Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 71

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75

Self-described advocate editing Lakshmi Rai

User Varmais has stated an association with the subject of the article, Lakshmi Rai here and here. Varmais has been notified of COI here. Varmais removed a COI tag and continues to add unsourced content. Jim1138 (talk) 12:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Varmais not reading their talk page, 'owning' article, or both. Removed the COI hat note again. Jim1138 (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
On my talk page, Varmais said "we are the official team managing Lakshmi Rai". Besides admitting COI, that sure sounds like a role account. Any admin agreeing is welcome to block on that basis; I won't as I'm now Involved. --Geniac (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked indefinitely. We have a pretty clear policy against that which states that people who share an account will be blocked. -- Atama頭 16:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Swenzy, yet again

Remember the 13th is deleted, the SPI was declined because multiple accounts weren't abused, this issue seems resolved. -- Atama頭 16:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swenzy, the hoax/spam/black hat SEO organization whose article was brought up here, is back, sort of. The Swenzy article was deleted via an AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swenzy for discussion. But some of the same promotional content is being put into other articles. I've taken most of it out. Please watch to see if it comes back. Should Remember the 13th be sent to AfD? It was basically a spam, but one that got notability because it was a fake NASA site. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remember the 13th. Once that's decided, this COI is done for now. John Nagle (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The above named article is a bundled AfD discussion of 32 near clone articles about state branches of the Constitution Party. Based on comments in the discussion, I believe it is possible that these articles may have been created, and are primarily being edited by members of the Constitution Party. - Ad Orientem (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This situation is a bit odd. I've been watching several state-level articles from this organization for a while due to copyright violations and advertising. I don't like leveling that accusation without evidence but there's at least 40 articles to check the history of and I don't think that any topic bans or blocks needs to be given.
I support having this report here due to how easily the AfD, possible followup AfDs, and just the overall situation may quickly deteriorate due to the nature of the subject (national-level political party).
The AfD is attempting to sort out which state-level organizations in this party are notable and which are not (there are currently 31 articles listed in the AfD). All-or-nothing arguments have sidetracked the discussion so level heads are very welcome. Outside of that, I don't see any reason for discussion to take place here. OlYeller21Talktome 20:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Lexington62 has posted to another editor saying "The Constitution Party of West Virginia is trying to organize a team to perform this task on the rest of the CP state pages to save them. If you can help, would you please send an email to correspondence@cpwva.org? Thank you, and God Bless!Lexington62 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)" This is clearly a conflict of interest. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The user's own page is effectively a disclosure of COI. Which is normally something I'd appreciate. Except for the fact that they state, "The respective state party chairman HAVE ALL BEEN INFORMED of this project and will be performing their own content editing to add local material and specific references to elevate the page from stub class." Which means that there is the potential for large a number of people to be editing articles with a clear conflict of interest that may be undeclared. The AfD closed with the result that all of the pages be turned into redirects, and for the material to be merged. Lexington62 declared their intention to maintain and develop stubs for all of the state articles by coordinating with state chairmen, and specifically declared that any redirects will be changed to stubs. That was before the AfD concluded, so that plan may have been aborted. The editor has not been active for a few days, so we'll see what happens. I can't say that I'll be able to watch each page but if it becomes necessary for an administrator to intervene and Dougweller is unavailable, I can assist. -- Atama頭 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Atama and Dougweller for your work on this. I have all of the pages on my watchlist so if any are recreated I will know and pass it along. On a side note though I have somewhat stepped back from this since Lexington62 has accused me of political motivations in my AfD nom. It's probably better to let others handle the merging and redirects so as not to unnecessarily muddy the waters. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark W. Rocha

Article is an autobiography created by subject at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mark W. Rocha, and rather than continuing to advance it through the AFC process, was copied into article space by Pccweboffice ("PCC" being the abbreviation for the name of the institution subject heads"). After Pccweboffice was blocked for username reasons, the other two accounts appeared, making minor edits but primarily deleting any of the properly-sourced material that I've been adding (which does not tend to be complimentary to the subject) and repeatedly deleting Autobiography and Unreliable sources tags without addressing the problems they reflect. They have not participated in the discussions I've started on the talk page, have not declared any COIs, and have usually foregone edit summaries, never explaining their deletion of the tags. (I've started up an SPI, but that is a parallel but separate issue.) Nat Gertler (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Some of these accounts have also been editing Pasadena City College to remove well-cited but unfavourable information. Removal by Mac912 account: [2]; removals by Mark W. Rocha account: [3], [4], [5]. Regarding the Rocha article, note the following timeline on 22 February:
The quacking is quite loud. --Stfg (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
All those accounts are now blocked. The biography could probably do with a little clean up to make sure that everything is properly sourced. SmartSE (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

User:BellviewMatt and Bellview Winery

It would seem, prima facie, that User:BellviewMatt, who has exclusively edited the Bellview Winery article has a close connection or a conflict of interest associated with the winery. I reached out to the user on their talk page, with a welcome that aimed to point them to the COI policies,[6] but that seems to have been ignored by their subsequent editing of the article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have left a somewhat stronger message instructing him to cease making substantive changes to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fluor Corp.

The current article on a ~$30 billion construction company is basically somewhat representative of what a neutral article should look like, but has both unsourced promotion and an unsourced lawsuit and is generally not very good / complete.

I am affiliated with the organization and would like to bring the article up to the GA standard in my COI role. I've put together a proposed draft at User:CorporateM/Fluor for consideration and feedback by impartial editors. Would be very appreciative of any feedback and/or consideration of my work for inclusion in the encyclopedia. CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I'm looking over this draft, but I invite anyone else involved at this noticeboard to assist, particularly people with stronger article-building (and evaluating) skills than myself. -- Atama頭 22:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

From my edit summary at article page: "Sub in CorporateM draft as discussed at this talk page, COI noticeboard and at article draft. Please revert me if you do not agree" North8000 (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Only nitpick is that the Fluor logo isn't showing up (the previous article pointed to File:Logo FLUOR.svg). I think that the infobox may not be allowing there to be two images in that one field (the logo and the picture of the building). -- Atama頭 19:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I had intentionally changed the file name for the logo on the draft, since trademarked images can't be used in user-space. I've fixed it. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I see. It looks good now. -- Atama頭 21:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Falcon Aviation Academy Comment

Falcon Aviation Academy has been created by user:spin1197. The article is clearly promotional and uses phrases such as "we do XYZ". This suggests that spin1197 is working for this company. Op47 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you're correct. It's worth noting that the article was first deleted, then restored and moved here. DESiegel gave the editor a chance to work on the article in userspace. I did a quick search for coverage of the academy but found nothing, so I'm not sure if the place is notable enough for inclusion. I will say that it was mentioned at Atlanta Regional Airport prior to spin1197's involvement at that article (which updated information about the academy). My suggestion is to give them a chance to try to come up with a workable article, and maybe even assist them a bit if you can. They're willing to try to follow proper procedures, and I wonder if they're willing to accept the possibility that due to a lack of notability, their organization may only merit a mention at the existing airport article. -- Atama頭 05:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I did give the the editor a chance to improve the article to an acceptable standard, after a polite request at User talk:DESiegel#Company Article for WikiPedia. Note my comments at User talk:Spin1197/Falcon Aviation Academy. Note also that I placed {{userspace draft}} on the draft, so it is not indexed by Google until and unless it is approved for mainspace. DES (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I did find some hits on HighBeam in terms of newspaper articles, so there does appear to be notability to support a page there. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Acupuncture

I am an acupuncturist. Does this fact mean that I have a COI with acupuncture and related articles? Some arguments I've seen and/or thought of:

  • No, because Wikipedia has never made one's profession (as opposed to one's employer) a basis for WP:COI, and should not, because it (in theory anyway) encourages professionals to edit in their areas of expertise.
  • Yes, because acupuncture has pseudoscientific aspects and debatable evidence for its effectiveness. Therefore, practitioners may profit from the article portraying it in a too-positive light.
  • No, because those are differences of degree and not of kind with other professions, so we really would be creating a bad precedent and slippery slope. Many professions compete with one another and suffer from overpromotion. For acupuncture there is a range of opinion on its effectiveness, some fairly positive,[7] and a real degree of mainstream acceptance.[8][9]


I'm also going to paste the last couple comments from an active thread on my user talk page:

  • (from Alexbrn) Somebody heavily invested in a single procedure probably shouldn't be writing about it; and if that procedure became the subject of controversy, where the outcome of the controversy might bear on their interests, they almost certainly shouldn't. Personally, I now keep clear of editing around anything I'm closely involved in (even if I'm not paid for it): one of the reasons I edit altmed topics is precisely because it has no "real life" crossover with me. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI
  • (my reply) We're writing an encyclopedia, and our standards should reflect that, and be pragmatic, and not try to fix what isn't broken. People heavily invested in single procedures are also known as "specialists" and should be writing about it, assuming topic expertise matters. (Who else will be able to evaluate certain sources? Etc.) It would be disastrous if Wikipedia followed that standard. .... In cases where that procedure becomes controversial, where the outcome of the controversy might bear on their interests, you may be right about COI, or at least potential for it (if that's not redundant). But this may still cast too broad a net, and has to be weighed against the benefits of subject expertise. Discouraging editing from specialist expert editors is a big deal, and may damage the project severely. We should do something to draw out the best in such editors, and it shouldn't be all stick. Of course, declaring a COI doesn't necessarily mean a person shouldn't write about a topic, only that certain checks and balances be involved, e.g. perhaps 0RR, or just using talk pages. And that could be done in cases where controversies might bear on an editor's interest. What we've done so far, for all professionals irrespective of specialty or controversies, is to caution against tendentiousness, and otherwise hold them to the same standards as everyone else; where is the evidence of this not working? Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me)

Thanks in advance for your feedback. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 22:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Alexbrn is correct. The situation here is that "specialist status" when it comes to contested knowledge is essentially someone who is inherently conflicted about the contested topic. The same argument could be made by a professional ufologist or a professional psychic or a professional faith healer. The Conflict of Interest policy is set up to explicitly avoid the situation where people who are necessarily in need of promoting their "specialty" be it a profession of dubious consideration, a business, an organization, or themselves are not caught up in even the appearance of impropriety. Every time you save an edit in article space, you are breaching this barrier that is put in place to protect Wikipedia's reputation. It is an embarrassment no matter your intent. jps (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Nope. Professions that center around the application of contested knowledge are necessarily more fraught. We're not talking about delivering the mail. We're talking about making specific claims relating to health and a procedure which is acknolweged by most experts to be essentially quackery. jps (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is on Middle8's user page: See User:Middle 8#Things contentious: "Conflict of interest (COI): None declared. A couple of editors have suggested that my being an acupuncturist causes me to have a COI, because I might profit by making acupuncture look good, or something -- as that couldn't happen with other professions."

Being an acupuncturist is not a COI according to Middle8 but according to Wikipedia's WP:COI it seems like he has a COI. The undeclared COI editor is trying his hardest to get me banned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive259#Chiropractic.

Example of past problems: Middle 8 deleted the Adams 2011 reference and added duplication to the article and on the talk page he said: @QG - you have to be kidding. Everyone but you joined consensus at Talk:Acupuncture#Rate_of_serious_adverse_events and I simply didn't make the edit till now. Your conduct in that section was an unbelievable IDHT and this is just more. There was no discussion to delete the Adams 2011 reference at all. He claims it was "unbelievable IDHT".

  • White, A. (2004). "A cumulative review of the range and incidence of significant adverse events associated with acupuncture". Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society. 22 (3): 122–133. PMID 15551936. See Acupuncture#cite note-White 2004-158. He thinks a 10 year old source is MEDRS complaint when newer sources can be used.

While he deleted the Adams 2011 reference he also added the 2004 Acupuncture in medicine journal written by the trade. Middle 8 claimed there was a conduct problem on my part but he was initially ignoring what he did and ignoring my comments about the duplication. Middle 8, you were causing and ignoring the problems. See WP:IDHT. Of course he wants me banned because he wants to do more edits like this left unchecked. I did not appreciate how Middle 8 conducted himself in this situation. The issue was resolved after I cleaned up Middle 8's duplication and restored text he deleted. He claims he accidentally deleted the Adams 2011 source and text.

But if you look further back in the edit history he did the same thing with another source. He deleted sourced text that was from a newer 2011 meta-review. He claimed he just moved the newer Ernst 2011 source but he did delete the text from the newer 2011 source. There was only agreement to use the date 2004 source for the 5 per one million numbers, not to also delete a 2011 Ersnt source. The current text is: "The incidence of serious adverse events was 5 per one million,[157] which included children and adults.[22]". This was not appropriate how he repeatedly conducted himself. What was most inappropriate is that he blames me for the problems when he started the problems. QuackGuru (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously retaliatory (I co-certified an RfC for this editor) and off-topic. (Factually inaccurate too, for the record... the bad edit was an acknowledged cut-and-paste accident). Might be worth collapsing the text (template hat/hab).... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe you when you say it was accidental, but, regardless, when accidents make it look like you are changing article text to skew it towards a contentious professional POV you must have, it is important that we identify the best ways to remain above the board. If you had had a strict policy -- as others do -- of not editing in article space when relating to subjects with which you have a vested interest that extends to financial spheres, this would have never come up. jps (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
STOP. Accidental duplication of an entire paragraph enumerating adverse events is not a POV-push. This is disruptive, retaliatory and underhanded. I posted here in good faith seeking feedback, and these posts from QuackGuru and jps are an attempt to poison the waters. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
He did delete the Adams 2011 reference but he also previously deleted the text from the 2011 meta-review. This happened on two different occasions. One time we could believe him it was an accident but he did it two separate times. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, this shouldn't even be here. But I will say that comments like this are why an RfC/U exists: repeating false allegations that someone has already corrected is not cool. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • A wikipedia article which describes pseudoscience/a fringe theory or alternative medicine is always going to be difficult for its proponents to edit neutrally since the article will be generally negative on the issues of validity and plausibility etc. A fringe proponent will inherently find it difficult to edit neutrally in such a topic. For example, I have yet to see a case where a fringe proponent consistently follows WP:MEDRS in their speciality. In the topic of astrology for example, the astrologers that have continued to edit the section about the scientific basis of astrology ended up being topic banned because they couldn't allow negative content about their discipline to stand. Something to consider, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture was a mid-life career change for me; I was a scientist before. The first response to this Ernst blog post by one "Skeptical acupuncturist" wasn't me, but nearly could have been. The climate was different in the '90's and acupuncture seemed so promising. At any rate, I do understand MEDRS and sticking close to good sources. I also know the profession from inside out, like Ben Kavaoussi, and can help evaluate TCM-specific sources. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
QG, I'm sorry you're disgruntled about the current RfC/U, but your comments plainly belong there, not here. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • There seems to be a bit of a question regarding whether or not there is a conflict of interest per WP:COI. I think this is the kind of case where the line get a bit blurred because "close connection" is fundamentally a grey area.
In my opinion, with this case, COIN should serve two functions. One is to determine if a topic ban needs to be placed on someone based on their connection to a subject whose article they are editing. The other is to help bring editors to a situation to attempt to solve a content dispute where personal beliefs may be affecting the outcome. WP:NPOVN was created exactly for that purpose as well (I think it should be reported there as well).
I don't see any need for a topic ban at this point. The discussion is heated and there are accusations of personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF but it looks like most of those accusations are based on a disagreement rather than personal attacks that require blocks. Even if they get to the point of blocks, they're not really close to warranting a topic ban. On a side note, falling back on personal attack accusations and personal attacks themselves are easily trumped by good arguments. I'm not saying that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF should be ignored - at all - but don't let yourself get caught up in that fight when the goal is to create a good article for Wikipedia (if that's not your primary goal, you shouldn't be editing the topic).
As for the content dispute, I agree with IRWolfie-'s statement. The controversy on Wikipedia will mirror the controversy outside of Wikipedia but the difference is that WP:MEDRS is a guideline for a reason and the community issued a topic ban in the case of astrology for a reason. If any participants find themselves disagreeing with WP:MEDRS or the topic ban, they need to realize that the playing field isn't same here as it is outside of Wikipedia. Making arguments that are based on the findings of sources that don't satisfy WP:MEDRS aren't going to be given as much weight, or possibly any weight, like they might outside of Wikipedia. Anything that's described as pseudoscience is going to be controversial and WP:MEDRS inherently shows Wikipedia's stance in that controversy.
Unless someone suggests a topic ban or blocks, I think this discussion regarding this report would be best served at the article's talk page. OlYeller21Talktome 20:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I will not be suggesting a topic ban because I don't believe in them. On the other hand, I do think it is problematic that Middle 8 has been consistent in insisting that he is completely above the fray when it comes to this issue. I suggested that he simply stay away from the articlespace and continue to contribute in the talkpage. This was rebuffed rather angrily, but I do not begrudge him that since he thinks he is in the right. Nonetheless, the last think I want is for this discussion to be interpreted by him in the future that he has no conflict of interest. I think he does have a conflict of interest, rather plainly so. I'm not sure whether that means he should agree to my suggestion or not, but the fact that he will not acknowledge this concern makes it difficult to have the conversation when it comes to looking at his activities. jps (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
If I didn't acknowledge the concern, then why did I start this thread? Unfortunately, your abetting QuackGuru's vendetta has completely sidetracked it, rendering any meaningful collective insight unlikely. We'll start afresh some other time, so no harm; but the drama and wasted time was preventable. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
You explicitly say on your user page about conflicts of interest that you have "None declared." That's simply not acknowledging that you have one. You could even couch it as, "I don't think I am acting untoward, but it is understandable why some think I have a conflict of interest." But you won't even do that. You won't acknowledge the existence of the complaint. jps (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, that's been my opinion till now, but because I might be wrong I came here -- so of course I acknowledge a potential COI. Not sure what your problem is ... I thought you'd be pleased by this development. And sure, I'll be happy to change the wording; my views are evolving, and I'm not rigid. I'm not going to press my view no matter what; that would be inappropriate and disruptive. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Wording changed on user page, thanks for timely suggestion --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. I haven't read through the entire situation so take this with a grain of salt - I suggest that both parties remember that our opinions on a topic aren't particularly important. The opinions of reliable sources is important. If reliable sources, outlined by WP:MEDRS think one thing and sources that don't satisfy WP:MEDRS think something different, the latter's opinion isn't included in the article. It's quite that black and white, obviously, but that's how things should be going.
We all get in arguments where we think our view is "right" but Wikipedia isn't concerned with what's "right" or "true" (as crazy as that sounds). Wikipedia reflects what's verifiable. Opinions published by Wikipedia should reflect the overall feelings of reliable sources.
Does that help at all? Again, I'm not completely familiar with the entire situation so maybe I need to shut my mouth (fingers). OlYeller21Talktome 21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Well-said. MEDRS is something I know well. I didn't mention it, but I'm also a degreed scientist, so I grok the literature. I will add, as gentle nudge, the jps's own biases have gotten him into some topsy-turvy positions with respect to MEDRS: see [thread] at WT:MEDRS. I think jps oversimplifies pseudoscience demarcation and discounts grey areas. Acupuncture is controversial precisely because the results are mixed, and jps's default position appears to be that all non-null results are to be discounted as the work of fringe proponents. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is the classic pseudoscience defense. It is no more valid when Middle 8 says it as when a parapsychologist says it or when a ufologist says it or when a creationist says it. It's all the same thing over and over again. Those of us in the trenches, it is claimed, see everything as a bullseye. What's not appreciated by the critics is that their particular fondness for their particular idiosyncratic idea is just as reasonable as the others who have particular fondness for their idiosyncratic ideas. The Vickers source has been impeached so well and so often it's not worth bringing up again, but, needless to say, independent sources all agree that its meta-analysis does not show efficacy in the way Vickers et al. have promoted it to have done. No biggee, just a slight little problem with the NCCAM funding junket. Not here to right great wrongs, of course, but the content is clearly not accepted as the last word on the subject, in spite of the protestations of, would you believe it?, acupuncturists. jps (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Like I said, your views on demarcation are oversimplified; the more scholarly sources acknowledge grey areas and multiple criteria for demarcation. Do you respect Michael Shermer? (Perhaps in a moment you won't.) He makes the exact same argument that you just called a classic pseudoscience defense. In a book chapter (in a book edited by Massimo Pigliucci, another prominent skeptic and expert on demarcation, and M. Boudry; 2013), Shermer classifies acupuncture as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. From what I've seen online, it's an impressive book. ... But see how far afield from the original question this is? I may need some level of moderation next time, and may have to have the discussion in user talk space where hijacking can be swiftly dealt with. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Acupuncture is not a pseudoscience. It is a practice that practitioners claim can provide certain medical benefits, but the arguments that these benefits exist ultimately boil down to pseudoscientific arguments. The best they've got is that there is a sympathetic nervous response which is beneficial, but they posit no evidence for this beyond the simple observation that putting needles in a living animal provokes a sympathetic nervous response (the benefits of this response are clouded in obscurity). It is important to make the distinction that the practice itself is not a pseudoscience, and only in the meanest sense would someone classify a practice as such. Putting onions in your room to ward off a cold, though a folk remedy, is just a practice. Only when you claim a mechanism does such a claim become pseudoscientific. Shermer understands this, even in the source you cite. You do not seem to understand this. jps (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
There have been a number of people who have contributed to this thread that are neither myself nor QG. They all mention at least a possibility of a conflict of interest. But, it seems like you're going to dismiss their comments as being somehow tainted. And you accuse me of being cynical? jps (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:IAD. When threads are hijacked, the depth of discussion suffers, so naturally I'd like to have a deeper consideration later. And of course I am grateful for the feedback we have been able to garner. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I Call Shenanigans. QuackGuru has posted exactly three comments and you replied to every one of them. Jps has posted six comments and you replied to five out of six. By comparison, you have made fourteen comments, and I have made one.
You are free to simply skip the comments that you don't like. Nobody will think the less of you for not responding. Quite the opposite, actually.
If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a QuackGuru-only feed and The QuackGuru Song by Gilbert Gottfried blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
@Guy Macon, my comments above are sincere; any apparent shenanigans are artifacts of my communicative style (which obviously needs work). But from your remark, I can see that my excessive replies ended up causing at least as much disruption as anything else. Maybe even more than all of them put together. Clearly this is a lesson in progress for me. Thanks, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • From Beyond My Ken, reposted[10]: I don't see why one's profession should be any less of a potential COI than one's employer -- it depends on the editor. Some can write about their work or their company in a straightforward and neutral manner, while others are so strongly connected to them that they cannot achieve objectivity. In the case of a quasi-medical procedure like acupuncture, which, by its very nature, cannot be studied using double-blind tests, and therefore is largely reliant on anecdotal evidence, and is highly subject to the placebo effect, there's always going to be a certain amount of clashing between those who truly believe in the technique, and those want to see some objective proof of its efficacy. That means that we need to be much more concerned about the self-interest of the people who edit the article. Given that, acupuncturists who edit it are bound to be held to the highest standard, which means a declaration of their potential COI and, if their editing isn't pristine, following full COI procedures. BMK (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) (reposted here 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC))

Hi User:Middle 8. Thanks for raising this issue - I brought myself to COIN too and understand where you are coming from. I ask you to step back a bit. We have never interacted. I looked at the acupuncture Talk page, and your Talk page, and thought for a while, and here is what I walked away with. 1) I like what you put forth on your User page. When I say "I like it", what I mean is that you appear to be pretty self-aware, and are WP:COMPETENT in WP:PAG and in the subject matter, and this is really important - comfortable calling something that is ambiguous, ambiguous (so much bullshit is generated from the need to drive things to black or white, when the best statement we can make from acceptable sources is grey). I can see how you wrestle with the underlying theory-of-the-body in TCM (what is qi?) and look to re-intrepret it in ways consistent with science; I like the frank and messy acknowledgement you offer in this sentence "Acupuncture itself is a crazy quilt of fringe ideas and testable propositions..." 2) Following on that, there are editors involved in the article who are clearly coming from the fringe, and others who are coming from a highly skeptical point of view, who are very sensitive to the fringe claims. I see that you are striving to stand on the side of science but there are lots of hard conversations. 3) You disclose on your Userpage that (i) you make your living from people coming to see you for acupuncture, and (ii) you have made a personal commitment to it, leaving bench science and spending your days as an acupuncturist. 4) This is a key thing - the latter (ii) is more important than the former. Everybody has a job. Not everyone personally commits to their work. Not everyone with a personal commitment to their work comes and edits Wikipedia. Not everybody like that, gets into extended arguments trying to add positive information or resisting negative information in the article about their work. When that starts happening, it raises questions. 5) General point: it is important to never forget, that as per Martin Luther, "reason is a whore". We all start with assumptions, and have goals, and reason can pretty much always connect dots that get you from your assumptions to your goals. Assumptions and goals are not themselves "reason" - they are worldview and commitments that are shaped by desire, experience, etc. This is something that smart people like you can forget. 6) Second general point: concerns about COI (or advocacy, as I will discuss in a moment) arise from others' perceptions, that your assumptions and/or goals are not aligned with Wikipedia's. 7) Now, addressing the question at hand. I think that to extent that there is sometimes a problem (and I think there sometimes is), it is on the line between WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY; the latter says "Advocacy is closely related to conflict of interest, but differs in that advocacy is a general term for promotional and agenda-based editing, while conflict of interest primarily describes promotional editing by those with a close personal or financial connection to the subject." There is an objective "hook" for the perception of COI, in that you have disclosed what I stated above in 3, and you have engaged in extended arguments in which you pushed for content positive about acupuncture or resisted content that is negative about acupuncture. The question in any one of those arguments, is whether your personal interests/commitments were overwhelming your commitment to PAG. (this is not about whether or not you made reasonable arguments in any of those cases - it is about where you were arguing from and what your goals were) 8) I was careful to say "sometimes a problem". An example: arguing to include a ten year old review when there are several recent ones, is in my view just wack. In this case, I can only explain your stance by guessing that the clear statement of safety in the 10 year old source is very important to the commitment you made to acupuncture and maybe also, something that you want to make very sure that everybody knows. (really, a ten year old source for a health-related claim!) 9) Summarizing: regardless of what determination is made here, please be aware of WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine) and especially the two tables in it. One of the tables points to potential problems; the other points to potential strengths. I think your contributions have generally been helpful; you know the literature and PAG and these competencies are wonderful; but when you run into resistance from folks who are experienced in applying MEDRS, please slow down and really listen to them and be more ready to yield; in these situations your personal commitments (assumptions and goals) ~may well be~ overruling your commitment to Wikipedia's goals. (I am not saying it always does) But be wary of your own reasoning for your position in those situations - it can be a distraction from the underlying issues. In those situations, please stop and really ask yourself what is at stake for you. The ones who raise the COI flag are asking it, and you should too. There you go. maybe tldr, sorry for that. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jyt - Far from tldr, I find your comments exceptionally insightful and helpful. You obviously "did your homework" regarding the topic area (and current controversies within it, on and off-wiki), my relationship to it, and my editing in general. Quite a pleasant surprise. (comments in progress -- I'm posting right now in order to "bump" the thread so that the bots don't archive it, and will add more presently... see also my comments at QG RfC. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 20:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
More @Jytdog: I've commented further below; per that reasoning, I think that potential editorial bias vis-a-vis profession per se falls under WP:ADVOCACY rather than WP:COI. That ties in with your point #4 about commitment. Although anyone fortunate enough to go to grad school and choose a career they like (and even moreso in a mid-life career change) can be said to have enthusiasm, a field like acu, in which there is presently controversy, is particularly liable to the temptation to rationalize biases that can easily arise from enthusiasm. That being said, I'm savvy enough to know that much of the controversy isn't so much about the science as the rest of the world catching up with and accepting the science. To the extent that reason is a whore, I'm not yielding to temptation where MEDRS's are clear. (You already know this, but for anyone following this exchange, I talked about a recent disagreement over MEDRS, in which I very likely appeared unreasonable, in the diff above, at the RfC discussion).
I'm grateful for your going the extra mile and giving such considered feedback and encouragement. More in other venues like my talk page. regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
please see below. btw, your statement above about "That being said, I'm savvy enough to know that much of the controversy isn't so much about the science as the rest of the world catching up with and accepting the science" is a bit eyebrow-raising to me - I am not aware of any "killer" study that proves that acu definitely works (way beyond error margins for placebo) for any given indication; that you would say that even here raises my level of concern that you might be editing on acu topics at times with an advocate's ax to grind, bringing a strong belief in the efficacy of acu that goes beyond what reliable sources allow..... oy. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) ... I meant that statement in exactly the opposite way that you took it. (I should have been explicit; you don't know me very well.) The science (which shows little if any evidence for efficacy) has yet to filter down to more popular sources and depictions of acu that overstate what it can do. A phrase that came to mind when I wrote that comment above, though harsh, was "it's all over but the shouting"; it's actually not time to stick a fork in it, but that time may well come in the near future, depending. ... You can assume MEDRS-literacy with me; remember, I'm also a scientist. It should be obvious to any scientist reading last year's pro-con editorials in Anesthesia & Analgesia which paper was thin gruel and which was strong medicine. The authors of the former admit as much in the title. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

General case

For quite some time, this sentence was part of WP:COI, and referenced in discussions of editorial COI:

"Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."

It was removed in this edit, part of a series of edits by an editor doing a general clean-up and copy edit (see series of edits by User:SlimVirgin in late October '12). I'd assumed there was a specific reason and consensus for its removal, but that doesn't appear to be the case (which isn't meant to reflect in any way whatsoever on SlimVirgin's conduct). It's a pretty important issue and obviously bears here, because if it's true then the conversation turns to circumstances in which we should make exceptions. So, I'm going to ask about it at ; needless to say, (a) I'll mention the existence of this thread, and (b) feel free to weigh in. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 06:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's still there, just in a different form. Read WP:EXTERNALREL, where it states, "But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia." I do agree that the previous language was clearer and I'm curious as to the justification for its removal. -- Atama頭 19:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I see that this was already addressed over on WT:COI with more-or-less the answer I gave. :p -- Atama頭 19:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does mean the same thing: here's my reading of it.
In terms of acupuncture specifically, I realized we already have a strong real-world precedent: academia. Acupuncturists write, review and edit publications in which acupuncture's effectiveness is discussed, in all types of sources (primary, secondary and tertiary). And they do so despite the points editors raise above re controversies in the field. Acu'ists are (co-)authoring and reviewing all sorts of studies, including the ones finding a lack of evidence for acu's efficacy (or evidence for its lack of efficacy). Acu'ists sit on review boards for groups like the Cochrane Collaboration, which is unsurpassed as a MEDRS. They're not considered to have COI just because they're acu'ists; they're just like any other professional writing about their field, for whom COI arises not from profession per se but from their "external relationships", as WP:COI puts it. Hence, an acu'ist would be conflicted in writing a review of various kinds of needles if he were being paid as a consultant for a company known for selling a particular kind of needle).
The fact that academia finds no COI inherent in simply being an acu'ist writing about one's profession, combined with the fact that global consensus on WP:COI hasn't changed, indicates to me that (a) acupuncturists indeed fall under WP's general case of subject-area expertise, and that (b) they are not subject to any exception arising from controversy over its effectiveness. If they can be trusted to make judgements about controversial aspects of acupuncture when writing MEDRS's, then they can certainly be trusted to edit in those same areas on Wikipedia! I'm comfortable with this analysis at a conscience level, a WP-community level and a real-world level, notwithstanding the fact that some editors will always disagree over any topic. Please comment, particularly editors uninvolved in current disputes in the acupuncture topic area. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
academics are not a good parallel. academics earn their living by a) getting a salary to teach and research b) which salary (in the sciences) often comes from winning competitive, peer reviewed grants; c) those grants and the research they fund investigate hypotheses solidly grounded on previous science. That, is not you. The better parallel is practicing doctors, who make their living based on patients walking in the door. The more people who believe that acu is safe and effective, the more potential customers you and other practicing acup'ists will have. And since the field in which you practice is controversial, having wikipedia say good things about it can only benefit the bottom line of you and your colleagues. Can you really not see that? (real question) I pointed you to Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) for exactly this reason. Please see the following quote (emphasis added): "'Being an expert', including being a licensed healthcare professional, has never been considered a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia community. However, in the past experts have tried to use Wikipedia to promote their own theories beyond their prominence within the scientific community, and that is always inappropriate." That is where the concern about WP:ADVOCACY comes in really clearly. But it is borderline, as per what I wrote above. There are elements of COI here, that you open yourself to when you push beyond what sources allow. I am totally sympathetic that you are dealing folks who (in my view) push too hard to invalidate the whole field and any possibility that acu may have a legit place in treating patients, but that does not give you license to push too hard the other way... Again, please do see the list of situations where Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) warns where healthcare professionals might find themselves in a conflict of interest, and please heed the advice there about what to do in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
(See also my reply just above; you read my comment exactly the opposite way I meant it). Yes, WP:MEDCOI makes sense, I take it seriously, and I understand the issue of docs who could profit from too-favorable depictions of their treatments. I mentioned that right there in the second set of bullet points under the thread-starter. I really don't think I "push too far the other way"; it all depends on my good-faith reading of sources[11], but an acu'ist either does or doesn't have a COI no matter how well-behaved s/he is.
I do think that standards in academia bear: I'm talking about acu'ists -- not MD's or PhD's, but people with acu-specific credentials, collaborating with the former -- doing research that may effectively cause their own profession to cease to exist. (Note, some of these people also get paid to do acu; I know some of them, and for some one can tell by the author info.)
I agree that the situation for acu'ists is closer to the ADVOCACY/COI border than the (very?) large majority of healthcare professions. If there is COI, abiding by WP:COIU isn't that big a deal, since in most senses it's a description of an ideal editor. But WP has never said that profession alone causes a COI and I don't think it should go down that road. All acu- and TCM-connected professionals need to take all aspects of MEDCOI very seriously. Expert editors in these topic areas should be encouraged, if they're doing good work; only if a user exhibits a pattern of self-serving bias should potential restrictions kick in, imo. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 00:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Hunter (artist)

We had a perfectly decent short article until today. It appears that a lot of it has now been lifted from the subject's website, with excessive external links in the article's body (many to the artist's website) and listcruft for external sources. One question is whether this should be cut to the pre-Tomhunterart version, to address all these issues in one swoop. JNW (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the external links list contains some sources that could be used in an article expansion, so I would leave those that appear helpful. Short of that, as the new material isn't referenced properly, I think it would be appropriate to remove it. That would be more helpful than using a high number of improvement tags for issues that may not be fixable but for the removal of said content. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good approach. The current tags, as well as starting a thread here, have the secondary purpose of slowing down the COI accounts to allow objective parties time to improve the article. I must leave the keyboard now, but may return to this later. In the meantime anyone who'd like to implement the above suggestions, or at least keep an eye on the article, is welcome. JNW (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
For the moment I've done a preliminary cut of content to the pre-copy/paste version. JNW (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
As a minor update, Tomhunterart has messaged me on my talk page and asked for help understanding why his updates weren't accepted. I suggested he use the talk page in the future; so it does appear that we have some kind of confirmation that the artist himself is behind the edits. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Very good. Since then I've added some properly sourced content back in. JNW (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Brian Edwards (celebrity talent executive)

Promotional edits on behalf of Brian Edwards. Perhaps someone could retitle the main article as well; the 'celebrity' alone is puffery. JNW (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sahara India Pariwar

The user account seems to be a single purpose account. His/her contribution log and edit pattern suggests than he/she is editing on behalf of Sahara to promote the company interests and using Wikipedia as a platform for WP:Promotion. He/she has been given final warning twice for adding unsourced content and not adhering to npov. User is interested to edit only related articles (Sahara India Pariwar & Subrata Roy). A soft block is warranted to draw the user's attention towards Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

user:Cotswold Tiger/The Study Society

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears these have a conflict of interest. Cotswold Tiger (talk · contribs) is an SPA. Overly promotional language. The article misdescribes pseudoscience woo promoters as "leading scientists". Refuses to acknowledge a COI when politely asked. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether The Study Society is notable; but I'm struggling to find independent sources for it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what an SPA is? I simply wanted to contribute information about an organisation which is a Registered Charity and has a very long history - surely that makes it notable. There is no conflict of interest except that I have long been interested in the history of it, if I wasn't interested how could I write the article?
If there is overly promotional language, then let's remove it, I have no wish to promote it.
Claiming the article promotes fringe views is ridiculous - it doesn't give or promote any views at all, it just says what the organisation does. There is a huge list of references provided.
Some of the named people are proper scientists - look them up in Wikipedia!
I don't understand why Barney has decided to attack and vandalise the page. He seems to be on a crusade. I reverted his vandalism and he has reverted it back. I can't fight a fanatic.
I have no interest in wasting my time with this Barney's trolling and if Wikipedia can't deal with people like him then the article will be lost and a little knowledge removed.
--Cotswold Tiger (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
This article is a description of a society that "is a centre for the study and practice of a number of approaches to self-discovery and spiritual development" so it describes their study and practice. I don't see the basis of accusing Cotswold Tiger of a conflict of interest just because he chose to edit this article. Maybe he "refuses to acknowledge a COI" because there is none. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much Liz. Barney has just sent me a threatening message saying I may be blocked for reverting his vandalism several times. I am a beginner at Wikipedia, he is clearly an expert, and it seems I have no chance against him. He has added tags saying the subject is not notable (despite registered charity, been around since 1971), and that it presents fringe theories, when it presents no theories at all.
What we have here is one person (or a group) determined to attack pages they don't like, not because they really break Wikipedia rules, but because they have a campaign to promote their personal views. I have not yet learned how to find out what Barney gets up to on Wikipedia, but I took a wild guess and looked at the Rupert Sheldrake page - sure enough there he is again, trying to impose his views of the world. Any advice will be welcome. I just hope I'm not now going to be blocked as threatened by him.

--Cotswold Tiger (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that Cotswold Tiger was "politely asked" about a COI... Was that an attempt at humor? It's pretty blunt, even curt to say, "State if you have a conflict of interest with The Study Society." Then it becomes an interrogation when you follow up with, "Answer the question." BtBB, I'm warning you, if an editor removes content from their user talk page, leave it alone. Edit-warring to maintain accusations on an editor's talk page is very aggressive, and you already have a spotty history with edit-warring.
Costwold Tiger, you don't need to feel intimidated, and feel free to remove that information from your user talk page if you'd like. If Barney the barney barney reinserts the information I'll block them, it's that simple.
Now, to get to the matter at hand, I don't see that there is a conflict of interest, necessarily. Cotswold Tiger may have a narrow focus, sure, but that doesn't equate to having a COI. It's not even accurate to label them a single-purpose account, because I see edits like this one and this one that don't seem to be related to the society. A COI may exist, but that is usually determined by an editor's disclosure of information... For example, if Cotswold Tiger stated they were editing on behalf of the society, or claimed to be a member to demonstrate having special knowledge or authority on the subject, or gave a real-life name that was known publically to be a member, something like that would determine COI. But it's difficult to make such a determination absent such disclosures, and continuing to badger an editor about the subject is harassment.
I see there is now an AfD for the article. The notability of the article should be determined there. By the way, Costwold Tiger should have been notified by the AfD as the article creator and a significant contributor to it. -- Atama頭 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Atama: Thanks for your input. I had not been notified of the AfD. I am shocked that the whole thing might so easily be removed because of one determined person's personal views. If it really reads like an advert, that is unfortunate and of course it should be edited so it doesn't - I still think it reads as factual. But to claim that this organisation is insignificant, given its long history, seems quite unfair.

Please can you tell me how I challenge or reply to the AfD? Do I simply add some text to the AfD page? Please point me in the right direction. Thanks. --Cotswold Tiger (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It can't be removed because of one person's point of view. An AfD is a discussion page where editors are invited to comment on whether or not they feel the article should be kept or deleted. It is not a vote, where the number of people asking to "keep" are counted against the people asking to "delete", the result is generally determined by the strength of arguments on both sides, and how well those arguments seem to satisfy Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You should reply at the AfD itself with your comment. The tradition is to start your line with an asterisk (*) followed by a "Keep" or "Delete" followed by your reasoning. Usually, the word "keep" or "delete" is put in bold text (using three single quotes on either side, like: '''Keep''' and not with double quotes like: """Keep""") to draw attention to what the gist of your argument is. For example, a Keep argument may look like this:
  • Keep - This article is notable because the New York Times wrote a long article about it, and it was the subject of a documentary on PBS -- Atama頭 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Usually, we keep or delete an article based on whether or not it is notable. An article is notable if it has significant coverage (more than a passing mention) in reliable sources. I see that the article already has a large number of sources, so what will determine its notability is whether or not those sources are considered reliable (I'll say right away that references to The Study Society itself and its publications aren't), and whether or not the coverage is substantial. You may also find additional independent sources not already in the article to strengthen its notability. If you can successfully argue notability, and convince others to your viewpoint, then the AfD may conclude with the article being kept. An AfD usually lasts for 7 days, though it can possibly last longer. At the end of 7 days an administrator will decide what the consensus of the discussion is and will make a decision. -- Atama頭 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Atama: Thank you for all your guidance.

--Cotswold Tiger (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Triumph International

I am affiliated with Triumph International, which is currently a stub that I would like to work on bringing up to "Good Article" status. I've offered a draft on The Talk page and was hoping someone might take the time to review my work, verify that it is an improvement to Wikipedia and - if appropriate - merge the draft with article-space per WP:COI. Any help would be appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Economy of Serbia

Hi. In the interest of transparency I'm declaring that the Government of Serbia is my client and I wish to contribute to the Economy of Serbia Wikipedia article. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

@Vivj2012: You've made a very good and conscientious approach to this matter by disclosing your COI (both here and at the article's talk page and by choosing to suggest changes rather than trying to implement them yourself. If you haven't yet, please read WP:PSCOI which is a very handy guide for people who have conflicts of interest and want to contribute to Wikipedia; it's written in plain language without a lot of jargon and is intended for editors in a position like yourself. I suggest it only because it may be helpful for you, not because I think you've done anything wrong. -- Atama頭 22:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

The English-language Uncyclopedia, originally at uncyclopedia.org, was forked in January 2013 after Wikia attempted to censor its content. Wikia has left the old project open in direct competition with the new one, en.uncyclopedia.co, and "Spike" or "Spike-from-NH" is an administrator on Wikia's fork of this project. That puts him in very blatant WP:COI as he has been repeatedly removing information on the fork (and the context behind it) from Wikipedia's article on Uncyclopedia. Other users have requested repeatedly that he stop, but the content deletion continues. K7L (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I invite perusal of Talk:Uncyclopedia and of my talk page. The active question is whether certain text is independently verifiable. This has been under discussion on the talk page since Beetstra, most recently, asserted on the talk page that the Fork website is not automatically notable. The text in question concerns the rationale for creating the Fork. The only thing approaching sources is posts of the Forkers themselves. My deletion of that text, made after two days' notice, has been under discussion for nearly two weeks, during which no one has asserted verifiability and all the conversation has been ad hominem. K7L's claim shows he is as personally involved as I am; a neutral observer would not conclude that removing pornography and, for a while, imposing a Content Warning was "censorship" nor describe Wikia's continued operation of its website as an offense against the Fork site. Cathfolant, Isarra, and DungeonSiegeAddict510 are active on the Fork, the first two under other names.
Regarding "repeatedly removing information," my role for the last year has been to change overt advocacy to a more neutral presentation. I neither agree with Beetstra that the Fork is non-newsworthy, nor with K7L et al that it is the exclusive new home of The Community. I have been trying for Wikipedia not to take sides, starting with K7L's false description about a year ago of the original website as "seemingly abandoned."
Discussion of my COI is a tactic to evade discussion of the accusers' COI, and to divert from discussion of the edit in question. The Forkers have used Wikipedia as one of their battlegrounds to divert viewership to their site. Their goal here is not encyclopedic content but victory by silencing an opponent. Spike-from-NH (talk)
My -3 cents on this, is that at least have there be links to both the wikia version, and the fork. Both are different implementations of Uncyclopedia. Like you have Ubuntu, and then you have Kubuntu, both different implementations of the same project. Consider the wikia site Ubuntu, or the master copy, while the fork is Kubuntu. Both are different, have their flaws and features, and bring something different to the table. However, both do share the same backbone, of misinformation presented in a satirical, or nonsensical format. What I did yesterday, unaware of this situation, was simply notice the lack of a link. Anyways, I don't wish further conflict, as it might impede my ability to write about yo-yo's and such on this fine encyclopedia. I will have no further say in this matter, as yesterday's doing was merely out of the fact that both deserve to be recognized equally, not one over the other. Again, same underlying concept, different implementations. I do not wish to be involved deeply in this matter, so please do not use my name as evidence or whatever. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 19:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If we were to take every statement in Wikipedia's article on Uncyclopedia which is from primary sources instead of WP:RS and delete it outright, this would be a very short article - maybe even a stub. That might be an option... but if this is done, it should be done to the entire article (and not just the discussion of the split in the English-language wiki) and should be done by someone who is not connected to the subject matter. Allowing an Uncyclopedia administrator to selectively remove info from our article about Uncyclopedia is a WP:COI nightmare and violates WP:NEUTRAL rather severely. K7L (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I said I wouldn't say anything more, but if needed, I could talk about the split from a non-biased standpoint. Despite conflicts with the wikia site, I'm still neutral towards both sites at the time of this statement. But of course, if someone more qualified is around, by all means, they would be better than I. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Ok I hate to pop in with such an unrelated and annoying comment but please, DungeonSiegeAddict510, the nounderlinelink, sigexpand and sighidden spans in your sig don't work here, so they're just taking up space; your sig takes up six lines of code, too, which I think is kind of wrong. Might want to peek at WP:SIG.
As for Spike...I wouldn't single him out, no, but imho he has been committing the same exact ad hominem offence he accuses others of doing, apparently in an attempt to deflect criticism. This whole section is just a pile of uncyclopedians going at each other. Gack. Cathfolant (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Finally, don't confuse bans and blocks. They are not the same thing here. Now enough nitpicking, I must be off. Best of luck. Cathfolant (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Btw Isarra does not belong in this, Spike, as she has not been involved in editing the article. Don't bring in uninvolved editors for no reason. Cathfolant (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No, indeed. Isarra's role was to post to my talk page pressuring me to make my life happier by unwatching the Uncyclopedia article. Coordinated "independent" posts is a recurring theme of this dispute; IPs have made your most outrageous edits so that editors with usernames can focus controversy on the revert.
DungeonSiegeAddict510: Unfortunately, your analogy sidesteps the central issue of notability. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
What makes you think there was any 'coordination' going on? I see no evidence of any such coordination so it appears you are simply assuming bad faith. Furthermore, I believe Isarra to be an excellent and honest wikipedian and uncyclopedian who has a lot of respect for rules, so suspecting her of coordinating others to further her supposed cause even though she says she has recused herself seems to me nothing less than ridiculous. Cathfolant (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Isarra posted at Section 15 and 19 of my talk page, not with "excellence, honesty, and respect for rules" but to pressure me to withdraw, threatening the process that you have now initiated. I did not claim she posted anonymously. Of course members of the Fork coordinate their actions on their IRC channel and in their Forum, or you would not be here, nor certainly DungeonSiegeAddict510; as you now post at the Fork about manufacturing "independent" press coverage of your website to satisfy concerns such as those of Otterathome and Beetstra. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I am actually banned from #uncyclopedia IRC, so I wouldn't know. My stake in this is of nil value to me. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
That is your interpretation of the events, and I do not believe it is accurate. Pressuring you to withdraw is perfectly reasonable, as it is quite obvious to almost everyone but you that you have a COI and should not edit the article or at least take extreme care, and I would assume good faith that she really does not want you to stress yourself out by keeping an eye on the proceedings here; that is understandable also, as you have seemed stressed lately to some of us. You are failing to assume good faith on Isarra's part. I have not initiated this process as you so strangely claim but rather K7L. You have not claimed here that she posted anonymously, but you did imply as much on your talk page when Isarra said she would recuse herself from the Uncyclopedia stuff and you said you didn't buy it because plenty of anons had been editing the article; and in any case I have amended my statement here accordingly as you did not claim that here. As for your last sentence, this latest discussion (which for those interested can be found here) has in all likelihood no bearing on whether Isarra coordinated anonymous users, and though I take just as negative a view of manufacturing notability for the fork as you do, I believe it is only natural for us to discuss such things and participate in discussions here, and referring to it in the way you have done seems another failure to assume good faith. You might well be very pleased if the forkers could be all found guilty of gaming the system or whatever it is, as then you would be able to deflect any concerns about your own behaviour, exactly as you say is our intention - but I will assume good faith and go on as if you were not doing that. Cathfolant (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Another user removing content, User:Otterathome/Uncy, appears to have an agenda here. Not sure if this qualifies as COI, but certainly WP:SOAPBOX fits. I've taken that issue to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Otterathome/Uncy as we're here to write an encyclopaedia, not turn Wikipedia into a soapbox for opinions on other projects. K7L (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Mitch Meyers

Note: This is the resumption of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_70#Mitch_Meyers this recent discussion in which there was no disagreement that this was a COI matter, but about which no action was taken. The editor was quiet during the period that the COI discussion was up, but has now resumed his actions by restoring those edits to both Zipatoni and to Mitch Meyers. To restate the original complaint: "Editor has been adding and restoring promotional statements, BLP content not in listed sources, and deleting CN and COI tags, among others. Editor (whose only edits have related to a current company, two of its founders, and a previous company they were involved in) has a verifiable WP:COI, and has avoided discussion of that COI on talk pages." Second editor listed is an apparent sock. I ask that appropriate actions be taken to prevent such edits to these articles. If there is some additional action that I must take to move this forward, let me know. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel like a merge of the three together might fix the problem; probably better than raising the issue here as that attacks the editors rather than the content. If we do a merge debate on getting the three together we can see if there is enough content for a single article. Do you think a merged article would be notable enough? I would read through all the sources but I assume you have a better grasp of the material. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I've had enough of this. I'm going to block Nickroady as a promotional-only account, and block ATB90 as an obvious sock. As to what to do with the articles afterward, I'll defer to others, but whatever happens it will be a lot easier without a marketing person edit-warring puffery into the articles across two accounts. -- Atama頭 21:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Jeremy, raising the issue here was necessary because every attempt to deal with the content was being undone without conversation by the COI editor. Now that Atama had kindly taken care of that problem, forward motion can resume... and that can generally be done off of this noticeboard and in the articles themselves. Thank you for getting involved there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
I in no way disagree with the actions taken in this scenario. I proceeded with a merge, but saw a different editor nominated the article group for AFD. I'll allow others more involved in the situation such as yourself to take the lead from here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine

The above user is adding promotional material and removing cited content despite multiple warnings/reversions. aqwfyj Talk/Contribs 18:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I gave some further advice. Maybe repetition will get the point across. DGG ( talk ) 07:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ninja Sex Party

I noticed this article woefully lacks sources for notability, so I created a discussion to delete it. Upon looking at it, I found out the article was created and written by a user named "Bwecht". Brian Wecht is a member of the band. See here. So it looks like he created a page about his own band. The only other edit was to also promote his band in other articles. I've given this user a COI warning. This user however has not made an edit in years. Posting this here in case this may warrant further action. I don't know. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really, not if the editor has been inactive (as this one has). If the article is deleted (and it seems to be headed that way) there is probably a good amount of cleanup to do, including what you see here and the three articles about the duo's albums (which can probably be deleted via WP:PROD). -- Atama頭 16:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry / Gogvc

Yank Barry's organization's Twitter name is Gogvc. User Gogvc insists on removing any cited mention of his prison term from Barry's article and also insists on reinstating mention of his non notable Nobel Peace Prize nominations. Various notifications have been ignored. - Richfife (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That article is a mess. Check out the history of the article's talk page and look at some of the stuff coming from IPs over the years. I'll look into the editor's actions specifically soon. -- Atama頭 16:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The COI is obvious. I've put the article on my watchlist, any further edits from this editor that either remove sourced negative material or add puffery and I'll give a formal warning, and if it's ignored I'll block them. -- Atama頭 16:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I've flagged the user for username violations, so he's likely to soon be at least temporarily blocked. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Good call, since Global Village is an organization then it's technically a violation of WP:ORGNAME, especially considering the nature of the edits. I'm still keeping this article on my watchlist, even if it is blocked (hard or soft block) I wouldn't be surprised to see other accounts and/or IPs appearing to try to push these edits through. -- Atama頭 17:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, fixed that, but may have used too big a hammer. John Nagle (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The article didn't mention his real business at all. As founder and CEO of VitaPro, he pioneered the marketing of textured vegetable protein as a meat substitute. In the early days, he got in trouble trying to sell the stuff to the Texas prison system (the inmates didn't like it). Their customer list is still heavy on prisons, though.[13]) That's where he got the money for his philanthropy. John Nagle (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The VitaPro story is more notable than his musical work. Big scandal in the Texas prison system. Head of the prison system became a sales rep for VitaPro. Lots of press coverage. A second conviction, overturned, and then scheduled for retrial in 2007. Still trying to find out how that came out. Great quote from the Texas Supreme Court: "TDCJ presented evidence that the frequent serving of VitaPro demoralized the staff and inmates and led to adverse health effects, including rampant flatulence." Plenty of reliable sources for all this. John Nagle (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with some of the new changes, as they are well-sourced, but I think that overall they violate WP:UNDUE. I'd rather cover this at the talk page of the article though, rather than here, since this thread will be archived eventually and remain unconnected with the article itself. Changes to the article should be discussed there for the benefit of others working on the article. -- Atama頭 22:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. Copied the last two items to Talk:Yank Barry. We can pick this up there. John Nagle (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wena Poon

The user name is a fairly clear hint that the user has some connection to the subject of the article. As I noted at Talk:Wena Poon, this user and possibly another IP user appear to have a conflict of interest, but the author who is subject of that article might be notable. I also suggested at User talk:Wenapoon that the user should take care with any possible conflict (diff). The user responded by adding external links to a publisher and a book in the article and then blanking the user talk page. Cnilep (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think your concerns are valid. This editor has essentially outed herself by choosing a username that matches her real name, which is also easy to figure out based on the nature of the editor's edits. Your advice is good, but the article definitely will need some work to ensure that it remains neutral and is properly formatted. We also need to make sure that claims in the article are properly verified by the sources given. If the editor is the source of any trouble (starts an edit war, begins exhibiting ownership of the article, accuses you or others of defamation, threatens legal action) then you should notify this noticeboard for support. As far as cleaning up and expanding the article, you could see if other editors belonging to related WikiProjects are willing. -- Atama頭 19:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiss Trust

User has a statement on talk page that user is employed by company that is the subject of this article. (In general the article had been written like an advertisement and the user who wrote the article, who is not this user, has been seen suspiciously since that has been noticed recently.) The article has been a low-interest article until the company recently ran into some controversy (discussed on talk page). The controversy was added as a new section on the article. This user removed that edit [14]. The page was also nominated for deletion. User noted on the article deletion page that the company was being persecuted through this nomination. [15]. Edit war developed among other users and this user was reminded of COI guideline on user's talk page. Rather than bowing out of edit war, about 10 hours later user again edited in apparent violation of COI guideline [16]. In my opinion this user needs to let other users who are more impartial handle the controversial edits because the user seems more interested in Kiss Trust's best interest rather than Wikipedia's best interest. Furthermore, I suspect paid editing because as was noted by another user the IP trackpack is consistent with Kiss Trust's offices. Tripleahg (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: * 71.62.10.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may also be involved- this user is using similar wording as the above user and has a history limited to writing promotional content on the Kiss Trust page. This user recently deleted the controversial section entirely, without participating in the discussion on the talk page [17]. It may or may not be relevant, but another user has noted that this IP address is in the same city as the law firm representing Kiss Trust.

As the user didn't add the statement to the userpage themselves, I'm inclined to regard it as attempted outing, rather than self identification of a COI. Either way, I can't see the article surviving at AfD, so it may prove to be moot. - Bilby (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology

Hi everyone

I have been concerned for a long time now that two editors, psyc12 & iss246 may have COI in their editing of the occupational health psychology and related articles. I have tried to express my concerns to both editors, but I have been ignored. So I now present it right here. These issues can then be examined openly by the community and if any conflicts of interest do exist, they may be identified by others and then addressed appropriately.

Psyc12 and iss246 have admitted themselves as friends and colleagues outside of Wikipedia; psyc12 joining Wikipedia on iss246’s direct invitation. They are also active members and advocates for the Society for Occupational Health Psychology and the ‘goals’ of that professional society. They edit in unison, ‘appearing’ at the same time, on the same articles, presenting the same POV, and often even answering questions that were directed to the other editor. See [18]

There are also paid connections between iss246 at least, and the articles in question. This is what editor iss246 stated yesterday admitting a paid connection and outside interest. “I was fortunate to have won two NIOSH grants for OHP research.” 'iss246 04:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC) see here [19]

Recently external links have been added to the article relating to the same organizations that iss246 is being paid for his ‘OHP’ research. These external links also seem quite promotional given the strong personal affiliations both editors have with these organizations in the real world.


This could all be deemed quite acceptable and not COI at all? But I would just appreciate other’s comments here specifically on policy regarding COI as I am finding it difficult to add anything to these articles as a single independent and neutral editor with no affiliations with any of these organizatios. Thanks for the input.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

For context read yesterday's entire exchange on External Links here[20]. Last month Mrm7171 was blocked for 2 weeks for incivility, and has been blocked twice for edit warring. What is here is part of a pattern of accusations and personal attacks that has been going on since they started editing last May. Psyc12 (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a straight up content dispute to me. SOHP looks like a legit professional organization. You have not offered any explanation for how receiving a grant from the government agency NIOSH constitutes paid editing for SOHP, which is a completely different entity. The external links are also for professional and academic organizations, and I am having trouble understanding what concerns you about them. One of them looks like a branch of the CDC. I think the tag team editing is a little odd, but am not aware of any guidelines that it violates. Suggest resolving on Talk page. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Mrm7171's complaint is without merit. Bear in mind that the complaint comes from a person who has been banned a number of times for misbehavior on Wikipedia.
For the record, I am an academic, a research psychologist. I have had grants in the past from NIOSH/CDC for OHP-related research. Mrm may not know this but when an academic is awarded a grant, he or she earns some summer pay (one month or two months), nothing more, but it is for the enormous amount of work the academic does for putting a study in the field. And the last time I had a NIOSH grant was more than 15 years ago. Does he think I can be bribed into writing about NIOSH? Does NIOSH care if I contribute to Wikipedia? Does SOHP care? I care. That's about it.
Finally, I add that Mrm7171 is arguing with me right now about whether to include on the OHP page a mistake scholars made about who coined the term "occupational health psychology" first. It is a relatively minor point. I made the statement on the OHP talk page that only a major attribution error should be included in the encyclopedia (e.g., the Nobel Committee made a mistake by not awarding the Prize to someone who deserved it or awarded the Prize to someone who did not). I argued that it is a pointless exercise to clog up an encyclopedia entry with minor points even if the minor point can be backed up with "three reliable sources," as Mrm7171 is wont to say. I responded that if every minor error ever made that could be documented with three or more sources were included in the encyclopedia, the encyclopedia would be ruined as a resource. This is the kind of nonsense Mrm7171 wrangles about. I have growing doubts about Mrm7171's competence as an encyclopedist. I thought his last banning, which was in January of this year, would lead to some reform in his behavior. I was wrong. I think he should be banned permanently. Iss246 (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with Formerly 98 that these can't be considered paid editors, not unless they are receiving grant money specifically to edit Wikipedia.
  • Operating together could be considered tag teaming, which can lead to problems but in itself isn't necessarily a problem. It's not unusual for editors who are in agreement to communicate off-wiki (I've done so myself), or to support each other.
  • I do agree that there are some legitimate COI concerns here, though. If Iss246 and Psyc12 are members of an organization, I strongly recommend taking care when referencing the organization or writing about the organization in articles. So far, the only clear connection I can see is that both editors are "active members and advocates for" SOHP, and so I would at the very least suggest that they should be careful with any edits relating to that organization. The best case scenario would be to stick to only non-controversial edits in reference to the organization. I don't see such a clear connection in regards to NIOSH, APA, EA-OHP, etc. And of course, as subject matter experts their contributions to OHP-related topics should be welcomed (while of course being careful to maintain a neutral point of view).
  • Mrm7171, I'm well aware that you have a block log that indicates a difficulty in collaborating with other editors, and you have a tendency to get into trouble at the OHP article and when interacting with these editors. Please do not use my determination of a COI concern in regards to SOHP as a bludgeon in content disputes, especially in regards to edit-warring and personal attacks. I know that you have been blocked for both in the past, but the COI that I'm concerned about is very specific, and I'm not prohibiting either editor from editing about or (especially) talking about SOHP (nor would it be in my power to do so, that would be a de facto ban which is beyond the power of a single administrator). And please keep in mind that whatever dispute you are having should be dealt with in the usual manner, regardless of any COI concerns. -- Atama頭 18:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Atama. I was very careful to word this case in a civil manner. First of all, I need to say that my block was 45 days ago now and still it is being brought up to discredit me, despite my exemplary behaviour since. Rather than retaliate, I will instead calmly present some more relevant information on this page as these issues of COI are very real, long term and need to be addressed. For the record I did not say iss246 was a paid editor, only that they admitted receiving grant money, (which can often be substantial) from NIOSH for ‘OHP’ research. I only mentioned it as another example as to how psyc12 and iss246 are ‘way too close to these topics’ in the real world, to be considered anything close to ‘neutral editors’ presenting a NPOV (good and bad) based on all reliable sources.

In fact, this COI relating to 'OHP' and the society of 'OHP' has caused significant disruption to effective editing related articles, since 2008, between iss246 and many other psychology editors who have tried to reason with iss246 about their intense personal 'focus' and very close affiliations and ties with occupational health psychology (OHP) and related topics, in the real world. See here User:Iss246/RfA review Recommend Phase and here Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 Many of those editors simply ‘gave up,’ or got inadvertently banned or blocked in the process, as iss246 seems very skilled in discrediting others to ‘deflect’ what has really been going on here, for the past 6 or 7 years. I note that iss246 is again desperately calling out for my ban for daring to bring these matters up and present them here in an objective and appropriate manner.

More recently as been editor psyc12 (another ‘OHP’ society member), who has now ‘joined in’ making editing these articles even more difficult. In relation to the mention of Wikipedia:Tag team Wikipedia’s definition is “that tag teaming is a form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." I think based on the objective edit history this is ‘exactly’ what has been happening. This is not just ‘innocent communications’ between two editors outside of Wikipedia either. The reason I brought up this case here, was on the direct advice of an administrator who thought the case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive was better dealt with here at COI. The fact is, psyc12&iss246 are still acting as a tag team which has significantly disrupted editing, but ‘only’ in these specific articles and topics, of direct relevance to members of the ‘OHP’ society.

Today is just another example where iss246 & psyc12 conflict of interest, is disruptive of the normal editing process see Talk:Occupational health psychology. This small edit would be of no consequence to either editor, in any other article, if it did not relate specifically to an anomaly in the literature, explaining the ‘history of OHP’. So today iss246 went straight back into that article, (despite it being agreed we wait for other editor input) and again blindly deleted another editor’s well constructed edit with 3 reliable sources attached which reflected that anomoly. See here. [21] Apparently as psyc12 said, it makes a number of authors (who also happen to be members from the ‘OHP’ society) look bad, despite it reflecting what the reliable sources 'actually say.' Psyc 12 wrote this: “There is no need to call out 3 groups of authors who made an error.”Psyc12 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)? Wikipedia articles should present information with a NPOV. I did not write that sentence either, but it was well written, concise, encyclopedic and based on reliable sources. I have stood back today, instead of reverting and not engage in edit warring with psyc12 & iss246. That is 'the trap' I and other good faith editors, over the years ‘fell into’ over ‘OHP’ and these COI issues.

Carefully presenting this case here has taken me significant time and energy and is made in good faith and certainly not spurious, despite psyc12 & iss246’s attempts to discredit me and 'deflect' from these core issues of COI. I have also done so in a manner consistent with Wikipedia guidelines. It comes after 7 years of iss246 having conflicts with other editors over these issues with ‘OHP’ and I am requesting action and actual 'parameters set' please, to at least restrict the editing of iss246 & psyc12, in this occupational health psychology and closely related articles. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

These wild accusations by Mrm7171 that Iss246 and I are in some kind of conspiracy to promote the Society of OHP or the field of OHP has been going on since last summer, and it is getting tiresome. I have tried to focus only on issues on the talk pages, but I am continually personally attacked when I disagree with them. Other editors too have been attacked for the same reason. If I often seem to agree to Iss246 on issues it is because Mrm7171 continually adds unreferenced and incorrect information into articles that is obvious to almost anyone with expertise on the subject. I have worked on quite a few articles, and no other editor has undone my edits, attacked me personally, or tried to insert incorrect unreferenced statements into my edits. Psyc12 (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The concern is relatively simple. A scholar made a misattribution regarding who coined the term OHP first. A minor misattribution such as this is not important enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Bear in mind that I am not protecting anyone (Mrm accused me of that) because I don't know the misattributing scholar personally. On the other hand, a major misattibution, such as an error the Nobel Committee made regarding who deserves the Prize, does merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The broad COI issues appropriately raised here, and on the direct advice of an administrator at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iss246/Archive, are relating to your active memberships of 'OHP' societies and promoting their interests (above the interests of Wikipedia) into the occupational health psychology and other related articles, and not allowing any other related disciplines and professions from being mentioned in these articles, or indeed any reliable sources to be used in the article, preventing a NPOV.

Instead of psyc12 & iss246 taking note of what I thought were fair and objective points made by administrator Atama, regarding the specific COI issues with their membership of the society for OHP, these editors have instead aggressively ‘lashed out’ at me personally and made ongoing baseless claims without any evidence, to 'deflect' these identified COI issues. Atama’s advice also seems to be completely ignored by psyc12 and iss246. See here from the past 24 hours objective edits: Talk:Occupational health psychology I also present further evidence based on this edit history of what appears to me at least, very consistent with Wikipedia's definition of Wikipedia:Tag team, (particularly tag team characteristics in that article) and Wikipedia:Ownership of articles However I may be wrong. So here is some recent editorial from the last 48 hours, for others to make that judgement instead.Talk:Occupational health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Around January 16, in the health psychology talk page Mrm7171 accused me of both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry as if I somehow could control Psyc12. Although Psyc12 and I share some of the same views, we also have different views. For example, we had different views regarding whether to include in the health Ψ entry reference to i/o Ψ. Psyc12 supported its deletion. I did not. This tag team charge is baloney and a diversion from what is a real problem.
The real problem is that Mrm's edits and claims are often destructive:
  1. Destructive behavior that got him banned a few times from Wikipedia.
  2. Walls of text on talk pages.
  3. Inserting minor points in an entry as if they are major (e.g., a scholar misattributed the coining of the term OHP to another scholar).
  4. Attempting to pigeonhole OHP as a subdiscipline of, first, i/o Ψ.

look at

  1. Later, attempting to pigeon OHP as a subdiscipline of health Ψ.
  2. Still later, attempting to pigeonhole OHP (once more) as a subdiscipline of i/o Ψ.
  3. Denigrating the president of EA-OHP because he is a medical doctor.

NO, I did not denigrate this person. That is a complete fabrication. He may be a very fine medical doctor. Where is your evidence I denigrated this person iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. Claiming EA-OHP and SOHP are "clubs," and not really learned societies.
  2. Claiming I am opposed to all external links (e.g., industrial hygiene) in the OHP entry when I raised objections to the external links he proposed (which were not directly relevant).
  3. Claiming that ICOH-WOPS has nothing to do with OHP.
  4. Claiming that I don't like Tom Cox, the founder of the journal Work & Stress, as if Mrm7171 could read my mind; for the record I have on talk pages said I admire Tom Cox.
  5. That NIOSH has nothing to do with OHP.
  6. Accusing me of not having a doctorate then changing his mind and accusing me of having a doctorate.
  7. Accusing me of not being a professor then accusing me of being a professor.
  8. Accusing me of being paid off by NIOSH or SOHP to insert external links on their behalf.
  9. Another editor wrote about Mrm with regard to Mrm's ban in January of this year: "I feel that he will probably not be able to change sufficiently to become a useful editor, at least within the areas of his distinctively strange ideas. I would support a indefinite ban, preventing him from editing all psychology subjects." This quote was from one of the only Wikipedia editors Mrm likes. Can you imagine the views of the editors he does not like!
  10. Raising again and again scurrilous and often irrelevant claims that have no merit.
It goes on and on. I will say it. I think he should be banned from Wikipeda. Iss246 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Iss246 I can see you are trying to make this WP:Boomerang on Mrm. Please note that a) you need to present difs if you want to make claims about what Mrm wrote - you cannot just make assertions (making such assertions just makes you look bad); b) this is not the board that will produce a block or ban of Mrm; you are kind of wasting your efforts and everyones' time in trying to do that here (which again makes you look bad). I reviewed some of the difs that Mrm presented and I don't think he has a good case that you have a COI; you do seem to be advocating for your field pretty consistently and you may want to consider making sure that you don't cross the line in that regard going forward. For example, in the discussion over adding OHP to the psych template, you never really responded to what those opposed to you were actually saying, and instead just kept repeating yourself and pushing for what you wanted. Happy to discuss this elsewhere if you like; this is not the place to go into that, as it is COI board.Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, my response to your comment is on your talk page. I can document every claim I make. 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am disappointed that iss246 is allowed to post such a tirade of unsubstantiated, biased personalization, and in point form, no less, running down this page. My case (appropriately presented here and on the advice of an administrator) is not spurious and certainly not scurrilous. However iss246's baseless irrelevant claimsabove are purposely distorted and fabricated, without any evidence or diffs to back them up and are clearly misplaced in this COI forum, in a desperate attempt to 'deflect' these genuine advocacy and promotional concerns that many editors have over the years as well as your 'dogged' editing on these issues against all consensus see again here your discussion, particularly DctorW's final comments to you regarding your promotion of OHP into the applied psychology sidebar against all other psychology editor's consensus iss246.Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 under the header: Psychology:Sidebar, 3 March 2011. DoctorW's comments are very telling and I concur with his frustration. see comments here

[22]

I was tempted to respond to each of these claims 'one by one,' but stopped myself This is not the place to do so. Iss246 is clearly 'deflecting attention from the actual diffs and evidence I provided to support a pattern of advocacy and promotion for over 6 years of your society for 'OHP' advocating and the conflict of interest points raised by administrator Atama. You will not listen to anyone else. You seem not to understand what is wrong with promoting your outside interests in these articles on Wikipedia. You won't take direction. You think it is your right to do so. You continue to make baseless claims, without evidence, which can be considered personal attacks in that context. Your stringent opposition in those 'OHP' related articles to any other independent editor adding a NPOV is obvious. See the 'walls of text' created here in the last 48 hour to my attempts to add 'anything to this article'Talk:Occupational health psychology. That is why again, I am again asking Atama, to please make this clearer to iss246 & psyc12 and place some parameters on their promotional editing and conflict of interest in articles relating to their 'OHP' society membership.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact is, these COI issues have nothing to do with me personally. They existed long before I joined Wikipedia in 2013. I am just bringing these matters into the appropriate forum, as an administrator advised me to do. I am also including as much objective and ‘relevant’ editorial and behavioral evidence as possible, and specific to this long term COI issue. Administrators and other members of the community can then decide what further action may be taken, if any. In fact, these COI issues with iss246 & now pstc12 and the society of 'OHP' have been ongoing now since 2008 between many psychology editors. See here. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1. It is also seen here, in these series of diffs, from 2008, between iss246 and another experienced editor. These diffs show difficulties iss246 is presenting over the same topic of ‘OHP’ and including ‘external links’ to their society for ‘OHP’ in the OHP article. See: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

These COI issues involving iss246 & now their colleague psyc12’s ‘real world’ affiliations with the society for 'OHP' and now apparent financial gain, through ‘OHP’ research grants, have been ongoing since 2008 and clearly involve many different editors. I have nothing to do with the COI of these editors and should not be personally attacked for daring to bring these long term issues and disruptive editing to the community’s attention. I openly declare that I have no COI in the real world and edit all articles with a NPOV and in good faith and for the past 45 days have been civil, respectful and courteous in my editing. However I also expect the same. I am simply asking that some 'actual parameters' be set on the editing of iss246 & psyc12, in this occupational health psychology and closely related articles.Mrm7171 (talk) 08:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be giving too much weight to what is simply ordinary professional activities and membership in professional societies. I was a member of the American Chemical Society for 25 years, but that was simply the default choice for someone working in the field of chemistry. If I go out and join an advocacy group for home schooling or an environmental group, that likely reflects a much greater ideological commitment. Being a member of the American Chemical Society and having received government grants for chemical research does not constitute a COI disqualifying me from commenting on chemistry issues in general - its simply the norm for anyone practicing chemistry as a profession. I suspect the same applies here. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that members of the American Chemical Society would take ownership of the chemistry article or use it as a promotional tool for the goals and advertising of your professional society Formerly98? The two 'OHP' society members iss246 & psyc12 have been placing multiple external links, all leading back to their Society website, their OHP society newsletters, and other promotional and advertising material, including conferences that the 'OHP' society pay for sponsorship, and any and all, of the other affiliations so heavily promoted throughout this article. Just like the chemistry article though, the occupational health psychology article is instead dedicated only to the broad topic of occupational health psychology which is a multidisciplinary topic.
This article in my opinion at least, should not be so heavily influenced by an 'OHP' professional society, and its members and include only carefully selected and screened content as far as reliable used and the masses of promotional material for just one 'OHP' society saturating and clogging the article. That would be like saying the chemistry article for example, could 'only' include external links, opinions and content from the American Chemical Society, their journal, and their members. Why then are these two 'OHP' societies so 'prominent' in this content of this separate article, mentioned over and over, when so many other relevant fields, professions and reliable sources also deserve inclusion, to achieve something close to a NPOV? This 'OHP' society also has its own article. However occupational health psychology (just as chemistry or cardiology or any other similar example) is not synonymous with the 'OHP' society just as chemistry is not synonymous with the American Chemical Society? I would be interested in other editor's opinions on these advocacy and promotional issues identified?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
What material should be included, then, that is not from these OHP societies? Does the material in some way promote the societies? Is it biased in its presentation, by making assertions shared by these societies and not showing a differing viewpoint? Or are you just objecting to anything being included that is referenced to these societies? I'm not dismissing your concerns here with these questions, I remain at least a bit concerned about two advocates of an organization relying too heavily on material provided by that organization as references for an article. But I'm trying to figure out what kind of bias it's introducing to the article to have those references. -- Atama頭 18:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology and the Society of 'OHP' are distinctly different topics and different articles. My example above was the broad general topic and article on Chemistry, compared for instance to one of the many different private chemistry societies and groups around the world, that may be interested in the broad topic of chemistry. They are far from being one and the same. The same principles applies here. On one hand the broad topic and article on occupational health psychology, which many different professions and disciplines, journals, texts, courses, practitioners and so on are involved with around the world. And then, on the other hand, one particular 'OHP' ‘society’ with its own unique culture and internally governed, by its own set of rules, regulations, ideologies, agendas etc. Iss246 & psyc12 are both members of this privately run 'OHP' society and both very strong advocates for the goals and viewpoints of their society. That is why Atama has correctly identified the COI issue and other editors have further identified advocacy and promotional issues based on evidence provided on this COIN.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is currently clogged to the brim with information about the ‘OHP’ society and events and affiliations. For example, the entire section on Historical Overview, in the current article, especially 'developments after 1990' almost entirely relates to the historical overview of the 2 Societies of 'OHP' not the field or topic of occupational health psychology, which this article is supposed to be about. Mentioning specific government and private organizations like NIOSH, that these 2 editor's 'OHP' society may be associated with, and pay (through sponsorship deals) to be associated with, seems of no relevance to the article on the topic of occupational health psychology. Why is this article clogged with advertising and promotion to events relating to their private 'OHP' society?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
In fact, iss246 has created his own separate 'OHP' society Wikipedia article, which is fine, I suppose? However these associations, conferences, paid sponsorship deals, newsletters selectively placed and used as reliable sources throughout the article, with further advertisements and promotional material for iss246 and psyc12s private 'OHP' society, placed in these 'OHP' newsletters used as reliable sources, in their newsletters, and so on, should be mentioned in this 'OHP' society article instead? I think these sections, for a start, are examples where psyc12 and iss246's COI with their 'OHP' society, is creating biased editing in this broad and general occupational health psychology article. They are promoting and advertising multidisciplinary conferences that their separate 'OHP' Society may pay for financially, to sponsor, and to be involved in, and have their 'marketing logo' displayed.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 has completely ignored and discounted Atama’s correct assessment that there are “legitimate COI concerns here,” and the strongly made recommend for iss246 and psyc12 to take care when referencing their organization or writing about the organization in articles. iss246 and psyc12 both continue to assert that they personally know and/or are friends with many of the authors they have ‘chosen to include’ as reliable sources?

Also there is significant ‘over use’ and insistence that their OHP society newsletters, (which also contain a degree of internal advertising) are used as independent reliable sources (often over other more reliable sources). In fact in the occupational health psychology article alone, there are approximately 20 of these PDF links back to their ‘OHP’ society newsletter as references.

Maybe this over use of newsletters would be acceptable if it wasn’t for the COI issues with these organizations in the real world? Iss246’s & now psyc12’s ridiculously strong and blatant promotion and Wikipedia:Advocacy (since 2008) is definitely continuing to create disruption to editing. Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 [32] [33] Here iss246 is arguing with another editor that his inclusion of ‘OHP’ should be granted based on the “work” he put into the article, not policy? [34] This other editor seems amazed at iss246’s 'belief' that he should be “rewarded" for hard work?[35] And then another experienced psychology editor comments on iss246 arguments for his ‘OHP’ societies.[36] Can anything be done, to counter these blatant and ongoing advocacy and COI issues?Mrm7171 (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours iss246 has blanked substantial sections of neutral, reliably sourced material from the occupational health psychology article, relating to their real world memberships of these 'OHP' societies and community with no diffs or evidence to justify their blanking? Just some examples of iss246's blanking today: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Instead iss246, continues to discuss his 'real world' interests and memberships of these related organizations? see here [42] and Talk:Occupational health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 03:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71&oldid=1138419103"