 250 of his patients, and regulation failed in many ways. I suggest that, compared with homeopathy and acupuncture, ear candling and yoga, conventional doctors and nurses have many more "victims end [who] up dead", whether though malice, malpractice, incompetence or ignorance. They have many more grateful patients who thank them for being alive and well, though, it has to be said. I'm not entirely sure why regulation is relevant to whether we let people edit, but once again, the differences people claim aren't nearly as significant as they make out. We all have our human weaknesses. -- Colin°Talk 19:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Similarly, I'm not sure of the relevance of Plastic surgeons to ALT-MED. It's chalk and cheese. Is the professional ability of a surgeon being compared to the professional capability of a Reikist for example. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've forgotten the purpose of this RFC. Which is to decide that those who practice one a group of medical therapies called "Alt Med" should be topic banned from medical articles, whereas presumably those who practice conventional medicine should be encouraged to edit such articles. And specifically that the Alt Med practitioners may have a COI, and are particularly unsuitable for MEDRS topics due to the lack of evidence (or evidence of lack). The problem is there are areas of conventional medicine where the same is true, particularly for elective treatments and where medicine is mostly ineffective. Let's not forget Andrew Wakefield was a conventionally trained doctor, fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and the child of a neurologist and a GP. -- Colin°Talk 21:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin is correct: The RFC seems to be focused on a difference that doesn't seem to matter. The financial benefits to polishing up LASIK articles for a person who does LASIK eye surgery may even be greater than the financial benefits that a massage therapist gets from polishing up massage articles. But this RFC question is "Let's all say that altmed folks are bad", instead of sticking with something closer to a universal truth: "If changing this article could significantly change your paycheck or your work, then stay away – and that includes all of you in that situation, not just some of you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I the only one to think it a little wrong this whole discussion has received such an extreme amount of attention but there seems to have been zero (whether here, in our articles, or the editors talk pages) given to #Dr Greg Wood where the person for who concerns were expressed seems to be named in at least source used in one of our articles? Nil Einne (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SuperDerivatives

    User blocked indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits

    At present edits that mention other founders or the fact that David Gershon is only a co-founder of superderivatives are being ignored and do not make it to the main article.

    The claim is that David Gershon is the sole founder of super derivatives where in actual fact he is a co-founder with three other people

    Even worse, in the editing page, it is claimed that Menashe Banit 'Falsely claims to be a co-founder of superderivatives. This unfair liable. It is also harassment.

    Enclosed are the contract that clearly specify who are the founders of the company superderivatives:

    /Users/banit/Desktop/superderivatives Founders Agreement Parr_20181024161623.webarchive

    Mbanit (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to post a URL where we can find that superderivatives Founders Agreement. We cannot read documents that are on your home computer's desktop. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked as clearly continuing the disruption by multiple IPs on the article. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Kemp (nurse)

    Just like Charlie Hales up above, someone editing their own article by adding unsourced content and shaping it into a resume. Also removed COI template at top of page. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For now the account is blocked per WP:ORGNAME. I also left a note about WP:NOSHARING as there seems to be a lack of understanding about that part of the username policy. If they clear up that bit of business, then we can move on the COI stuff. I've also added British Association for Immediate Care to the affected articles. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    At User talk:Beemer69#Tony Kemp (nurse), the new user AEK1961 has now self-identified as the subject of the article Tony Kemp (nurse) and also as the former user BASICS HQ. I posted a response at Talk:British Association for Immediate Care suggesting the use of the {{request edit}} template. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Pedersen

    Another self-promotional editor adding unsourced content about themselves. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at this page; it's the typical promotional piece based on weak and marginal sources. I added the notability tag to the page, and would support nominating it for AfD if someone else things this is a good call. The sources I could find in a search were pretty minimal.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Desmond Napoles

    User is complaining about "libel", has identified themselves as the "legal guardian" of the child subject of the article, and is asking for "escalation" in their edit summary. The article is tagged with various maintenance tags and probably needs a great rewrite, but survived a deletion discussion on 27 July 2018. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am asking for removal of article that we (Desmond's legal guardians and management) did not create or request. The article is now being used to attack a minor using factually incorrect information from anti-LGBT sources. Publication of this material may constitute libel due to it being deliberately created to defame a person.Upsetterfc (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Upsetterfc: thank you very much for the explanation. Have you considered taking action against these sources, instead of someone quoting them, instead? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not able to discuss any planned legal actions. The sources are not credible. westernjournal.com is a religious and anti-LGBT propaganda source. Youtube has not removed doctored videos despite requests.Upsetterfc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    It isn't a doctored video, although does not warrant inclusion in the article. In regard to your legal actions, please see this page, where appropriate email addresses are listed. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We are absolutely obligated to use only reliable sources, especially in biographies of living people, and even more so when the subject is a young minor so obviously subject to harassment. Neither The Western Journal nor the Daily Wire is a reliable source, and both are completely unacceptable for use in a biography of a living person. And yet both have been used in this BLP and any editor, whether or not they have a COI, is entirely justified in removing content sourced to such obviously bad sources. Such editors should be assisted and commended, not chastised. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this in reply to my comment or the section as a whole? I don’t see my comment as chastising. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    FXCM (again and again)

    FXCM has been on this page before, see archive 14 and 15 and, in passing, archive 22. FXCM editors have dragged me several times to ANI, other dispute resolution, and finally to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/FXCM which was ended when several of the FXCM editors were blocked as meats or socks. See, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gouyoku/Archive

    Formilds is a declared paid editor who's article "suggestions" were declined by @Spintendo: and then added pretty much as is by User:CNMall41. CNMall41 also just reverts my edits and accuses me of assuming bad faith.

    I'll ask others to keep an eye on the FXCM page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Smallbones, again thanks for the ping. This is more of a magnification of a content dispute and I don't appreciate you creating synth around my involvement. I will put together the relevant history for everyone shortly, but to be clear edits were not added as-is, Spintendo gave up because of communication issues, and you were reverted for one edit when asked to assume good faith for accusing me of whitewashing for an article I didn't even want to be at. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to be as short as possible to not waste anyone’s time, but a little worked up about being drug to COIN over a content dispute so please bear with me.
    I don’t have all the history for the page prior to my involvement so I cannot comment on the mediation or sockpuppet history, nor do I have anything to say about Smallbones being "dragged" to ANI several times by FXCM editors. I came in through WikiProject Companies when Formlids came to the project and requested someone check their COI edit request. They were told by me to go to Spintendo as there were open edit requests and needed to give it time to be reviewed. Formlids later said they received a response from another editor. Spintendo then responded about the situation and stated they “were unable to communicate as efficiently as either of [them] had hoped.” I then answered the COI request by implementing many of the edits, but not “as-is” like Smallbones stated – twice now if you include the admin page they posted on. There is plenty of relevant talk page discussion, yet discussion from others – include from Formlids who hasn’t piped up in about a month - was almost non-existent.
    What brought us here is Smallbone's recent editing and a disagreement about one portion of content that I removed. Smallbones added back a quote that was made by the company CEO about the industry, not the company. This was done while saying “no whitewashing please” as if that page could actually be whitewashed without a full deletion. They were reverted and given an explanation why. They then reverted me with a summary that basically says it is relevant as the person making the statement is the CEO of the company. I reverted them again and started a relevant talk page discussion which they have passed over, instead choosing to go to an administrator's talk page and then COIN.
    I don’t appreciate being dragged to COIN over a content dispute. An experienced editor such as Smallbones should utilize the talk page as it would save me time from having to clean up the synth of a message they posted above.
    So yes, people should keep an eye on it, I would agree. Any page that has heavy COI activity is ripe for promotion and whitewashing. But, trying to act like I am somehow whitewashing the page, then playing the victim when asked to assume good faith is not really becoming of an experienced editor. I am still wondering if this is about the COI from FXCM or a content dispute that Smallbones don’t want to discuss on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't want to be involved in the article, please don't be - you haven't done a good job at it. The company essentially admitted to defrauding their customers (via a "consent decree"). They've been kicked out of the US for their fraud. And their long-term sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting point in the same direction. They've been blocked on Wikipedia for this. This has been going on for years now. I've been vindicated in every dispute on this article. The FXCM editors insist that the same material be deleted every time. I am running out of patience. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I don't give a crap about your patience. I also don't care about the company. What I care about is the project. Your apparent anger over the company is hindering any movement of a page that was pretty heavily WP:SYNTH. If you have an issue with FXCM, then deal with them. Trying to drag me into this like I am the bad guy isn't really appreciated. Also, your comment "you haven't done a good job at it" is another example of not assuming good faith and also crosses into WP:NPA. I would request you start to discuss without hostility and also ask that you redact such a statement. If you cannot have a civil discussion about a topic you are passionate about, how can you edit the actual page with a neutral point of view? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, now that we are here, I would like an answer about the whitewashing accusation. How is the removal of this whitewashing? Not happy with the incivility so wondering if you have an explanation for the edit summary. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Any regular editors (such as User:Smallbones) who help out with COI issues should have our gratitude, but User:CNMall41 does not appear to be affected by any COI. So the disagreement between CNMall41 and Smallbones appears to be a regular content dispute that ought to be worked out through WP:Dispute resolution. CNMall41's comments at Talk:FXCM look fine. So both editors should probably get used to being 'drug' to other forums if they continue to be interested in FXCM, since it's a genuinely tough problem. Though reporting either of them at COIN may not be required unless the dispute is due to some continuing COI editing. Also, CNMall41 and Smallbones might try to avoid reverting each other directly to save creating waves that are likely to reach the admin boards. Better to work it out first on the article talk. EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input, EdJohnston. To be clear, I am affected by COI if not done properly. We often get COI editors who come to the WikiProject Company talk page forum shopping instead of going through the correct COI request process. I turn then away. However, this was one that was an exception given the feedback from Spintendo. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) EdJohnston this is the same "content issue" I've been through half a dozen times already.
    @CNMall41: Please don't distract from the issues. Accusing me of a personal attack is not helpful. Notifying you about this discussion is a requirement of this page.
    What was whitewashing is the removal twice - as a whole and in two pieces - of

    By 2005 the online retail forex market began to grow, though it was commonly considered a risky market, full of fraud and speculation.[1] Critics of the industry stated that few retail traders had the experience to make money trading forex. In 2005, Drew Niv, then chief executive of FXCM, said: "If 15% of day traders are profitable I'd be surprised."[2]

    This is what the FXCM editors always remove - it is whitewashing. You claim that it is about the industry not about the company. Really? Who is Drew Niv again? I can give you at least 2 more examples if you'd like. Now please calm down, watch your language, and stop accusing me of personal attacks and other things, and address the issue - your removal of important information at the request of a representative of a company known for its fraud. If you'd rather just withdraw from editing the article, thats fine with me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have calmed down now. I am not sure what is deflecting since this is something for the article talk page anyways. I asked a question and your reply is that it is whitewashing because it is what FXCM requested to have removed? As far as my language, I am not a child so please don't scold me. I also asked you to redact your personal attack above and instead you deflect about me accusing you of personal attacks. So is it an issue that you haven't assumed good faith and WP:NPA, or is the issue me discussing it? I still don't know why we are here other than you are sick of FXCM. As far as a "withdraw", I would have gladly done that had someone else stepped up over the last few months but now that we're here.....
    Can you tell me how the CEO of a company making a statement automatically qualifies that statement for the Wikipedia page about the company? Elon Musk talks about aliens but not sure that is relevant to put on the page for SpaceX. This is a great quote to put on the page for Forex, especially since it was made by a CEO in the industry, but it is not about the company itself. But again, this is for the talk page so not sure why we are discussing here. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just want to register my agreement with EdJohnston with respect to his comments that User:CNMall41 does not appear to be affected by any COI; that the disagreement between CNMall41 and Smallbones appears to be a regular content dispute; and that CNMall41's comments at Talk:FXCM are fine. Whether or not other editors have such issues, it is not useful for this noticeboard to bring up content disputes that do not involve COI on the part of an editor being engaged. I will add that I have worked with CNMall41 several times over the years, and have always found him to be an excellent and thoughtful editor, and an asset to the project. bd2412 T 21:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    People who say this is not a COI matter forget that Formilds (talk · contribs) is a declared paid editor for a scam firm (fined and kicked out of the country by the CFTC). If I don't report the problem here, where am I allowed to report it? And if I report it here, I need to include CNMall41 as well, since he is inserting the material into the article. I don't think that Formilds will accept my invitation to discuss the matter here. He knows or should know that the CFTC order prevents him, or any other representative of the firm, from denying even indirectly that the firm scammed their customers (in the specific cases they admitted). If Formilds can't defend the edits I don't see how we can accept them. I'll revert the article back to the pre-Formilds inspired edits (at least until Formilds responds here).
    Any non-FXCM editor, or course, may make an edit to the page, but if they are removing or playing down material related to the fraud, they'd better be able to defend it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Egan, Jack (2005-06-19). "Check the Currency Risk. Then Multiply by 100". The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-10-30.
    2. ^ Karmin, Craig; Michael R. Sesit (July 26, 2005). "Currency Markets Draw Speculation, Fraud". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones and Company. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
    You really do not "need to include" editors not asserted to be involved in COI editing on the COI noticeboard. The [Publish changes] works just fine if you only identify the editor to whom the noticeboard is relevant. Conflating editors who are not accused of COI with those who are makes this primarily merely a content dispute with respect to those editors, and hinders efforts to address any actual COI asserted. Whether an uninvolved editor can defend their edits, which should be done purely on policy grounds, is not a matter to be resolved here. bd2412 T 01:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with User:BD2412. Since the COI issue was previously flagged, and since Formilds (talk · contribs) is going through all the correct steps, there is nothing left for this board to resolve. User:CNMall41 is doing just what they are supposed to do in handling requests from a COI-affected editor. The material is not forever 'tainted' by originating from a proposal by User:Formilds. It is to be reviewed like any other proposed content. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, EdJohnston and BD2412. Please let me know if there is anything else needed from me or if this can be closed out. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Found a article telling "entrepreneurs" how to spam and manipulate the site, is there anything we can do about it?

    The article is here, under the section "Week #10: Wikipedia". I've seen some pretty bad articles but this one really takes the cake for me. The section regarding Wikipedia tells "entrepreneurs" to spam and manipulate the site. Saying stuff like, and I quote: "The key with editing Wikipedia articles is to first adjust tons of pages that aren’t about your website. It’s not just about linking to your site, it’s more so about providing value to the community." and other stuff along those lines. The writer of the article recommends to "adjust 12 to 15 articles", which I feel like will just encourage people to make a bunch of unhelpful changes, and would just so happen to give them autoconfirmed privileges. I'm sure the writer of said article had nothing but good intentions in mind but it is worrying.

    But I think perhaps the most worrying part of the article is that the the author of the article also claims that the people at Comedy Central have done the same thing. He seemingly implied that they have done this to hundreds of pages and that they gave these "tips" away at a marketing conference "years ago", which was where he got these ideas from. Not sure what should be done about this though, as if everything the author says is true, and that people who follow his advice do what he suggests, that means that potentiality hundreds of articles have been edited by both Comedy Central and readers of his article. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    it’s more so about providing value to the community Is this not what we want? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but not if they plan to spam links to their website immediately after :p. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We give them a warning about spam like we would do with anyone else. They hopefully will carry on providing value to the community and not spamming. If they spam then they have had a fair chance like anyone else. I don't doubt that people like spread those "tips" with other. I can't find of any solution for the Comedy Central issue at the moment though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Somewhere, perhaps in a galaxy far far away, there exists a spammer who hasn't yet figured out that they need to make 10 dummy edits to get autoconfirmed. Such is life. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just tell people that before they start spamming Wikipedia, they should make a few thousand good edits and write a few dozen good articles that are totally unrelated to the subject of their spamming, and that by the time they get done with that, they'll have realized that they don't want to do the spamming anymore. bd2412 T 22:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a major problem. Is there any evidence that anyone is following the advice? It's pretty stupid anyway. So their strategy is that people reading an article that mentions Comedy Central will click on the piped link to "Comedy Central" then click on the external link to their website. It is not believable that Comedy Central gets 100,000 visitors from Wikipedia each month when only 25,000 people visit their Wikipedia article each month. Anyway, if you want, you can check the editors that added internal links to Comedy Central and see if they made disruptive edits to other articles. TFD (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't seen any evidence that anyone actually used it, just wanted to post it here just in case and/or for future reference. Also, maybe the author is referring to every article in which Comedy Central had added links to their website? Not sure, and i'm also not sure if it would even be possible to check that. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    We can have a filter that tracks if users are making the same repeated edit, like making small edits with the word "Comedy Central" multiple times. Would that help? Daiyusha (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    24.113.150.218 / 24.113.174.169

    Does this look like the work of a defense lawyer or public relations expert? (Honest question; I am on the fence aand would like some other opinions) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Given lots of public interest on both sides, this one will be really hard to sort out the professionals from the amateurs. The IPs geolocate to a small resort town, but it's not that far from a major metropolitan area. And IPs can be faked. The only thing that drew my attention is that the word "too" was misspelled "to". So in short, I have no idea. Smallbones(smalltalk) 11:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to fuzz things up: many lawyers I know can't spell worth a damn. And Port Townsend isn't quite a resort town, more of a small town that has an arts community and events (mostly in the summer) – but also a paper mill. Bri.public (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but I'd guess at least half of all lawyers are literate :-) . I'm not trying to discourage anybody from looking further. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This [162] which probably means [163] is also the same editor combined with the policy and guidelines references to things like BLP, RS and bold editing make me think it's unlikely this is a lawyer and probably not a PR expert, but simply someone interested for whatever reason, perhaps editing logged out. Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Indrajit Lahiri

    The two pages I've mentioned are about a somewhat-notable Food blogger. The other one is about a clearly non-notable coaching institute. Why I think its a case of COI

    1. The user in question admits to being a freelance marketing consultant, and seems to be a senior at that, and also claims that he only edits pages that are not in his professional interest.
    2. The first article might be actually notable, but the second one isnt(It seems to have affiliations with NSE though, but very little coverage of this GAFA article).
    3. WP:OUTING states to not let out any personal info that the user has not given out himself on wiki, The user has already posted links of his Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook. So I checked a quora account named after him with no more info that those in this 3 social media pages,the COI evidence that I found comes from Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Amar-Krishna-Jha/answers
    He has 74 answers, the first 72 are about FAQs of digital marketing, somewhere he seems to be geninuely sharing his experience on marketing. His last two answers though are about the two aforementioned pages.

    The 3rd point makes me suspect COI on him. 

    Daiyusha (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dayco

    This appears to me to be UPE by a professional marketing company. See https://www.erdigitalmarketing.com/ I haven't really kept up to date with all of the COI discussions, so please let me know if y'all need anything further. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeffed, adding pure spam copied straight from the company website despite warnings and notices. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Added sockmaster ☆ Bri (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Esh20075 has been adding references to the research publications of a single individual (N. G. R. Dayan Elshan) to multiple prostate cancer related pages. While I certainly don't want to discourage scientists from contributing to Wikipedia in their area of expertise, because every one of this user's contributions involve this one researcher's work I can't escape the conclusion that this individual is here solely for self-promotion. I'm not familiar enough with this subject area to know if the contributions are relevant, constructive, etc. so maybe someone else can have a look. Edgeweyes (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/Esh20075 obvious COI/SPA account--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I left them a note; hopefully they change their behaviour. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Archimania

    Archimania is a highly promotional article that is the product of the four single-purpose accounts listed above, one of which has a matching username. Deli nk (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I have blocked Archimania13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as a role account, so they may need any replies copied over from their talk.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Undisclosed paid editing by multiple accounts with page curation and new page reviewer rights

    Referring COIN readers to WT:New pages patrol/Reviewers#undisclosed paid editing by multiple accounts with page curation and new page reviewer rights concerning worldresearchernews.com and a blocked account Nocturnal911. No comment on the issue itself from me at this time. Bri.public (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Right To Play

    I left a standard COI informational template on this user's page after they edited Right To Play on January 2. They did not respond, and have commenced editing the article again. I'm not sure how to proceed. This is probably also a username issue. Would welcome guidance from someone more experienced in this area, thank you. Marquardtika (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Southeastern University (Florida)

    Both the editors appear to be the same person, who is listed as the communications director of Southeastern University. The second article is the President of the University. Both usernames have been warned, only Pjburr continues to edit. Jacona (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added maintenance templates to both articles and attempted to trim some of the most egregious promotional stuff. Melcous (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    G. E. Berrios

    This appears to be an autobiography. The article was created in 2007, and has been edited almost exclusively by Geb11, who has contributed very little to any other articles. The article needs to be fact-checked and checked for neutrality, as the subject appears to be notable per WP:PROF. Geb11 has removed relevant tags from the article, and has not responded to my note about a possible conflict of interest. Bradv🍁 00:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Geb11 has confirmed that they are the subject of the article in a post to my talk page here. Bradv🍁 16:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Ware Malcomb

    All the contributions of the above mentioned user are about Ware Malcomb and its management. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User 73.9.23.110

    This IP user is engaging in apparent external-link spamming of articles by a single author and has become at-best-borderline combative on my talk page regarding the issue (asking me, e.g., what my qualifications are to edit articles about small engines and telescopic handlers). I bring this to the attention of this noticeboard because I get the strong sense this campaign has been undertaken with self-promotional intent but I welcome further opinions. Thanks, y'all. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Just a wicked individual - there's no other answer24.1.220.19 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    How to handle a recently-disappeared COI editor?

    Recently I came across an article while on NPP and engaged with said article's creator. After a few rounds of questions and responses, it became clear the editor knew quite a bit about the subject that was not in the sources cited; I was later able to confirm with some certainty the editor had a clear conflict of interest in regards to the subject. As such, I left the standard COI notification on their talk page and asked them to address the issue, but they briefly continued to edit. The article was speedy deleted minutes later, and the COI editor then ceased editing. The issue is, the editor was a returning (after a 2 year hiatus) editor who had done some COI editing in the past but were never warned. So, should any action be taken against them given that they did not and have yet to disclose their COI status, or should no action be taken given they seem to have gone underground again?

    My evidence of the editor's COI activity treads too close to WP:OUTING, so any admin can email me if they want the details of this case.--SamHolt6 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Maciej Koszowski

    See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawmander. It looks as if we have had a self-promoting refspammer on site for over a year. Some of the articles are entirely or largely his work so may contain WP:SYN, he does not appear to have any active academic affiliations and as far as I can tell he has recently graduated with a standard bachelor's degree, but that could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Meca Sapiens

    Hi there! It's been an awfully long time since I did anything like this, so I apologize if this is a bit out of sorts. I currently only edit anonymously (and I hope productively, though I honestly do not pay much attention to my IP address changing - though this current one is relatively static) - and mainly to correct vandalism I spot or comment. In the past, I was much more involved in Wikipedia, as User:Logical2u - until I realized it wasn't that good for me, as a person, and I left. I'm not in any way qualified to make substantial or policy-conforming edits on Wikipedia any more, I think - and honestly, this is the most effort I've put into creating 'unique' content on Wikipedia in ages.

    In the outside world, I ended up being referred to [164] as part of my job, saw the Meca Sapiens book reference, and looked it up on Wikipedia - finding the above-linked page. In reading the page, I noticed that most of the references were about related concepts (rather than the Meca Sapiens concept itself). The remaining references were by the Meca Sapiens conceptual creator and author, J.E. Tardy, as well as a reference to "Monterège, J.T., The creation of digital consciousness, SIGART Newsletter, July 1989, No 109." In my attempt to locate this paper, I found [165], which indicates that J.E. Tardy created the pseudonym J.T. Monterège.

    During this process, I became concerned about the authorship history of the Meca Sapiens page, and noticed the primary editor was Monterege - a seeming reference to the same pseudonym. Based on the Newswire PDF and the editing history of Monterege, I believe the user Monterege is actually J.E. Tardy, and his edits to Wikipedia (Meca Sapiens, a reverted edit to Artificial general intelligence and the draft page on Cogistics) are all attempts at promoting or advertising his conceptual creations.

    At this point I remembered that that's not a good idea, but not much more. I contacted the editor user:Robert McClenon, who was responsible for the first approval of Meca Sapiens (contact available here [166]), who understandably was reluctant to work with an anonymous editor, but did place a COI notice on the page. From this notice I eventually found my way here. 129.173.213.205 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I just went and notified both Robert and Monterege of this post. 129.173.213.205 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=877898419"