Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest | Noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 06:38, 1 August 2009 editMiszaBot II (talk \| contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 3 thread(s) from Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:40, 3 August 2009 edit undoAthaenara (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits adding inactive 80+ kilobyte Circumcision discussionNext edit →
Line 109:		Line 109:
	No immediate action requested from all of you, I just want to give the alert. --] \| ] 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)		No immediate action requested from all of you, I just want to give the alert. --] \| ] 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
	: It happens. It happens often enough that the COI guidelines specifically mention editors paid to make promotional edits. Replying to the advertiser isn't a bad idea, because generally when these kinds of things are found out the community takes a very dim view. Most likely that person will find himself paying someone to create an article that is either speedily deleted or removed through AfD (depending on the state of the article), and will find his money wasted. -- ''']]''' 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)		: It happens. It happens often enough that the COI guidelines specifically mention editors paid to make promotional edits. Replying to the advertiser isn't a bad idea, because generally when these kinds of things are found out the community takes a very dim view. Most likely that person will find himself paying someone to create an article that is either speedily deleted or removed through AfD (depending on the state of the article), and will find his money wasted. -- ''']]''' 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

			== ] ==
			{{Resolved\|Closing 80+ kilobyte thread which has dominated this noticeboard for weeks; one hopes the related discussions elsewhere have been more productive. — ] ] 09:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC) }}

			{{Discussion top}}

			{{sidebox\|related discussions: <small>(added 21:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC))</small><br/>
			]<br/>
			]<br/>
			]<br/>
			]</br>
			]<br/>
			]<br/>
			]<br/>
			]
			}}

			{{clear}}

			* {{userlinks\|Jakew}} - This user has been accused by me and others of having a COI. See ] and ]. Recently someone has tried to place a COI tag on the page and ] an involved admin has reverted and protected the page claiming BLP NPOV and NPA policies. Please help. ] (]) 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
			**Note. This incident involves what I see as an unfortunate, and potentially dangerous, ] of POV and COI in order to marginalize an editor. To start implying that people with POV's are automatically subject to COI is, in my opinion, both incorrect and against our policies, and I recommend that this not be taken up here on the COI board where it does not belong. ] is background to the most recent incident. Thank you. -- ] (]) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
			***And where should we discuss COI? You disagree and others agree which is why I have brought the matter here. ] (]) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
			**COI's get discussed here. Jake has no more COI than you, Blackworm, Tremello22, and Michael Glass do, and it is disturbing to see what I perceive to be a shift to casting aspersions on the messenger being that attacking the message has failed. -- ] (]) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
			***Just because you disagree does not make it so. It's in the wider communities hands now. Let us see how others weigh in on this. ] (]) 20:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
			***I perceive you as having a similar POV as Jake regarding circumcision. If I'm confusing COI with POV why have I not accused you of a COI? I'm not ''attacking'' anyone. My concern for the project is genuine. ] (]) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::Hello there, I'm a completely uninvolved editor who hasn't had any previous contact with any of the editors involved here (that I can recall, at least recently) and haven't edited in the disputed article. I've read the discussions given on the user talk pages linked above and I think I can understand what the dispute is. Let me first point out that ] is not the same as ]; a conflict of interest is noted in Misplaced Pages because it makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a neutral point of view, but not everyone with a certain point of view has a conflict of interest. It's the same as saying that all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples. Having said that, ] is somewhat wishy-washy (by design I suppose) and it even states "there are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists". But it does cite examples to give an idea of what might constitute a COI.

			::::I don't believe a COI exists here. The examples given in the guideline include having a "close relationship" with the article subject (or being involved in a legal dispute with the subject), being paid to edit to promote an organization, self-promotion, editing your own autobiography, or campaigning on behalf of an organization that is trying to advocate a POV regarding the article subject. The "autobiography" and "close relationship" criteria just don't apply to this article because it's neither about a person nor an organization or product, but a medical procedure. I don't see any evidence or even allegations that Jakew is being paid for his edits, that he is trying to promote himself, or that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). He wrote some papers discussing circumcision, but while those papers might reveal a potential POV they don't in any way show a real conflict of interest.

			::::I'll give some examples of where POV doesn't mean a COI. If a person was a dedicated neo-Nazi, that doesn't mean he shouldn't edit on a race relations page, though any POV edits he made could and probably should be reverted. If a person had a userbox on his user page stating that he believes that the Earth is flat, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to edit articles regarding planetary physics. It's only when a person has a proven connection to a person or organization that is directly related to the article subject that a COI can be established. I really don't see it in Jakew's case.

			::::I know that some editors have wanted to apply a looser interpretation to the COI guideline than what I've given, but I'd like to caution against that. Establishing a COI can be difficult, and generally requires either an admission on the part of the accused editor or some solid evidence. Simply showing that a person has a bias, or that a person has made edits that promote a particular POV are not proving a COI at all. Keep in mind that there is a ] that deals directly with POV problems in articles, and if you feel that Jakew or others have added material in violation of ] that your report might be better suited there. I'm not an admin, these are only my opinions, so take them or leave them as you wish. -- ''']]''' 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::::Thank you for your thoughts on this matter Atama. The problem for me is that it kinda of looks like " that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). " for all the reasons I've listed on our talk pages. ] (]) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::::In that case, (1) name the organization and (2) give evidence that Jakew is associated with it. Again, that is what is needed for a COI allegation such as that. Simply stating "this editor looks to have a POV, I bet he's a member of a circumcision group" is insufficient and is definitely not ]. The COI noticeboard should not be used as a tool to attack an editor without sufficient cause in order to prevent his contributions to an article to settle a content dispute. -- ''']]''' 17:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::::::Well now you are not assuming good faith. I came here for clarity on the COI issue and do appreciate your opinion but to accuse me of using this board to attack another editor is simply unfounded. Your conditions are not listed in ] and it is purposely vague on the definition. I have agreed to not press the issue further as long as neutrality is adhered to. ] (]) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::::::I'm not ''accusing'' you of attacking, per ] making accusations about an editor's personal behavior without evidence is considered a personal attack. I don't understand at all when you say "my conditions are not listed in ]", as it should be obvious that when you accuse someone, you should actually back that up with some kind of proof as opposed to saying that it "kinda looks like" he is guilty. I'm relieved that you're not going to press the issue further. -- ''']]''' 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::::::::I didn't come here and say "Hi I think user Jakew has a COI." The matter had been on our talk pages along with a myriad of reasons which you stated you read. You may disagree with those reasons but that is no excuse for you to say I have used this board to attack said user. This back and forth of AGF and NPA looks silly and childish and I am discontinuing this thread. ] (]) 14:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

			*Note See for discussion which resulted in removal of resolved tag. Personally, I believe Atama went out of his way to try and explain the issue civily and clearly to Blackworm, who either does not, or does not want to, understand the difference. -- ] (]) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
			:"Does not want to" = ], as part of a pattern of harassment. I believe I have been just as patient and civil in expressing my interpretation of the guideline (not "explaining" the guideline, a word I find presumptive and belittling in this context) to Avi and Atama. I would not be so rude as to imply that Atama does not "understand there is no difference" or indeed "does not want to." I invite the reader to read the entire discussion there and comment. ] (]) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

			:In reply to ]'s latest comment in , reproduced here:
			:: If "campaigning for an idea" could be a COI then COI would be redundant, any time you make an edit that is slanted toward a particular POV, you're "campaigning for an idea", so what would be the difference between ] and ]? COI is specifically for someone editing to the benefit of a person or organization that they are tied to, that doesn't include someone editing for the benefit of an ideal. Simply put, it's along the lines of a McDonald's CEO editing the McDonald's article and writing "McDonald's is great according to most people" in the lead. But, if you still think that Jakew has a COI despite all that I've said, that's no problem, I'll remove the "resolved" tag because clearly the issue isn't, and you can bring up any arguments you like there. I don't think I'll participate any longer because I believe I've said all that I have to say on the matter. Thank you. --
			:No, whether an edit slanted to a particular POV is evidence of that editor's "campaigning," or merely an unbalanced edit, an edit touched by the editor's inherent bias, or an error, depends on the intention of the editor who made it. CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, ], was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive. Whether Jakew is campaigning here, or merely repeatedly making non-neutral edits bolstered by the support of other editors bold in reverting and threatening, is a question of ] -- but my understanding of ] is that if there is reason to think an editor may be campaigning, and that editor definitely campaigns as part of a campaigning group outside Misplaced Pages, then a COI exists. I'd be interested in hearing more opinions on the subject. ] (]) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
			:And by the way, my understanding of the difference between ] and ] is that the former refers strictly to article content, steering entirely clear of issues that necessitate evaluations of editors, especially of editors' off-wiki activities and associations and correlation with their areas of editing and the points of view advanced by those edits. The latter does indeed refer to this evaluation. ] (]) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

			I will spare the regular respondents to this noticeboard my reply to Blackworm, which may be found here ]. However, it remains pretty obvious to me, and others, that Blackworm is ] POV and COI, and my years of experience with him and his edits makes it harder and harder for me to ] on his part. If anyone has an extreme POV on circumcision, it is Blackworm. Please see ]. I must commend Atama for his patience, civility, and perseverance, trying to ] to Blackworm. I would invite other uninvolved editor opinions as well. -- ] (]) 04:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

			Avi users come here to this notice board on their own volition, just like you. One swing at the bat does not make an average. Just because one uninvolved editor agrees with you does not make it gospel. The reason I originally brought the matter here was to try and get a wider community response. I respect Atama's opinion but one editor does not stand for the entire community. I 2nd Avi's request to others please look at Blackworms RFC and his talk page. Compare Jake's, Blackworm's, Avi's and my own edits over time and use sorrels tools to see edits counts and time spans. Let's be civil and stop attacking one another and let the readers decide for themselves. ] (]) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

			:I was asked to comment here. As things stand, I don't see where the COI would lie. A COI exists when an editor advances outside interests over the interests of Misplaced Pages. To accuse Jake of COI, you'd have to indicate which outside interests he is advancing, and not only advancing, but advancing ''over the interests of the project'' — because it's possible that outside interests ''and'' WP would both want the same information included in an article. Having a strong POV is not in itself evidence of preferring outside interests, though people with a strong POV should be careful to bend over backwards to be NPOV — for example, by making sure they edit regularly from both perspectives, or from a disinterested one. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

			SlimVirgin "A COI exists when an editor advances outside interests over the interests of Misplaced Pages." That's where my concern lies.
			*Blackworm states "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, ], was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive."
			* Jake has also worked closely with notable circumcision advocates.
			* Written and published material and letters to editors promoting circumcision.
			* An extremely high edit count twice that of the next user (Avi) on Circumcision and related articles.
			Is it not possible that with all these factors combined Misplaced Pages is being unduly influenced with Jake's POV? ] (]) 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

			::What you listed above is evidence of a point-of-view. Looking at Jake and Blackworm's respective history, it seems that Blackworm has been pushing a specific point-of-view much more than Jake, so I am not certain as to why you are not chasing after Blackworm with the same zeal. The fact that Jake happens to be reputable enough to have his work published in peer reviewed journals is a '''good''' thing, in that it establishes that he has an expertise in this field that others of us lack. As long as his edits are withing the grounds of NPOV, and I maintain it is easy to see that they are, there is no issue. If Van Howe were to create a wiki id and start editing, should be toss him out because he is the author of strongly anti circumcision papers? I'd hope not, as long as he edited appropriately. All the points you list, Jake's expertise, respectability in the field, and commitment to the article are good things, Gary. As long as the high edit count is of edits that are not POV violations, that is a plus and a benefit to wikipedia. It is only "campaigning" to Blackworm, in my opinion, since Jake's strict adherence to the POV rules prevents Blackworm from skewing the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii. -- ] (]) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::Please provide one diff showing where I " the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike the above factual error. ] (]) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::Thankfully, Jake's adherence to NPOV prevents that. We do know on the . -- ] (]) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::Thank you for making my point with your two (2) '''Talk''' diff links from two years ago. As you've said for Jakew, how I feel and how I express it in Talk doesn't harm the article. Jakew's non-neutral edits to the articles, as evidenced by the diff links I provide, hurt the articles. Again, please either provide a diff link to the articles that you believe violates NPOV and which "reflects circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike that unfounded accusation. ] (]) 04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)



			SlimVirgin, respectfully, by whom were you asked to comment here and on AN/I, and have you worked with that editor in the past?

			I outline above what I consider to be the evident outside interests of Jakew, how I believe those interests are closely related to those of Misplaced Pages (they both publish authoritative material) and why I believe they are viewed by several editors as being advanced over the interest of the project. Do you have a comment on that?

			Distinct from merely having a POV, Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group, as a means to publish authoritative material, which he appears to admit has a higher proportion of such material supportive of circumcision that the collection of such material: Jakew writes, "It might be more accurate to talk about 'papers that assert a benefit', etc. It's true to say that there are more of these, though, partly because that's true of the literature in general, and partly because of the history of CIRCS." More pro-circumcision material partly because of the history of CIRCS? The explanation for the latter: "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature. It created what I suppose you could call a kind of "information availability bias"". He was countering what was perceived as an unbalanced representation of circumcision by providing an unbalanced representation of circumcision in the other direction, essentially. That interest enough appears incompatible with prolifically editing ] (#1 in number of edits). Furthermore, some editors in ] are concerned because they feel that Jakew seems to often present a questionable account of a source, or a perfect account of a source putting circumcision in a favourable light, rarely if ever integrating sources putting circumcision in a negative light, and almost invariably fighting against inclusion of the latter. Repairing these issues takes considerable effort, and Jakew defends his edits with long, often tangential discussion, always claiming no consensus against him. Some appear to blindly support Jakew's edits with one-line expressions, and rarely seem to check the sources he brings to make sure Jakew's summary is appropriate. That appears to be the source of the concern. Jakew states that in 2003 he "became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision." I think he openly publishes this as his ''raison d'être'' at Misplaced Pages, as he proudly displays barnstars commending him for "dealing with the onslaught by anti-circumcision activists," i.e. referring to certain Misplaced Pages editors. Can anyone imagine a barnstar commending anyone for "dealing with the onslaught by pro-circumcision activists?" That kind of enthusiasm when supposedly adhering to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines might be considered distasteful, and even bigoted in the case of preventing extreme pro-circumcision editors from editing, as circumcision is a requirement of some religions. As it happens, it is so considered by some; suggestions of the bigotry of those having a different point of view is a recurring theme, having great potential to thwart civil discussion and bias article content. No one likes to be accused of bigotry, few have the personal conviction to continue to argue their points when the accusations are made, and few want to be associated with people who are viewed by powerful administrators to "come off as" bigots, or even be seen supporting them despite the correctness of their interpretations of policy -- especially if they have aspirations of adminship themselves. But I digress.

			Atama's criteria, which seems limited to a set of examples presented in the article, is precisely the legalistic interpretation of this policy I feel plagues discussions invoking various policies and guidelines. If it's against the spirit of the guideline, it's against the guideline. The guideline says, "'''This page in a nutshell:''' Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Misplaced Pages remain paramount." Note "your own interests."

			Atama appears to boil down the criteria to a set of specific examples, instead of applying the spirit of the guideline here. I suspect Avraham's biased comments about editors deceptively attacking an editor poisoned this discussion early. I don't blame Atama if he was influenced by Avraham's comments, as Avi is a Misplaced Pages bureaucrat after all, and greatly respected outside ] and related articles, biasing any attacks he makes greatly in his favour. Anyway, Atama said, "you'd have to indicate which outside interests he is advancing, and not only advancing, but advancing ''over the interests of the project'' — because it's possible that outside interests ''and'' WP would both want the same information included in an article." Yes, we do want some of the same information, but we want it interpreted neutrally. We don't want Jakew to read the following quote in a British Medical Association paper, "medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven," then edit a circumcision-related article to quote them as saying "medical harms have not been unequivocally proven," (note the intentional redaction of "and benefits") as he did apparently to create a counterpoint. We don't want to consistently ''have to have'' someone, usually me, checking the sources and making sure Jakew's edits are fixed to adhere to the ], which I did when I noticed it . We can't have editors skewing what the British Medical Association says, advancing a proven personal interest. <small>In the dispute over this addition (even properly quoted, its relevance is disputed in a statement on psychological effects), Jakew's defense of his edit rests on the novel assertion that "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects."</small> And no editor apparently has equal time or interest in the topic to verify the sources behind all of Jakew's prolific editing. Sadly, those who evidently have the time to do lots on Misplaced Pages, but not the inclination to oppose Jakew anytime, instead hound me on my contributions anywhere, on any topic, to the point of RfC'ing them: see ] and ]. Apparently for some high-level Misplaced Pages administrators, edits by Jakew are always right and don't need checking, and edits by Blackworm are always wrong and need immediate opposition.

			We don't need to go through the examples to see that if Jakew is promoting his own interests (his proven interest being the publishing of authoritative material in a biased way in other to counter other perceived bias). It's not an exhaustive list. Whether he is doing it intentionally isn't the issue. Whether he is doing it over the interests of Misplaced Pages is ultimately up to Misplaced Pages. Maybe it is Misplaced Pages's interest to counter perceived existing bias (or perceived deception) with bias, as ] apparently suggests (and I also oppose, on the grounds that it is better to "avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another."]). ] (]) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

			::: Funny you bring that one up; firstly we ended up agreeing on the matter. Secondly, it may pay to see who devoted significantly more time to bring that article up to wikipedia standards. -- ] (]) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

			::::Please point to the diff where we ended up agreeing on the matter. We apparently implicitly agreed only that Jakew's redaction of "and benefits," apparently to avoid any unfavourable light cast on circumcision by his invalid counter-point, was in violation of ] and inappropriate (though not you, Jakew, nor Coppertwig has ever commented on the redaction itself). Whether that article is "up to wikipedia standards" seems in dispute, so your second sentence is nonsensical. A nice clean, referenced pro-circumcision pamphlet isn't any improvement from a dirty mess of OR, or indeed a blank page. ] (]) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::. -- ] (]) 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::Oh, I'm so glad I asked; I assumed you were referring to the "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" as a concocted counter-point to a statement on psychological effects. In the case you provide, you argued back and forth for at least four posts, posted an RfC, and only changed your mind after unanimous support for my position from others in the RfC. I'm glad you avoided appearing as the lone dissenter in a dispute -- it's quite marginalizing and no one wants to experience that. ] (]) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::I'll also note that your first edit to that article came 17 minutes after my first edit to the article, strongly suggesting that you watched my contributions and followed me to that article. You claimed that this odd case of countering me to an article unrelated to the topic of any of our previous interactions was due to our "overlapping interests;" that "we have many of the same pages watchlisted." Since your first edit to the article came after mine, I praise you for your claim of watchlisting pages you've never edited, despite your already huge workload. Do you watch and read every edit to those articles, or just those by editors you claim "don't like" you? ] (]) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
			:'''Note:''' I believe Blackworm has mischaracterized what Jakew said. Blackworm said (in a comment above of 02:35, 16 July) "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." I don't think Jakew said that. Blackworm, you may paraphrase what another editor said and introduce your paraphrase with "As I interpret it" or "My paraphrase is", etc., or you may say what the person actually said (same verb, same phrases etc) and introduce it with "as stated by" etc., or you may state that someone said something and provide words that would be acknowledged by the person themself, or by typical uninvolved Wikipedians, to be an accurate representation of what they said (though I don't recommend attempting this when discussing someone with a different POV; it's too difficult to get it right) but please don't do what I think you've done here: present your own paraphrase after "as stated by", as if that was what he had said. Since the option of verbatim quoting is always available, there is no excuse for mischaracterizing what Jake has said. If uninvolved editors make comments here based on such statements (which I believe to be incorrect), those comments may be invalid. Blackworm, your sentence may be ambiguous and confusing because it's not clear how much of the sentence is supposed to be described by "as stated by"; would Jake really state that he would counter "websites providing authoritative material", or would the "authoritative" part be your own description, rather than "as stated by" Jake? Please try to avoid writing sentences with those sorts of ambiguities. I'm not aware of Jake having made any statement about the purpose of CIRCS in which he called another website "deceptive". If Jake did say that, please provide a quote and link or citation.
			:I believe Blackworm is also mischaracterizing what Jakew said in this comment: "Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group": I'm not aware of Jakew having stated that he founded an organization or group. I believe he has a website where he himself posts material, not an organization or group as far as I'm aware. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::Before you accuse me of mischaracterization, perhaps you should (a) note that Jake refers to himself as the "founder" of CIRCS,, and that (b) the "contact" link on www.circs.org has a page which says, "To contact '''us''', please email ." The latter implies a group, not just Jake, unless Jake is using the "royal we." Also note the CIRCS contains both reproductions of sources, and original material putting circumcision in the best light: for example, "Anti-circumcision groups claim significant detrimental effects, though offer only anecdotal evidence." The site refers to this original material penned by Jakew as "unbiased reviews of the literature." One of the references he cites (presumably part of what Jakew considers "the literature") suggests, "THE ONE AND ONLY LINK! "The Vacuum Pumpers Site." <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:15, July 21, 2009</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
			::::Just to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding, Blackworm, CIRCS is indeed a website. I suppose you could call it an "organisation of one", if you really wanted, but I think it would obscure the point somewhat. Currently I am the only person responsible for the site, but it's always possible that someone might volunteer to help me in future. I don't believe that owning a website ordinarily constitutes a conflict of interest, except where that website is actually used or discussed in Misplaced Pages (and to my knowledge nobody has complained about my ] to that). ] (]) 09:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
			:In partial reply to Blackworm's question: SlimVirgin was asked to comment here by Garycompugeek as a result of SlimVirgin having posted at the ]; I don't know who had asked SlimVirgin to comment at the ANI thread. <span style="color:Red; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::Who asked SlimVirgin to comment on the topic first, which you say you don't know, is the relevant question. Is someone in a position to inform us who it was? I appreciate the disclosure that one was asked to join a discussion, but it seems incomplete without saying by whom it was, and what prior work if any was done with that editor. ] (]) 03:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::'''NOTE WITH BIGGER AND BOLDER LETTERS:''' I believe Coppertwig is misrepresenting what I said. (For disclosure: ] works closely with Coppertwig and nominated Coppertwig for administrator .) I said, "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, ], was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." Jakew said "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature." Is this "one-sidedness" of CIRP, while seeming "superficially to be so comprehensive," evidence of "deceptive activities?" If CIRP is "presenting such a distorted selection of the literature," is CIRP engaged in "deceptive activities?" I don't think it's any stretch to label what Jakew said about CIRP an accusation of deceptive activities. I believe your verbose comment above may be diverting attention away from the real issues. Please comment on Jakew's redaction of "and benefits" from a BMA quote put into the article, referred to above, instead.
			::Is CIRCS a group, or just Jakew? Does anyone else help run the website or does he do it all himself? Unknown to me. I admit I assumed it was a group or organization. As it turns out, it doesn't matter. Whether it's an interest of an organization, a group, or a personal interest taking precedence over Misplaced Pages's interest, it's a COI, per ]. Maybe Jakew's personal interest stops at using his own resources to create a website and publish selected authoritative material in order to counter real or perceived anti-circumcision bias in other online sources: he wrote, "So I decided to focus, in general, on papers that were not available at CIRP, the idea being that for any given subject, the index pages for CIRP + CIRCS should be complete (or if not complete then at least not leave out too many important papers)." The importance of the papers "completing" the online sources, of course, being judged by Jakew. But how is Jakew's judgment?
			::We recall the BMA quote redacted above as evidence of what Jakew considers important and unimportant. As you also may recall, Jakew states for example, while arguing an edit, "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept that very few reliable sources even mention, let alone pay significant attention to." In contrast, the British Medical Association states, "In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks." ] the latter BMA quote when it was referenced in the article, pointing to Jakew's argument, which boils down to "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects.". That novel assertion is the basis for the current disputed article content. Apparently, if Jakew was not able to make this concocted counter-point (in which Jakew just happened to redact the words "and benefits," avoiding the BMA stating that medical benefits have also not been proven, and getting in the way of his created counter-point), Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether. I personally don't believe either of them should be judging what is appropriate for any circumcision-related articles, based on these proven failures of ]. ] (]) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::Bigger and bolder letters ], you do make me chuckle, Blackworm. Nice attempt at '']'' above. And yes, it was primarily Coppertwig's demonstration of the patience of ] when dealing with you that convinced me of Coppertwig's appropriateness as a sysop; and I'd be honored to renominate whenever Coppertwig wants. I recall that Coppertwig, praising an "outstanding neutrality." Have you changed your mind? -- ] (]) 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::Yes, I have. And by the way your trademarked one-line dismissal suffers from the usual complete lack of substance -- it's not at all ad hominem, and the diff links above prove it, to any editor who hasn't already assumed that you must be right since you're a ]. The patience of dealing with me? On the contrary, Coppertwig helped me defend myself from the very similar accusations of inappropriate behaviour levelled at me by a novice editor in ], who was attempting to edit Misplaced Pages in violation of core policies. He chose to instead aid the attack against me when yourself and ], two senior administrators, were the ones accusing me of inappropriate behaviour while themselves editting Misplaced Pages in violation of core policies. That was a sad day indeed. ] (]) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::And yes, the point of "bigger, bolder note" was to show how Coppertwig's prior "Note" at the start of his post in bold, apparently says to the reader, "this is more important than what was previously said, so read this first." I did not appreciate it. There is no reason for the reader to particularly "note" Coppertwig's comment, which further as I show above seems tangential and irrelevant. ] (]) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::::So now you are saying that when someone prefaces their comments with a header saying NOTE that it calls into askance what came before? Thank you for once again demonstrating that you prefer to deal in semantics as opposed to content. -- ] (]) 05:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::::::No, I didn't say that, I said it served to draw undue attention to one's comment. Why does Coppertwig believe we should particularly note his disagreement? It's not that big an issue, however. ] (]) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::::Blackworm, someone e-mailed me initially to draw my attention to the issue. I believe they wanted someone uninvolved to look at it. I can assure you that I believe I can see both sides of the issue here. I'm not at all educated about circumcision, but I feel I do know enough about the COI guideline. Can you say more about what Jake is doing exactly in real life that you feel gives rise to a COI? (But please only post information that you know Jake is comfortable with having revealed; otherwise, please e-mail it to me.) As things stand, there really is no evidence that Jake is putting his own interests above those of Misplaced Pages. I agree that the edit you linked to above is not ideal—I can't find it now, but it's the one where an ellipsis was used to replace a relevant word—but it's the kind of error that anyone can make. You'd need to show a series of such edits before it would be fair to call it anything but an error, and even then, you wouldn't necessarily have shown a COI. POV can exist without a COI, and COI without a POV. It seems that your main beef here is non-neutral editing, and (not commenting on whether it's an accurate allegation) it might be better to address that through mediation. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::::Who was it that e-mailed you? What is your prior relationship to them, if any? I've already detailed Jakew's conflicting interests above, as I said the first time you asked the question, and so I'm hard pressed to understand why you are asking the question a second time after it was answered. ] (]) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
			(<-)Blackworm, this is neither ] nor are you ]. Frankly, your obvious grasping at straws for anything to buttress your repeatedly repudiated attempts to create the image of some kind of conspiracy has now sunk to the level of impugning other's integrity, yet again. If you would like some evidence of an open coalition bent on trying to affect public opinion, let me direct your attention , , , and , for starters. For someone who is quick to claim NPA at times when multiple other editors agree there were none, you do not seem phased about making accusations, implied or otherwise, yourself. Are there different standards for genital integritists and all others? -- ] (]) 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

			I had hoped not to comment on this thread, but I feel that I must correct some misrepresentations made by Blackworm in . According to Blackworm, Avraham the BMA quote, pointing to my . This would have been impressive, given that Avraham's edit was made some 5 hours ''before'' my argument was made! And the facts flatly contradict, for example, Blackworm's claim that "if Jakew was not able to make this concocted counter-point Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether". Let's briefly examine the ''actual'' course of events.

			What actually happened was that an edit war took place between 20:18, May 24, 2009 and 05:55, May 25, 2009, involving Blackworm, Avraham, and an IP. In essence, the dispute was over (initially) Blackworm's addition of an selected quote from the BMA, which Avraham reverted, arguing that "quoting one part of the BMA and not the other is improper". Meanwhile, a discussion was taking place (at, oddly, ]). The relevance of the "medical harms or benefits" sentence seems to have first been mentioned in talk at , but this was also mentioned in an edit summary at <s>20:46, May 26, 2009</s> (fixed 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)). My first involvement with this dispute was at . Here I made the edit Blackworm mentions, hoping to find a compromise between the two extremes. My edit summary reads: "let's quote both parts, shall we?" Shortly after, at , I also made my first comment on the issue. Blackworm later edited to (among other things) replace the ellipsis with the full quotation at .

			As the above diffs show, Blackworm's version of events is misleading, to say the least. And although Blackworm has done his best to portray my edit as rogue POV pushing on my part, I believe it is clear from the context that it was, in fact, an attempt to calm an edit war. Since I view Blackworm's objections to my edit as fundamentally a content dispute, I don't intend to discuss the edit itself here, but I would be pleased to discuss it with anyone at the ]. To my knowledge, Blackworm has not raised the issue of the ellipsis at any article talk page; I am somewhat disappointed that he raised the issue here without apparently making a good-faith attempt to discuss the issue first. ] (]) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

			:A 3K response, and you still haven't enlightened us as to why you read a major source saying "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" and chose to quote them as saying "medical harms have not been proven." I think there's a simple answer, that is that you believe that "The medical benefits of circumcision include ",, in contrast to the BMA's position. Seem logical. Your POV is better represented than major medical organizations' views throughout the articles, through carefully chosen misrepresentations of this sort. The "compromise" "between the two extremes" seems to be between your POV on what the BMA should be saying, and what the BMA actually said. The edit, along with many others like it, shows POV editing; your outside one-sided circumcision-related lobbying shows there is a COI between your personal interests and Misplaced Pages's.
			:Nothing above shows anything misleading on my part. I pointed incorrectly to your argument (and not the link you included after "According to Blackworm" -- talk about misleading). Fact is it was Avi's own argument, which you then defended saying "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects," which is the ] you use to concoct the counter-point you both felt was necessary. I'll amend my previous statement to say, "if Avraham was not able to make this concocted counter-point, Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether."
			:"An attempt to calm an edit war" -- how hilarious. Your edit served precisely one side of the edit war: Avi's side. I don't remember in the hundreds of edits both of you have made to circumcision, a single disagreement between you, or a single case where one did not express complete support for the other when any of your edits were disputed. You are the #1 and #2 editors of the ] article, unanimous on all edits, including massively non-neutral ones like this. Your argument '''is''' Avi's argument and vice-versa; they are invariably interchangeable as you invariably defend each others' contested edits and tag team the opposition. But you are right, Avi did not point to your argument; he pointed to his own flawed argument that you defended with a nonsensical assertion about psychological effects being medical effects. Not really a relevant difference.
			:There was no need to "discuss" that edit as it was clearly a massive NPOV violation that Avraham was not going to correct (thus not an isolated "error"). The only need was to fix your misrepresentation of the BMA's position immediately. Secondary, there exists a less immediate need to remove your and Avi's counter-point, premised on ] ("psychological is medical!" (paraphr.)) that is quite easily shown to be false (as I showed using reliable sources).
			:And to you, Avi, the only thing creating an image of conspiracy is the refusal of SlimVirgin to say who directed SlimVirgin to this dispute, combined with your indignant attitude toward the mere asking of the question. My experience is that in 95% of cases, when one editor asks another editor to comment on a dispute, having a prior relationship with that editor, the second editor will agree completely with the first. I thus tend to consider such references as "involved" rather than "uninvolved." Is that the case here? Perhaps we'll never know. ] (]) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

			Yes, classic Blackworm, when faced by facts, attack the messenger. Now the claim is I am Jake? /sigh. I'm simultaneously glad and sad this had to spill over here. Glad, in that your pattern of mixing content and ad hominem attacks, accusing others of things you do (NPA etc.) can be seen by editors outside genitalia-related articles, but sad that we had to inflict thousands of bytes of this stuff on editors who are trying to wade through COI reports. Once again, in a nutshell, you Blackworm, are vividly and incorrectly conflating POV with COI. No one else has; all other editors responding here have been clear. I'm not certain what else there is left to do. -- ] (]) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
			:Please strike or refactor your statement that I claim you to be Jakew, as it is unfounded. I didn't claim you are Jake, I said your argument is Jakew's argument, in the general case. You have been vocally unanimous for years (along with ], who I've not seen around recently), both about content and the claimed misdeeds of editors, always or virtually always, in a milieu with lots of controversy otherwise. If "no one else has," what is the mistake the other two editors claiming a COI are making? Has Garycompugeek not responded here as well? Is he part of the "all other editors" you are referring to? Why do you often claim I'm alone in my view when it's documented to be false? ] (]) 02:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
			:I am glad you seem to agree that Jakew edits the articles to reflect his (and your) POV, however. ] (]) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

			Avi your personal attacks and belittlement to Blackworm does little to help this situation. I agree that you and Jake appear to tag team and control this article and I feel your status as an admin/crat scares others off who might otherwise confront you. Yes the article is influenced by your combined POV violating NPOV in subtle ways as Blackworm points out above. You say we are confusing NPOV with COI while I say the NPOV is a direct result of Jakes COI. Your strident defense of Jake whom you always support is no surprise and merely strengthens our tag team argument. Tremello also has supported the COI allegations although it seems always the same lines drawn in the sand. Pro circ editors (Jake, Avi, Coppertwig, and sometime Jayjg) against the con circ editors (Blackworm, Tremello, myself, and sometimes Tip when he hasn't lost his temper and gotten blocked). Where do we go from here? I would like some outside comment on this thread and think maybe a RFC at the village pump or ANI should bring in some outside comments. I will post any RFC request here so everyone knows where others maybe coming from. ] (]) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

			:There's another, related issue that I'd appreciate outside opinions on here: repeated accusations of COI.
			:It's one thing if the Wikipedian community decides that someone has a COI and, on that basis, decides to ask them respectfully to follow certain specified restrictions. It's another thing entirely if an individual editor decides that someone they're in a content dispute with has a COI, and, on that basis, decides to post a comment to the article talk page speculating on the person's inability to see an alleged imbalance (; a ridiculous comment, in my opinion, given Jake's <s>egregious</s> ''outstanding''<sup>(00:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC))</sup> (in my opinion) intelligence and detachment; and tantamount to impugning his ability to think clearly).
			:As , I don't think there's a problem with COI, but I think there's a serious problem at the circumcision pages with repeated accusations of COI.
			:Misplaced Pages is supposed to be welcoming to experts, but instead of a pleasant working environment, '''Jake has been subjected to a long series of comments and insinuations''', for several years, about his alleged motives, alleged POV, alleged COI and now alleged inability to see imbalance. He has already at one point been driven away from the project for about two or three months by such comments. Given Jake's extremely detailed knowledge of the scientific literature about circumcision, the extensive work that still remains to be done writing the circumcision subarticles, and also Jake's contributions in other areas of the project, it would be a significant loss for Misplaced Pages if Jake were to leave. I've been trying to encourage editors to comment on content, not on the contributor; WP:COI says "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."; I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors as to the application of this principle in this situation.

			:To save space here, I've posted responses to some comments by Blackworm and Avi on my own talk page. By the way, if Jake has a COI, in my opinion several other editors of the page have even more of a COI, judging by apparent extremity of POV, dedication to their POV, and tendency for their POV, rather than solely information solidly based on sources, to be evident in their article edits Re Gary's comment: Jake doesn't consider "pro circ" an accurate label for himself and I don't consider it an accurate label for myself. (I am an involved editor. Avi, Blackworm, Garycompugeek, Jakew, Tremello22 and myself are regular editors of the Circumcision page.) <span style="color:Red; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
			::Coppertwig is misrepresenting the situation. I do not have a content dispute with Jake and have not started this thread over a content dispute. Yet another attempt to discredit the facts with lies. I welcome an investigation into my behavior Coppertwig. You may try to turn my concern for the project into some kind of vendetta against Jake but its unfounded and unwelcome. I am involved any many facets of this project and was drawn to circumcision by NPOV concerns. Over the years some comments that other editors have made have made me curious about Jake activities outside wikipedia. I have attempted to be civil and discuss my concerns in a gentlemanly manner. I do not wish Jake to leave the project but to recognize a possible COI that creates NPOV in circumcision and related articles. Just as you have applauded Jakes efforts there are many editors who do not and have come to the talk pages calling for his banishment. I am not one of those but the rosy picture you have tried to paint of Jake is also not true. Lastly trying to have me blocked and banned because of my COI concerns project and trying to get more than 2 uninvolved editors to comment is ludicrous. I apologize for any discomfort this might be causing Jake and will readily abide by whatever the community decides. ] (]) 20:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::Blackworm and Gary: see reply on my talk page <span style="color:Purple; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

			Requested comment ]. Note I have said as little as possible to be as fair as possible. ] (]) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

			===Break for ease of editing===
			A question for Gary and Blackworm: do you accept that having a POV and having a COI are two separate issues? If you do, I can't understand what benefit there is in accusing Jake of COI. Even he has a COI, he wouldn't be prevented from editing the article, just as he wouldn't be prevented if he has a POV. There is therefore no point in additionally accusing him of COI.

			If Jake were employed by a pro-circumcision organization, I'd agree with you that he has a COI. But if he has himself set up a circumcision information service of some kind, and seems to be operating it alone (which is my understanding of what you wrote), that in itself is not grounds to accuse him of COI. Take myself and my interest in animal rights as an example. I've been editing AR articles on Misplaced Pages for a few years. I'm frequently concerned about the lack of knowledge people have of it, which is largely a result of the media misrepresenting it (in my view). Suppose I were today to set up an AR website devoted to posting information to help people form a less aggressive view of AR. Would I have a COI a few minutes after setting up that website that I didn't have before I set it up, in your view? <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

			:If you have a potential COI, you'd be expected to declare it. My point of view on circumcision is declared, to say the least. I honestly believe, however, that I bend over backwards to make sure I'm not injecting my own bias into the articles. I get no thanks. No barnstars, no kudos. Nothing but abuse. Jakew, in contrast, maintains that he is not "pro-circumcision." I invite you to carefully read he co-wrote, and tell me what you think of that assertion. Read what ] says about an editor adequately declaring his interests, and taking great care to avoid controversial edits, in the context of that full colour pamphlet he wrote. Look at the history of ]. Look at the reams and reams of argument. Remember, Jakew resents the "pro-circumcision" label, claiming to be inaccurate. Read the colour pamphlet he wrote one more time in that context. Is this honesty? Is this discloure? Let's read more:
			:*"If you were expecting a son (for all I know, perhaps you are), and you asked me whether I thought you should have your son circumcised, I wouldn't say "yes", nor would I say 'no.' I hope that this also explains why I find it offensive to be described as an 'advocate': '''I make a deliberate choice not to advocate.'''"" ] Diff:
			:*"Risks from circumcision: These are virtually all quite minor and very easily treated. In conclusion: Circumcision of the male partner confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman. A circumcised male reduces her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death. If she is the care giver, as wife or mother, a woman will quite likely need to deal with problems in the uncircumcised male, 1 in 3 of whom develop a condition requiring medical attention at some time during their life."
			:*"The text of this brochure has received consensus support from the following circumcision experts (listed alphabetically), who contributed to its formulation: Jake Waskett (Manchester, UK) "
			:*"There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly." - The
			:When you're prolifically editing a topic because your personal interests are the publication of one-sided fringe material on that topic, you're in a COI with Misplaced Pages's goals. When you further make wildly unbalanced edits and misrepresentations of the views of major organizations, which are then not corrected by those administrators watching the article (even when they are involved in discussion of the particular sentence -- but who somehow ''do'' have the time to "correct" edits made in unrelated articles by editors they hold in low esteem 17 minutes after they are made), then it shows not only a COI, not only a POV, but a way more serious problem involving more than one person. I hope it gets addressed. Jakew wouldn't be a problem if someone neutral were watching. Instead, the ones mandated with watching Jakew are blindly supporting everything he does -- with ample evidence, some presented above and lots more hidden in the history. ] is now apparently no longer editing, as so one major supporter isn't here anymore. And now the formerly good cop in that good cop/bad cop duo, ], seems to be behaving like Jayjg did in order for this blind acceptance of Jakew's "expertise" and domination of all circumcision-related articles to continue. Maybe ] will take the good cop role from now on, who knows; he seems suited for it. In any case, it doesn't look good on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
			::I agree that the pamphlet you posted a link to is pro-circumcision, though in fairness there's no sign that Jake wrote it; it simply lists him as one of the people supporting it. I still say there's no evidence of COI in the sense it's used on Misplaced Pages. ''You're'' not in a COI either just because you're anti-circumcision. COI kicks in only when we have reason to believe someone is prioritizing outside interests over the interests of Misplaced Pages. It would make more sense to ], or file a ] on the article, asking for fresh eyes on it, and it may be worth asking Jake here to make an extra effort to edit from both perspectives, or a disinterested one, to avoid even the appearance of COI. If you do the same, and if both of you stick very closely to the content policies, the editing atmosphere there should improve. <font color="green">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="pink">]</font></sup></small> 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::You obviously missed "who contributed to its formulation." Co-wrote it, sorry. COI also kicks in when we have reason to believe someone is prioritizing '''personal interests''' over the interests of Misplaced Pages (see ]), a fact you still have not commented on despite my mentioning it long ago. I have reason to believe that is what is happening. My explanation is detailed at length above. Ultimately, the true damage is only done because of those who enable Jakew to pursue his outside, personal advocacy interests here. There's not much else to say about it; either the community agrees, or it doesn't. ] (]) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::To save you from having to guess, Blackworm, I was sent a draft of the brochure, and I sent some comments about it by email. It's possible that another pair of emails followed (comments on my comments, etc); I'd have to check my email archives to be sure. ] (]) 09:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::And by the way, why won't you say who e-mailed you to join discussion of this topic? Remember: disclosure and honesty go a long way. ] (]) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

			: Just to add my input. I think Jake's conflict of interest is specifically about the ''medical aspects'' of circumcision. He has a great interest in the supposed benefits of the procedure. Consequently, the historical and social aspects of circumcision are not been given a fair hearing. I agree with slimvirgin, a fresh perspective on the article would be welcomed. As for Jake's behaviour, it is hard to convey to someone who hasn't experienced editing circumcision related articles how difficult he makes things. Often an edit which improves the article, he reverts in order to discuss it ad nauseum on the talk page. I feel this is not for the good of the article but just to make things as hard as possible to change the article. From his point of view he benfits from having 2 pro-circ admins (one orthodox Jewish:], one Muslim:]) who back him on nearly every occasion. It isn't unusual to have religious editors on a topic that is part of their religion. Obviously there are some negative aspects of circumcision but I feel their religious views may be stopping them from allowing the article to reflect a NPOV. I haven't worked out ], but he obviously thinks Jake can do no wrong; so in effect Jake has 3 "votes" on his side whenever things get moved to the talkpage.
			:It may surprise you to know that Jake seems to be refreshing his watchpage nearly 24 hours a day, only resting for a few hours in the early hours to get some sleep. For someone to watch the article so meticulously is kind of strange in my opinion. It makes you wonder if he has too much invested in the topic. This is what I think Blackworm and Gary are getting at - maybe not COI, but too much invested, which causes the articles to suffer. I realise he works from a computer, but still, it doesn't exactly make for a collaborative effort (which I thought was what wikipedia was all about). See here for a prime example of discussion of an edit which improved the article but was vetoed for the wrong reasons:]. As to why things have been stuck for so long I think Jake's behavior has played a part in this. Most editors are put off as Jake uses: ] and ]. He tries to make out his reverts were for the good of the article and that he is just following the rules, however he constantly stretches these rules and applies them when they aren't applicable. To an inexperienced editor , they are quickly put off from editing again. What is worse, even experienced editors do not realise he is doing this or choose not to bring him up on it because they share Jakew's point of view on circumcision (usually the edit reverted casts circumcision in a bad light). ] (]) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

			===Break #2===
			We see above how ], ], and ] will approcah this; it seems to be a direct outgrowth of their views on circumcision. However, that is not the matter under discussion here. It is, simply, is there a conflict of interest vis-a-vis wikipedia guidelines? According to the wikipedia definition, at least to me, there is not. POV, yes, but a brief perusal of Tremollo22 and Blackworm's edit will demonstrate just as strong a POV as well. Personally, I find Tremollo's accusations that the religious beliefs of others renders them incapable of editing the article neutrally to be insulting, but it isn;y the first time I've been insulted in that way on the article (I think there were about five times that accusation was rendered). Tremollo's entitled to his opinion, no matter how off-base that may be, as long as it does not interfere with editing the encyclopedia according to its guidelines.

			In a nutshell, I think that everyone here needs to step back from the pro- and con- circumcision aspects and approach the question purely Is there any evidence that there has been editing of wikipedia to promoting outside interests over and above that of wikipedia? Yes or no? Simple. I think the answer is clearly no, but I've said that already. -- ] (]) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

			: Avi, I didn't say you weren't capable, I said you haven't shown yourself to be capable. There is a difference. I was talking about you specifically too rather than in general. ] (]) 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

			::Blackworm, re the BMA quote: in my opinion, replacing "and benefits" with an ellipsis was quite a reasonable edit in the specific context of the quote. This is not the place for content disputes, so if anyone would like me to explain why, feel free to ask me on my talk page or (if still relevant) on the ]. If that's the worst allegedly POV edit of Jake's that you can find ...
			::By the way, Blackworm, I've put some more replies to some of your above comments . <span style="color:Purple; font-size:17pt;">☺</span>] (]) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
			::I've put a proposal ] about how to eventually close this thread. <span style="color:Orange; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 00:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
			::I've put a further reply to Garycompugeek ]. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:11pt;">☺</span>] (]) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

			I'm going to address the possible conflict of interest notice. I think in such disputes it's often helpful to have comments from an outside editor who's unfamiliar with the parties involved and unfamiliar with the article/subject at hand. Hopefully taking a step back and providing a wider perspective will be helpful. I've reviewed the discussions here, on the users' talk pages, and on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Based on all the material reviewed, the core of the conflict is over article neutrality with the editors alleging that personal point of views have affected the neutrality of articles. However, I do not see any evidence of a conflict of interest.

			If an editor holds certain personal opinions or beliefs and is a member or supporter of organizations that further those beliefs, making NPOV edits to an article would not constitute a conflict of interest. (For example, if a Christian, who belongs to an evangelical group, writes biased NPOV claims in the article on ], this would not constitute a conflict of interest. It would only be a violation of WP:NPOV.) The issue at hand here is a question of NPOV, not conflict of interest. A resolution needs to be reached regarding the NPOV disagreement, and there are proper avenues for dispute resolution (]). However, as there's no conflict of interest in this case, it does not belong on the conflict of interest noticeboard. I hope this disagreement can be resolved quickly, and I think that dispute resolution is probably your best path forward.] (]) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

			:What is an NPOV edit? I've shown what I believe to be non-NPOV edits, and non-NPOV edits that in my opinion could only be discovered through a careful re-examination of the source and an appropriate response by someone given the community's nod to maintain a sense a balance in that area. In my opinion, I've consistently made a distinction between personal opinions or beliefs, and personal interests; and given confirmed examples demonstrating the latter in Jakew's case. As yet, no one has addressed these outside interests, preferring to repeat faulty analogies not indicating the appropriate levels of interest in the publication of materials advocating a minority viewpoint (pro-circumcision at the levels evident from the pamphlet, and evident from the substance of Jakew's other Internet publication outside Misplaced Pages, being a minority opinion, as the mainstream sources clearly indicate) demonstrated here. If personal interests regarding the promotion of views are not part of the domain of ] guideline, I suggest removing the phrase "personal interests" from ]. Alternately, please provide examples of strictly personal interest not involving material gain nor recognition that would be the subject of this guideline. I'd be glad to simply remove references to personal interests, and/or adding a phrase similar to "for material gain or recognition" if that is the preferred option. Alternately, there is ] for suggestions on a better resolution. But clearly the letter of the guideline diverges from the defenses raised here, thus my involvement in Jakew's case is at an end, shifting to the guideline itself. The plurality of opinion dismissing this case seems to indicate that the guideline needs to better express its spirit, as its letter seems rejected and/or ignored. The combination of a dismissal of Jakew's conflict of interest and the ''status quo'' on the text of the guideline certainly does not seem a logical conclusion. However, it is one I'm prepared to accept if that is the community's wish. ] (]) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
			::Well, "personal interests" can be understood in the sense of obtaining a personal advantage, such as promoting one's own fame: not just being interested in a topic. The categories later in the guideline expand and clarify the meaning. <span style="color:Red; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::They are not described as categories, they are described as examples. I presume that means it's not an exhaustive list; but the point seems moot, as one of those examples states, "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."] Note again that the "in a nutshell" doesn't just say organizations, it says " your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers ." You don't even need an organization or even a loose association to engage in advocacy in an area. It indeed clarifies the meaning, but not in a way that reflects your position in my opinion. ] (]) 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::I think you're interpreting "interests" in a much broader sense than that which is intended. I don't think it is intended to be so broad as to encompass a point of view about a given subject, but is rather intended to mean "personal gain". I think that the examples help to illustrate the intended scope.
			::::Furthermore, your claims about "levels of interest in the publication of materials advocating a minority viewpoint" are contrived to the point of absurdity, and aren't even accurate, being based upon little more than misrepresentations. First, my "level of interest" in the pamphlet to which you refer involved replying to an email, giving my feedback on a draft of the text. Second, you haven't supported your claim of a "minority viewpoint" (and, since this isn't a content discussion, you haven't established why it would be relevant). You have only quoted from a single major source (the BMA), and while it is certainly a ''major'' viewpoint, it is erroneous to claim that it is a majority position. (Had you selected, say, the World Health Organisation, or the American Academy of Pediatrics, you would have found a completely different "majority" viewpoint. Perhaps selective quoting isn't the best way to find majority viewpoints?) Let me finish by summarising your claim, in my own words. I replied to an email, giving my comments about a draft pamphlet that expresses a point of view (which it does, though not quite my own point of view nor how I would personally express it) that arguably disagrees with the view of a single, selected medical association. Are you ''seriously'' suggesting that this is what is contemplated by the conflict of interest guideline? For goodness sake, this is nothing more than an elaborate personal attack, thinly disguised as a COI accusation. And it's time for this nonsense to stop. ] (]) 09:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::::I agree. This is not the proper venue for this discussion. This disagreement is, at its core, over article subject matter. The debate needs to return to those differences in opinions. While disagreements over deeply held beliefs can easily lead to interpersonal disputes, all this time and effort would better be spent resolving the issue at hand. I'd even be willing to help moderate any discussion on article content if any one thought that it might be helpful. While I'm sure that you will continue to disagree on this issue, hopefully you can come with some kind of working solution that everyone can at least tolerate. ] (]) 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
			::::::Thank you for your interest and offer tho help in this matter dgf32. I feel COI guideline's are left purposely vague and this leads to interpretation. I have tried to lay out my concerns in a logical fashion. If the community rejects them so be it. Jake I apologize for any discomfort this has caused you but I still do not feel you are being completely candid with us. In my dealings with you, you have shown yourself to be the staunchest supporter of circumcision I have yet to come across. ] (]) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
			:::::::I've requested for someone to close this thread with a resolution or summary. <span style="color:Purple; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

			{{Discussion bottom}}

Revision as of 00:40, 3 August 2009

This is an archive of past discussions on Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

←

→

IP claiming to be Ricco Rodriguez's manager removing sourced (negative) content from article

Ricco Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
24.27.49.203 (talk · contribs)

I'm about to leave and would appreciate it if someone could keep an eye on this. Thanks, --aktsu 17:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Gave him a 3RR warning. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:USmarcomm & Mayer Brown

Resolved – The editor was indef blocked and the article has been reduced to a stub with reliable sources showing notability. -- Atama 23:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

USmarcomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User seems to be involved in marketing function for Mayer Brown, a large law firm. I have indefed the user with a note to review WP:COI and tagged Mayer Brown as COI. Just looking for a sanity check here. Ronnotel (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire article seems to have been cut-and-pasted from various promotional pages for the law firm; the versions from before the marketer was involved are too out-of-date to be useful. So I've speedy nominated it. I'm wondering if the firm hasn't violated the lawyer-advertising ethics rules by doing this without disclosing its involvement. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Flash

Resolved – User spamnameblocked – ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bflash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Buffalo Flash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kimberly Brandão (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User's name and contributions seem to suggest an SPA for the Buffalo Flash soccer team. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 05:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Prometheus Group

Prometheus Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jl437 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
K3nsanders (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prometheus Group is attempting to create a wiki page to enumerate our ties to SAP, however, in the creation of this page, the original editor was not aware of Misplaced Pages's COI policies and filled the article with advertising/promotion.

I'm trying to rectify this page and remove all advertising/promotion, however, in the midst of the fight my account has been flaggged as a sock puppet of the original user who violated the COI policy). Both deletion of the article and flagging of my account was by the administrator Athaenara who suggested that I bring this issue before this noticeboard.

I simply wish to have my account unflagged as I am NOT a sock puppet of JI437, and as it follows, a chance to create an unbiased, informational page on Prometheus Group as fellows software firms in our market niche have.

K3nsanders (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment on whether or not you're a sockpuppet. The editing behavior that would be used to indicate that you are would have been on the page that was deleted; however to an ordinary editor like me the history of a deleted page is inaccessible. So whether or not you're a sockpuppet, I can't comment. I will say that it should be the burden of the accuser to show that you are, there currently is no report for either you or the other editor on WP:SPI. As someone not well-informed in the matter of handling sockpuppet accusations, I can only offer the advice given in the WP:SOCK policy:

If you have been accused incorrectly of being a sock puppet, do not take it too personally. New users are unknown quantities. Stay around a while and make good edits, and your record will speak for itself. That generally is the only real way to prove that you are not anyone's puppet; even CheckUser cannot give anything beyond a negative confirmation

Regarding the other matter; if you are a part of the Prometheus Group it's not a great idea for you to create an article about your company in the first place. It's a good thing that you're (A) declaring your conflict of interest up-front and (B) wanting to avoid advertising/promotion, but the WP:COI guideline recommends against your direct involvement completely. I recommend trying out WP:AFC, request that an uninvolved editor create the page, declare your COI in the request (to explain why you're not doing it yourself) and then if the page is created restrict your involvement to reverting typos and vandalism and make suggestions on the talk page. That would be my advice. -- Atama 00:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

John E.S. Lawrence

Jeslw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created, and continues to edit John E.S. Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about himself, in spite of being warned about WP:COI. The article appears to be based almost entirely on primary sources, and the paragraph on his UN work is becoming an ever-increasingly incomprehensible mess. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

Resolved – Split Works speedily deleted as spam; Peter Nathaniel Davis speedily deleted per A7; User:Nancysplitworks spamnameblocked. – ukexpat (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Split Works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Peter Nathaniel Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nancysplitworks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Nancysplitworks has created an account and so far only created and edited to add information on a company called 'Split works' which is part of her username. Seems to be blatant advertising, Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User also created related article Peter Nathaniel Davis. Both tagged COI. Rees11 (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User Nancyychen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) re-created the Split Works article. — Athaenara ✉ 13:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Attorney pages

While going through newly created User pages, I've noticed the sudden appearance of a batch of pages all advertising different US-based attorneys, all of the form

FIRMNAME is a STATE based firm specializing in ...

...representing injury victims and their families.

...representing brain injury, spinal cord injury and the like

personal injury attorney, accident lawyers, lawyers, personal injury, personal injury cases

with only the firm names, states, and specialties swapped. I suspect a concerted effort to spam Misplaced Pages. Examples include:

Different law firms, with a many repeat offenders. --Calton | Talk 13:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: There appear to be 3 7 10 12 main violators, with some one-offs...

Bailey & Partners (New York)
Glickman, Sugarman, Kneeland & Gribousk (Massachusetts)
Cirignani Heller & Harman LLP (Illinois)
Rasmussen & Miner (Utah)
Gary Martin Hays & Associates,P.C. (Georgia)
Greenberg & Stone, P.A. (Florida)
Abraham, Watkins, Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & friend (Texas)
Walkup, Melodia, Kelly, and Schoenberger (California)
Woodruff & Johnson (Illinois)
David Littman and Joshua Wohl (Colorado)
The Law Office of Brucar & Yetter (Illinois)
Jerald Novak & Associates (Illinois)

...who've created a few dozen randomly named Users and their pages/talk pages within the last few days, all of which I've tagged with {{db-spam}}. (URLs available on request.) ~~Is this good enough for a sockpuppet-investigation request?~~ --Calton | Talk 13:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Update 2: I've filed an (accepted) Checkuser request at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Nakesha7c. --Calton | Talk 14:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of help you'd need from this noticeboard, it looks like you've done all the work yourself with speedy deletions and Checkuser. All I can say is that's some great sleuthing! -- Atama 21:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone is soliciting paid content via Craigslist

Hi, COI sleuths! I came across a most interesting Craigslist ad dated July 16, 2006. It reads in part:

I am looking someone who can setup a Misplaced Pages page for my client. I am looking for something very similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/Taylor_Guitars . You must have very good knowledge of all the ins and outs of Misplaced Pages as I do not want the page to be removed. Looking for a flat rate. If successful there could be many more jobs like this....

So someone is looking to pay someone else to write a Misplaced Pages article. I'm guessing the client will seek favourable coverage, not neutral coverage. I looked at WP:COI, and I'm having a hard time seeing how anyone could take the job and remain within the COI policy, unless by writing a new version of the article on the Talk page and requesting an edit by a neutral party to move the text to the main article. I'm going to reply to the advertiser with a pointer to WP:COI.

No immediate action requested from all of you, I just want to give the alert. --Jdlh | Talk 22:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It happens. It happens often enough that the COI guidelines specifically mention editors paid to make promotional edits. Replying to the advertiser isn't a bad idea, because generally when these kinds of things are found out the community takes a very dim view. Most likely that person will find himself paying someone to create an article that is either speedily deleted or removed through AfD (depending on the state of the article), and will find his money wasted. -- Atama 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Circumcision

Resolved – Closing 80+ kilobyte thread which has dominated this noticeboard for weeks; one hopes the related discussions elsewhere have been more productive. — Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Jakew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user has been accused by me and others of having a COI. See my talk and his. Recently someone has tried to place a COI tag on the page and Avi an involved admin has reverted and protected the page claiming BLP NPOV and NPA policies. Please help. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- Note. This incident involves what I see as an unfortunate, and potentially dangerous, conflation| of POV and COI in order to marginalize an editor. To start implying that people with POV's are automatically subject to COI is, in my opinion, both incorrect and against our policies, and I recommend that this not be taken up here on the COI board where it does not belong. WP:ANI#Request review of administrative action is background to the most recent incident. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  - And where should we discuss COI? You disagree and others agree which is why I have brought the matter here. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- COI's get discussed here. Jake has no more COI than you, Blackworm, Tremello22, and Michael Glass do, and it is disturbing to see what I perceive to be a shift to casting aspersions on the messenger being that attacking the message has failed. -- Avi (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Just because you disagree does not make it so. It's in the wider communities hands now. Let us see how others weigh in on this. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  - I perceive you as having a similar POV as Jake regarding circumcision. If I'm confusing COI with POV why have I not accused you of a COI? I'm not attacking anyone. My concern for the project is genuine. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm a completely uninvolved editor who hasn't had any previous contact with any of the editors involved here (that I can recall, at least recently) and haven't edited in the disputed article. I've read the discussions given on the user talk pages linked above and I think I can understand what the dispute is. Let me first point out that WP:COI is not the same as WP:NPOV; a conflict of interest is noted in Misplaced Pages because it makes it difficult or impossible to maintain a neutral point of view, but not everyone with a certain point of view has a conflict of interest. It's the same as saying that all apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples. Having said that, WP:COI is somewhat wishy-washy (by design I suppose) and it even states "there are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists". But it does cite examples to give an idea of what might constitute a COI.

I don't believe a COI exists here. The examples given in the guideline include having a "close relationship" with the article subject (or being involved in a legal dispute with the subject), being paid to edit to promote an organization, self-promotion, editing your own autobiography, or campaigning on behalf of an organization that is trying to advocate a POV regarding the article subject. The "autobiography" and "close relationship" criteria just don't apply to this article because it's neither about a person nor an organization or product, but a medical procedure. I don't see any evidence or even allegations that Jakew is being paid for his edits, that he is trying to promote himself, or that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). He wrote some papers discussing circumcision, but while those papers might reveal a potential POV they don't in any way show a real conflict of interest.

I'll give some examples of where POV doesn't mean a COI. If a person was a dedicated neo-Nazi, that doesn't mean he shouldn't edit on a race relations page, though any POV edits he made could and probably should be reverted. If a person had a userbox on his user page stating that he believes that the Earth is flat, that doesn't mean he shouldn't be allowed to edit articles regarding planetary physics. It's only when a person has a proven connection to a person or organization that is directly related to the article subject that a COI can be established. I really don't see it in Jakew's case.

I know that some editors have wanted to apply a looser interpretation to the COI guideline than what I've given, but I'd like to caution against that. Establishing a COI can be difficult, and generally requires either an admission on the part of the accused editor or some solid evidence. Simply showing that a person has a bias, or that a person has made edits that promote a particular POV are not proving a COI at all. Keep in mind that there is a POV noticeboard that deals directly with POV problems in articles, and if you feel that Jakew or others have added material in violation of WP:NPOV that your report might be better suited there. I'm not an admin, these are only my opinions, so take them or leave them as you wish. -- Atama 21:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter Atama. The problem for me is that it kinda of looks like " that he is trying to campaign for an organization (such as an anti- or pro-circumcision group). " for all the reasons I've listed on our talk pages. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, (1) name the organization and (2) give evidence that Jakew is associated with it. Again, that is what is needed for a COI allegation such as that. Simply stating "this editor looks to have a POV, I bet he's a member of a circumcision group" is insufficient and is definitely not assuming good faith. The COI noticeboard should not be used as a tool to attack an editor without sufficient cause in order to prevent his contributions to an article to settle a content dispute. -- Atama 17:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well now you are not assuming good faith. I came here for clarity on the COI issue and do appreciate your opinion but to accuse me of using this board to attack another editor is simply unfounded. Your conditions are not listed in WP:COI and it is purposely vague on the definition. I have agreed to not press the issue further as long as neutrality is adhered to. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of attacking, per WP:NPA making accusations about an editor's personal behavior without evidence is considered a personal attack. I don't understand at all when you say "my conditions are not listed in WP:COI", as it should be obvious that when you accuse someone, you should actually back that up with some kind of proof as opposed to saying that it "kinda looks like" he is guilty. I'm relieved that you're not going to press the issue further. -- Atama 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't come here and say "Hi I think user Jakew has a COI." The matter had been on our talk pages along with a myriad of reasons which you stated you read. You may disagree with those reasons but that is no excuse for you to say I have used this board to attack said user. This back and forth of AGF and NPA looks silly and childish and I am discontinuing this thread. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAtama&diff=302329809&oldid=302301438 for discussion which resulted in removal of resolved tag. Personally, I believe Atama went out of his way to try and explain the issue civily and clearly to Blackworm, who either does not, or does not want to, understand the difference. -- Avi (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Does not want to" = personal attack, as part of a pattern of harassment. I believe I have been just as patient and civil in expressing my interpretation of the guideline (not "explaining" the guideline, a word I find presumptive and belittling in this context) to Avi and Atama. I would not be so rude as to imply that Atama does not "understand there is no difference" or indeed "does not want to." I invite the reader to read the entire discussion there and comment. Blackworm (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

In reply to User:Atama's latest comment in , reproduced here:

If "campaigning for an idea" could be a COI then COI would be redundant, any time you make an edit that is slanted toward a particular POV, you're "campaigning for an idea", so what would be the difference between WP:COI and WP:NPOV? COI is specifically for someone editing to the benefit of a person or organization that they are tied to, that doesn't include someone editing for the benefit of an ideal. Simply put, it's along the lines of a McDonald's CEO editing the McDonald's article and writing "McDonald's is great according to most people" in the lead. But, if you still think that Jakew has a COI despite all that I've said, that's no problem, I'll remove the "resolved" tag because clearly the issue isn't, and you can bring up any arguments you like there. I don't think I'll participate any longer because I believe I've said all that I have to say on the matter. Thank you. --

No, whether an edit slanted to a particular POV is evidence of that editor's "campaigning," or merely an unbalanced edit, an edit touched by the editor's inherent bias, or an error, depends on the intention of the editor who made it. CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive. Whether Jakew is campaigning here, or merely repeatedly making non-neutral edits bolstered by the support of other editors bold in reverting and threatening, is a question of WP:AGF -- but my understanding of WP:COI is that if there is reason to think an editor may be campaigning, and that editor definitely campaigns as part of a campaigning group outside Misplaced Pages, then a COI exists. I'd be interested in hearing more opinions on the subject. Blackworm (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, my understanding of the difference between WP:NPOV and WP:COI is that the former refers strictly to article content, steering entirely clear of issues that necessitate evaluations of editors, especially of editors' off-wiki activities and associations and correlation with their areas of editing and the points of view advanced by those edits. The latter does indeed refer to this evaluation. Blackworm (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I will spare the regular respondents to this noticeboard my reply to Blackworm, which may be found here Talk:Circumcision#COI tag. However, it remains pretty obvious to me, and others, that Blackworm is conflating POV and COI, and my years of experience with him and his edits makes it harder and harder for me to assume this is an innocent mix-up on his part. If anyone has an extreme POV on circumcision, it is Blackworm. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Blackworm. I must commend Atama for his patience, civility, and perseverance, trying to explain this at length to Blackworm. I would invite other uninvolved editor opinions as well. -- Avi (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi users come here to this notice board on their own volition, just like you. One swing at the bat does not make an average. Just because one uninvolved editor agrees with you does not make it gospel. The reason I originally brought the matter here was to try and get a wider community response. I respect Atama's opinion but one editor does not stand for the entire community. I 2nd Avi's request to others please look at Blackworms RFC and his talk page. Compare Jake's, Blackworm's, Avi's and my own edits over time and use sorrels tools to see edits counts and time spans. Let's be civil and stop attacking one another and let the readers decide for themselves. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. As things stand, I don't see where the COI would lie. A COI exists when an editor advances outside interests over the interests of Misplaced Pages. To accuse Jake of COI, you'd have to indicate which outside interests he is advancing, and not only advancing, but advancing over the interests of the project — because it's possible that outside interests and WP would both want the same information included in an article. Having a strong POV is not in itself evidence of preferring outside interests, though people with a strong POV should be careful to bend over backwards to be NPOV — for example, by making sure they edit regularly from both perspectives, or from a disinterested one. SlimVirgin 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin "A COI exists when an editor advances outside interests over the interests of Misplaced Pages." That's where my concern lies.

Blackworm states "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive."
Jake has also worked closely with notable circumcision advocates.
Written and published material and letters to editors promoting circumcision.
An extremely high edit count twice that of the next user (Avi) on Circumcision and related articles.

Is it not possible that with all these factors combined Misplaced Pages is being unduly influenced with Jake's POV? Garycompugeek (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What you listed above is evidence of a point-of-view. Looking at Jake and Blackworm's respective history, it seems that Blackworm has been pushing a specific point-of-view much more than Jake, so I am not certain as to why you are not chasing after Blackworm with the same zeal. The fact that Jake happens to be reputable enough to have his work published in peer reviewed journals is a good thing, in that it establishes that he has an expertise in this field that others of us lack. As long as his edits are withing the grounds of NPOV, and I maintain it is easy to see that they are, there is no issue. If Van Howe were to create a wiki id and start editing, should be toss him out because he is the author of strongly anti circumcision papers? I'd hope not, as long as he edited appropriately. All the points you list, Jake's expertise, respectability in the field, and commitment to the article are good things, Gary. As long as the high edit count is of edits that are not POV violations, that is a plus and a benefit to wikipedia. It is only "campaigning" to Blackworm, in my opinion, since Jake's strict adherence to the POV rules prevents Blackworm from skewing the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii. -- Avi (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide one diff showing where I " the article to reflect circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike the above factual error. Blackworm (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, Jake's adherence to NPOV prevents that. We do know how you feel on the matter. -- Avi (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point with your two (2) Talk diff links from two years ago. As you've said for Jakew, how I feel and how I express it in Talk doesn't harm the article. Jakew's non-neutral edits to the articles, as evidenced by the diff links I provide, hurt the articles. Again, please either provide a diff link to the articles that you believe violates NPOV and which "reflects circumcision as the bloody mutilation of infant penii," or strike that unfounded accusation. Blackworm (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, respectfully, by whom were you asked to comment here and on AN/I, and have you worked with that editor in the past?

I outline above what I consider to be the evident outside interests of Jakew, how I believe those interests are closely related to those of Misplaced Pages (they both publish authoritative material) and why I believe they are viewed by several editors as being advanced over the interest of the project. Do you have a comment on that?

Distinct from merely having a POV, Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group, as a means to publish authoritative material, which he appears to admit has a higher proportion of such material supportive of circumcision that the collection of such material: Jakew writes, "It might be more accurate to talk about 'papers that assert a benefit', etc. It's true to say that there are more of these, though, partly because that's true of the literature in general, and partly because of the history of CIRCS." More pro-circumcision material partly because of the history of CIRCS? The explanation for the latter: "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature. It created what I suppose you could call a kind of "information availability bias"". He was countering what was perceived as an unbalanced representation of circumcision by providing an unbalanced representation of circumcision in the other direction, essentially. That interest enough appears incompatible with prolifically editing circumcision (#1 in number of edits). Furthermore, some editors in circumcision are concerned because they feel that Jakew seems to often present a questionable account of a source, or a perfect account of a source putting circumcision in a favourable light, rarely if ever integrating sources putting circumcision in a negative light, and almost invariably fighting against inclusion of the latter. Repairing these issues takes considerable effort, and Jakew defends his edits with long, often tangential discussion, always claiming no consensus against him. Some appear to blindly support Jakew's edits with one-line expressions, and rarely seem to check the sources he brings to make sure Jakew's summary is appropriate. That appears to be the source of the concern. Jakew states that in 2003 he "became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision." I think he openly publishes this as his raison d'être at Misplaced Pages, as he proudly displays barnstars commending him for "dealing with the onslaught by anti-circumcision activists," i.e. referring to certain Misplaced Pages editors. Can anyone imagine a barnstar commending anyone for "dealing with the onslaught by pro-circumcision activists?" That kind of enthusiasm when supposedly adhering to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines might be considered distasteful, and even bigoted in the case of preventing extreme pro-circumcision editors from editing, as circumcision is a requirement of some religions. As it happens, it is so considered by some; suggestions of the bigotry of those having a different point of view is a recurring theme, having great potential to thwart civil discussion and bias article content. No one likes to be accused of bigotry, few have the personal conviction to continue to argue their points when the accusations are made, and few want to be associated with people who are viewed by powerful administrators to "come off as" bigots, or even be seen supporting them despite the correctness of their interpretations of policy -- especially if they have aspirations of adminship themselves. But I digress.

Atama's criteria, which seems limited to a set of examples presented in the article, is precisely the legalistic interpretation of this policy I feel plagues discussions invoking various policies and guidelines. If it's against the spirit of the guideline, it's against the guideline. The guideline says, "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Misplaced Pages to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers, unless you are certain that the interests of Misplaced Pages remain paramount." Note "your own interests."

Atama appears to boil down the criteria to a set of specific examples, instead of applying the spirit of the guideline here. I suspect Avraham's biased comments about editors deceptively attacking an editor poisoned this discussion early. I don't blame Atama if he was influenced by Avraham's comments, as Avi is a Misplaced Pages bureaucrat after all, and greatly respected outside circumcision and related articles, biasing any attacks he makes greatly in his favour. Anyway, Atama said, "you'd have to indicate which outside interests he is advancing, and not only advancing, but advancing over the interests of the project — because it's possible that outside interests and WP would both want the same information included in an article." Yes, we do want some of the same information, but we want it interpreted neutrally. We don't want Jakew to read the following quote in a British Medical Association paper, "medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven," then edit a circumcision-related article to quote them as saying "medical harms have not been unequivocally proven," (note the intentional redaction of "and benefits") as he did here apparently to create a counterpoint. We don't want to consistently have to have someone, usually me, checking the sources and making sure Jakew's edits are fixed to adhere to the Neutral point of view, which I did when I noticed it four days later. We can't have editors skewing what the British Medical Association says, advancing a proven personal interest. In the dispute over this addition (even properly quoted, its relevance is disputed in a statement on psychological effects), Jakew's defense of his edit rests on the novel assertion that "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects." And no editor apparently has equal time or interest in the topic to verify the sources behind all of Jakew's prolific editing. Sadly, those who evidently have the time to do lots on Misplaced Pages, but not the inclination to oppose Jakew anytime, instead hound me on my contributions anywhere, on any topic, to the point of RfC'ing them: see here and here. Apparently for some high-level Misplaced Pages administrators, edits by Jakew are always right and don't need checking, and edits by Blackworm are always wrong and need immediate opposition.

We don't need to go through the examples to see that if Jakew is promoting his own interests (his proven interest being the publishing of authoritative material in a biased way in other to counter other perceived bias). It's not an exhaustive list. Whether he is doing it intentionally isn't the issue. Whether he is doing it over the interests of Misplaced Pages is ultimately up to Misplaced Pages. Maybe it is Misplaced Pages's interest to counter perceived existing bias (or perceived deception) with bias, as WP:CSB apparently suggests (and I also oppose, on the grounds that it is better to "avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another."WP:SOCK). Blackworm (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny you bring that one up; firstly we ended up agreeing on the matter. Secondly, it may pay to see who devoted significantly more time to bring that article up to wikipedia standards. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please point to the diff where we ended up agreeing on the matter. We apparently implicitly agreed only that Jakew's redaction of "and benefits," apparently to avoid any unfavourable light cast on circumcision by his invalid counter-point, was in violation of WP:NPOV and inappropriate (though not you, Jakew, nor Coppertwig has ever commented on the redaction itself). Whether that article is "up to wikipedia standards" seems in dispute, so your second sentence is nonsensical. A nice clean, referenced pro-circumcision pamphlet isn't any improvement from a dirty mess of OR, or indeed a blank page. Blackworm (talk) 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here you are. -- Avi (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so glad I asked; I assumed you were referring to the "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" as a concocted counter-point to a statement on psychological effects. In the case you provide, you argued back and forth for at least four posts, posted an RfC, and only changed your mind after unanimous support for my position from others in the RfC. I'm glad you avoided appearing as the lone dissenter in a dispute -- it's quite marginalizing and no one wants to experience that. Blackworm (talk) 22:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that your first edit to that article came 17 minutes after my first edit to the article, strongly suggesting that you watched my contributions and followed me to that article. You claimed that this odd case of countering me to an article unrelated to the topic of any of our previous interactions was due to our "overlapping interests;" that "we have many of the same pages watchlisted." Since your first edit to the article came after mine, I praise you for your claim of watchlisting pages you've never edited, despite your already huge workload. Do you watch and read every edit to those articles, or just those by editors you claim "don't like" you? Blackworm (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I believe Blackworm has mischaracterized what Jakew said. Blackworm said (in a comment above of 02:35, 16 July) "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." I don't think Jakew said that. Blackworm, you may paraphrase what another editor said and introduce your paraphrase with "As I interpret it" or "My paraphrase is", etc., or you may say what the person actually said (same verb, same phrases etc) and introduce it with "as stated by" etc., or you may state that someone said something and provide words that would be acknowledged by the person themself, or by typical uninvolved Wikipedians, to be an accurate representation of what they said (though I don't recommend attempting this when discussing someone with a different POV; it's too difficult to get it right) but please don't do what I think you've done here: present your own paraphrase after "as stated by", as if that was what he had said. Since the option of verbatim quoting is always available, there is no excuse for mischaracterizing what Jake has said. If uninvolved editors make comments here based on such statements (which I believe to be incorrect), those comments may be invalid. Blackworm, your sentence may be ambiguous and confusing because it's not clear how much of the sentence is supposed to be described by "as stated by"; would Jake really state that he would counter "websites providing authoritative material", or would the "authoritative" part be your own description, rather than "as stated by" Jake? Please try to avoid writing sentences with those sorts of ambiguities. I'm not aware of Jake having made any statement about the purpose of CIRCS in which he called another website "deceptive". If Jake did say that, please provide a quote and link or citation.

I believe Blackworm is also mischaracterizing what Jakew said in this comment: "Jakew is open with the fact that he founded an outside organization, an outside group": I'm not aware of Jakew having stated that he founded an organization or group. I believe he has a website where he himself posts material, not an organization or group as far as I'm aware. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of mischaracterization, perhaps you should (a) note that Jake refers to himself as the "founder" of CIRCS,, and that (b) the "contact" link on www.circs.org has a page which says, "To contact us, please email ." The latter implies a group, not just Jake, unless Jake is using the "royal we." Also note the CIRCS contains both reproductions of sources, and original material putting circumcision in the best light: for example, "Anti-circumcision groups claim significant detrimental effects, though offer only anecdotal evidence." The site refers to this original material penned by Jakew as "unbiased reviews of the literature." One of the references he cites here (presumably part of what Jakew considers "the literature") suggests, "THE ONE AND ONLY LINK! "The Vacuum Pumpers Site." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackworm (talk • contribs) 01:15, July 21, 2009

Just to correct what appears to be a misunderstanding, Blackworm, CIRCS is indeed a website. I suppose you could call it an "organisation of one", if you really wanted, but I think it would obscure the point somewhat. Currently I am the only person responsible for the site, but it's always possible that someone might volunteer to help me in future. I don't believe that owning a website ordinarily constitutes a conflict of interest, except where that website is actually used or discussed in Misplaced Pages (and to my knowledge nobody has complained about my approach to that). Jakew (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In partial reply to Blackworm's question: SlimVirgin was asked to comment here by Garycompugeek as a result of SlimVirgin having posted at the ANI thread; I don't know who had asked SlimVirgin to comment at the ANI thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Who asked SlimVirgin to comment on the topic first, which you say you don't know, is the relevant question. Is someone in a position to inform us who it was? I appreciate the disclosure that one was asked to join a discussion, but it seems incomplete without saying by whom it was, and what prior work if any was done with that editor. Blackworm (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE WITH BIGGER AND BOLDER LETTERS: I believe Coppertwig is misrepresenting what I said. (For disclosure: User:Avraham works closely with Coppertwig and nominated Coppertwig for administrator here.) I said, "CIRCS is campaigning because its intention, as stated by its founder, User:Jakew, was to counter websites providing authoritative material and commentary on circumcision, judging it to be deceptive." Jakew said "One of the main reasons for creating CIRCS was my irritation at the one-sidedness of CIRP, in particular my view that it seemed superficially to be so comprehensive, yet presented such a distorted selection of the literature." Is this "one-sidedness" of CIRP, while seeming "superficially to be so comprehensive," evidence of "deceptive activities?" If CIRP is "presenting such a distorted selection of the literature," is CIRP engaged in "deceptive activities?" I don't think it's any stretch to label what Jakew said about CIRP an accusation of deceptive activities. I believe your verbose comment above may be diverting attention away from the real issues. Please comment on Jakew's redaction of "and benefits" from a BMA quote put into the article, referred to above, instead.

Is CIRCS a group, or just Jakew? Does anyone else help run the website or does he do it all himself? Unknown to me. I admit I assumed it was a group or organization. As it turns out, it doesn't matter. Whether it's an interest of an organization, a group, or a personal interest taking precedence over Misplaced Pages's interest, it's a COI, per WP:COI. Maybe Jakew's personal interest stops at using his own resources to create a website and publish selected authoritative material in order to counter real or perceived anti-circumcision bias in other online sources: he wrote, "So I decided to focus, in general, on papers that were not available at CIRP, the idea being that for any given subject, the index pages for CIRP + CIRCS should be complete (or if not complete then at least not leave out too many important papers)." The importance of the papers "completing" the online sources, of course, being judged by Jakew. But how is Jakew's judgment?

We recall the BMA quote redacted above as evidence of what Jakew considers important and unimportant. As you also may recall, Jakew states for example, while arguing an edit, "The idea that circumcision causes psychological harm is a distinctly fringe concept that very few reliable sources even mention, let alone pay significant attention to." In contrast, the British Medical Association states, "In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks." User:Avraham deleted the latter BMA quote when it was referenced in the article, pointing to Jakew's argument, which boils down to "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects.". That novel assertion is the basis for the current disputed article content. Apparently, if Jakew was not able to make this concocted counter-point (in which Jakew just happened to redact the words "and benefits," avoiding the BMA stating that medical benefits have also not been proven, and getting in the way of his created counter-point), Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether. I personally don't believe either of them should be judging what is appropriate for any circumcision-related articles, based on these proven failures of neutral presentation. Blackworm (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Bigger and bolder letters

, you do make me chuckle, Blackworm. Nice attempt at argumentum ad hominem above. And yes, it was primarily Coppertwig's demonstration of the patience of Job when dealing with you that convinced me of Coppertwig's appropriateness as a sysop; and I'd be honored to renominate whenever Coppertwig wants. I recall that you yourself supported Coppertwig, praising an "outstanding neutrality." Have you changed your mind? -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. And by the way your trademarked one-line dismissal suffers from the usual complete lack of substance -- it's not at all ad hominem, and the diff links above prove it, to any editor who hasn't already assumed that you must be right since you're a wiki-bureaucrat. The patience of dealing with me? On the contrary, Coppertwig helped me defend myself from the very similar accusations of inappropriate behaviour levelled at me by a novice editor in female genital cutting, who was attempting to edit Misplaced Pages in violation of core policies. He chose to instead aid the attack against me when yourself and User:Jayjg, two senior administrators, were the ones accusing me of inappropriate behaviour while themselves editting Misplaced Pages in violation of core policies. That was a sad day indeed. Blackworm (talk) 04:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And yes, the point of "bigger, bolder note" was to show how Coppertwig's prior "Note" at the start of his post in bold, apparently says to the reader, "this is more important than what was previously said, so read this first." I did not appreciate it. There is no reason for the reader to particularly "note" Coppertwig's comment, which further as I show above seems tangential and irrelevant. Blackworm (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So now you are saying that when someone prefaces their comments with a header saying NOTE that it calls into askance what came before? Thank you for once again demonstrating that you prefer to deal in semantics as opposed to content. -- Avi (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that, I said it served to draw undue attention to one's comment. Why does Coppertwig believe we should particularly note his disagreement? It's not that big an issue, however. Blackworm (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, someone e-mailed me initially to draw my attention to the issue. I believe they wanted someone uninvolved to look at it. I can assure you that I believe I can see both sides of the issue here. I'm not at all educated about circumcision, but I feel I do know enough about the COI guideline. Can you say more about what Jake is doing exactly in real life that you feel gives rise to a COI? (But please only post information that you know Jake is comfortable with having revealed; otherwise, please e-mail it to me.) As things stand, there really is no evidence that Jake is putting his own interests above those of Misplaced Pages. I agree that the edit you linked to above is not ideal—I can't find it now, but it's the one where an ellipsis was used to replace a relevant word—but it's the kind of error that anyone can make. You'd need to show a series of such edits before it would be fair to call it anything but an error, and even then, you wouldn't necessarily have shown a COI. POV can exist without a COI, and COI without a POV. It seems that your main beef here is non-neutral editing, and (not commenting on whether it's an accurate allegation) it might be better to address that through mediation. SlimVirgin 04:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Who was it that e-mailed you? What is your prior relationship to them, if any? I've already detailed Jakew's conflicting interests above, as I said the first time you asked the question, and so I'm hard pressed to understand why you are asking the question a second time after it was answered. Blackworm (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Blackworm, this is neither Dragnet nor are you Perry Mason. Frankly, your obvious grasping at straws for anything to buttress your repeatedly repudiated attempts to create the image of some kind of conspiracy has now sunk to the level of impugning other's integrity, yet again. If you would like some evidence of an open coalition bent on trying to affect public opinion, let me direct your attention here, here, here, and here, for starters. For someone who is quick to claim NPA at times when multiple other editors agree there were none, you do not seem phased about making accusations, implied or otherwise, yourself. Are there different standards for genital integritists and all others? -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I had hoped not to comment on this thread, but I feel that I must correct some misrepresentations made by Blackworm in this edit. According to Blackworm, Avraham deleted the BMA quote, pointing to my argument. This would have been impressive, given that Avraham's edit was made some 5 hours before my argument was made! And the facts flatly contradict, for example, Blackworm's claim that "if Jakew was not able to make this concocted counter-point Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether". Let's briefly examine the actual course of events.

What actually happened was that an edit war took place between 20:18, May 24, 2009 and 05:55, May 25, 2009, involving Blackworm, Avraham, and an IP. In essence, the dispute was over (initially) Blackworm's addition of an selected quote from the BMA, which Avraham reverted, arguing that "quoting one part of the BMA and not the other is improper". Meanwhile, a discussion was taking place (at, oddly, Talk:Circumcision). The relevance of the "medical harms or benefits" sentence seems to have first been mentioned in talk at 20:47, May 24, 2009, but this was also mentioned in an edit summary at ~~20:46, May 26, 2009~~ 20:46, May 24, 2009 (fixed 08:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)). My first involvement with this dispute was at 08:57, May 25, 2009. Here I made the edit Blackworm mentions, hoping to find a compromise between the two extremes. My edit summary reads: "let's quote both parts, shall we?" Shortly after, at 09:42, May 25, 2009, I also made my first comment on the issue. Blackworm later edited to (among other things) replace the ellipsis with the full quotation at 09:13, May 29, 2009.

As the above diffs show, Blackworm's version of events is misleading, to say the least. And although Blackworm has done his best to portray my edit as rogue POV pushing on my part, I believe it is clear from the context that it was, in fact, an attempt to calm an edit war. Since I view Blackworm's objections to my edit as fundamentally a content dispute, I don't intend to discuss the edit itself here, but I would be pleased to discuss it with anyone at the appropriate place. To my knowledge, Blackworm has not raised the issue of the ellipsis at any article talk page; I am somewhat disappointed that he raised the issue here without apparently making a good-faith attempt to discuss the issue first. Jakew (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A 3K response, and you still haven't enlightened us as to why you read a major source saying "medical harms and benefits have not been proven" and chose to quote them as saying "medical harms have not been proven." I think there's a simple answer, that is that you believe that "The medical benefits of circumcision include ",, in contrast to the BMA's position. Seem logical. Your POV is better represented than major medical organizations' views throughout the articles, through carefully chosen misrepresentations of this sort. The "compromise" "between the two extremes" seems to be between your POV on what the BMA should be saying, and what the BMA actually said. The edit, along with many others like it, shows POV editing; your outside one-sided circumcision-related lobbying shows there is a COI between your personal interests and Misplaced Pages's.

Nothing above shows anything misleading on my part. I pointed incorrectly to your argument (and not the link you included after "According to Blackworm" -- talk about misleading). Fact is it was Avi's own argument, which you then defended saying "psychological effects are a subset of medical effects," which is the novel interpretation you use to concoct the counter-point you both felt was necessary. I'll amend my previous statement to say, "if Avraham was not able to make this concocted counter-point, Avraham felt that the BMA quote should be deleted altogether."

"An attempt to calm an edit war" -- how hilarious. Your edit served precisely one side of the edit war: Avi's side. I don't remember in the hundreds of edits both of you have made to circumcision, a single disagreement between you, or a single case where one did not express complete support for the other when any of your edits were disputed. You are the #1 and #2 editors of the circumcision article, unanimous on all edits, including massively non-neutral ones like this. Your argument is Avi's argument and vice-versa; they are invariably interchangeable as you invariably defend each others' contested edits and tag team the opposition. But you are right, Avi did not point to your argument; he pointed to his own flawed argument that you defended with a nonsensical assertion about psychological effects being medical effects. Not really a relevant difference.

There was no need to "discuss" that edit as it was clearly a massive NPOV violation that Avraham was not going to correct (thus not an isolated "error"). The only need was to fix your misrepresentation of the BMA's position immediately. Secondary, there exists a less immediate need to remove your and Avi's counter-point, premised on WP:OR ("psychological is medical!" (paraphr.)) that is quite easily shown to be false (as I showed using reliable sources).

And to you, Avi, the only thing creating an image of conspiracy is the refusal of SlimVirgin to say who directed SlimVirgin to this dispute, combined with your indignant attitude toward the mere asking of the question. My experience is that in 95% of cases, when one editor asks another editor to comment on a dispute, having a prior relationship with that editor, the second editor will agree completely with the first. I thus tend to consider such references as "involved" rather than "uninvolved." Is that the case here? Perhaps we'll never know. Blackworm (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, classic Blackworm, when faced by facts, attack the messenger. Now the claim is I *am* Jake? /sigh. I'm simultaneously glad and sad this had to spill over here. Glad, in that your pattern of mixing content and ad hominem attacks, accusing others of things you do (NPA etc.) can be seen by editors outside genitalia-related articles, but sad that we had to inflict thousands of bytes of this stuff on editors who are trying to wade through COI reports. Once again, in a nutshell, you Blackworm, are vividly and incorrectly conflating POV with COI. No one else has; all other editors responding here have been clear. I'm not certain what else there is left to do. -- Avi (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Please strike or refactor your statement that I claim you to be Jakew, as it is unfounded. I didn't claim you are Jake, I said your argument is Jakew's argument, in the general case. You have been vocally unanimous for years (along with User:Jayjg, who I've not seen around recently), both about content and the claimed misdeeds of editors, always or virtually always, in a milieu with lots of controversy otherwise. If "no one else has," what is the mistake the other two editors claiming a COI are making? Has Garycompugeek not responded here as well? Is he part of the "all other editors" you are referring to? Why do you often claim I'm alone in my view when it's documented to be false? Blackworm (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you seem to agree that Jakew edits the articles to reflect his (and your) POV, however. Blackworm (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi your personal attacks and belittlement to Blackworm does little to help this situation. I agree that you and Jake appear to tag team and control this article and I feel your status as an admin/crat scares others off who might otherwise confront you. Yes the article is influenced by your combined POV violating NPOV in subtle ways as Blackworm points out above. You say we are confusing NPOV with COI while I say the NPOV is a direct result of Jakes COI. Your strident defense of Jake whom you always support is no surprise and merely strengthens our tag team argument. Tremello also has supported the COI allegations although it seems always the same lines drawn in the sand. Pro circ editors (Jake, Avi, Coppertwig, and sometime Jayjg) against the con circ editors (Blackworm, Tremello, myself, and sometimes Tip when he hasn't lost his temper and gotten blocked). Where do we go from here? I would like some outside comment on this thread and think maybe a RFC at the village pump or ANI should bring in some outside comments. I will post any RFC request here so everyone knows where others maybe coming from. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There's another, related issue that I'd appreciate outside opinions on here: repeated accusations of COI.

It's one thing if the Wikipedian community decides that someone has a COI and, on that basis, decides to ask them respectfully to follow certain specified restrictions. It's another thing entirely if an individual editor decides that someone they're in a content dispute with has a COI, and, on that basis, decides to post a comment to the article talk page speculating on the person's inability to see an alleged imbalance (for example here; a ridiculous comment, in my opinion, given Jake's ~~egregious~~ outstanding (in my opinion) intelligence and detachment; and tantamount to impugning his ability to think clearly).

As I explained at ANI, I don't think there's a problem with COI, but I think there's a serious problem at the circumcision pages with repeated accusations of COI.

Misplaced Pages is supposed to be welcoming to experts, but instead of a pleasant working environment, Jake has been subjected to a long series of comments and insinuations, for several years, about his alleged motives, alleged POV, alleged COI and now alleged inability to see imbalance. He has already at one point been driven away from the project for about two or three months by such comments. Given Jake's extremely detailed knowledge of the scientific literature about circumcision, the extensive work that still remains to be done writing the circumcision subarticles, and also Jake's contributions in other areas of the project, it would be a significant loss for Misplaced Pages if Jake were to leave. I've been trying to encourage editors to comment on content, not on the contributor; WP:COI says "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."; I would appreciate comments from uninvolved editors as to the application of this principle in this situation.

To save space here, I've posted responses to some comments by Blackworm and Avi on my own talk page. By the way, if Jake has a COI, in my opinion several other editors of the page have even more of a COI, judging by apparent extremity of POV, dedication to their POV, and tendency for their POV, rather than solely information solidly based on sources, to be evident in their article edits Re Gary's comment: Jake doesn't consider "pro circ" an accurate label for himself and I don't consider it an accurate label for myself. (I am an involved editor. Avi, Blackworm, Garycompugeek, Jakew, Tremello22 and myself are regular editors of the Circumcision page.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Coppertwig is misrepresenting the situation. I do not have a content dispute with Jake and have not started this thread over a content dispute. Yet another attempt to discredit the facts with lies. I welcome an investigation into my behavior Coppertwig. You may try to turn my concern for the project into some kind of vendetta against Jake but its unfounded and unwelcome. I am involved any many facets of this project and was drawn to circumcision by NPOV concerns. Over the years some comments that other editors have made have made me curious about Jake activities outside wikipedia. I have attempted to be civil and discuss my concerns in a gentlemanly manner. I do not wish Jake to leave the project but to recognize a possible COI that creates NPOV in circumcision and related articles. Just as you have applauded Jakes efforts there are many editors who do not and have come to the talk pages calling for his banishment. I am not one of those but the rosy picture you have tried to paint of Jake is also not true. Lastly trying to have me blocked and banned because of my COI concerns project and trying to get more than 2 uninvolved editors to comment is ludicrous. I apologize for any discomfort this might be causing Jake and will readily abide by whatever the community decides. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm and Gary: see reply on my talk page ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested comment Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest#Request input on possible COI. Note I have said as little as possible to be as fair as possible. Garycompugeek (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Break for ease of editing

A question for Gary and Blackworm: do you accept that having a POV and having a COI are two separate issues? If you do, I can't understand what benefit there is in accusing Jake of COI. Even he has a COI, he wouldn't be prevented from editing the article, just as he wouldn't be prevented if he has a POV. There is therefore no point in additionally accusing him of COI.

If Jake were employed by a pro-circumcision organization, I'd agree with you that he has a COI. But if he has himself set up a circumcision information service of some kind, and seems to be operating it alone (which is my understanding of what you wrote), that in itself is not grounds to accuse him of COI. Take myself and my interest in animal rights as an example. I've been editing AR articles on Misplaced Pages for a few years. I'm frequently concerned about the lack of knowledge people have of it, which is largely a result of the media misrepresenting it (in my view). Suppose I were today to set up an AR website devoted to posting information to help people form a less aggressive view of AR. Would I have a COI a few minutes after setting up that website that I didn't have before I set it up, in your view? SlimVirgin 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have a potential COI, you'd be expected to declare it. My point of view on circumcision is declared, to say the least. I honestly believe, however, that I bend over backwards to make sure I'm not injecting my own bias into the articles. I get no thanks. No barnstars, no kudos. Nothing but abuse. Jakew, in contrast, maintains that he is not "pro-circumcision." I invite you to carefully read this pamphlet he co-wrote, and tell me what you think of that assertion. Read what WP:COI says about an editor adequately declaring his interests, and taking great care to avoid controversial edits, in the context of that full colour pamphlet he wrote. Look at the history of Talk:Circumcision. Look at the reams and reams of argument. Remember, Jakew resents the "pro-circumcision" label, claiming to be inaccurate. Read the colour pamphlet he wrote one more time in that context. Is this honesty? Is this discloure? Let's read more:

"If you were expecting a son (for all I know, perhaps you are), and you asked me whether I thought you should have your son circumcised, I wouldn't say "yes", nor would I say 'no.' I hope that this also explains why I find it offensive to be described as an 'advocate': I make a deliberate choice not to advocate."" User:Jakew Diff:
"Risks from circumcision: These are virtually all quite minor and very easily treated. In conclusion: Circumcision of the male partner confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman. A circumcised male reduces her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death. If she is the care giver, as wife or mother, a woman will quite likely need to deal with problems in the uncircumcised male, 1 in 3 of whom develop a condition requiring medical attention at some time during their life." PDF brochure
"The text of this brochure has received consensus support from the following circumcision experts (listed alphabetically), who contributed to its formulation: Jake Waskett (Manchester, UK) " [The same PDF brochure
"There is a spectrum of views within the BMA’s membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. The medical harms or benefits have not been unequivocally proven but there are clear risks of harm if the procedure is done inexpertly." - The British Medical Association

When you're prolifically editing a topic because your personal interests are the publication of one-sided fringe material on that topic, you're in a COI with Misplaced Pages's goals. When you further make wildly unbalanced edits and misrepresentations of the views of major organizations, which are then not corrected by those administrators watching the article (even when they are involved in discussion of the particular sentence -- but who somehow do have the time to "correct" edits made in unrelated articles by editors they hold in low esteem 17 minutes after they are made), then it shows not only a COI, not only a POV, but a way more serious problem involving more than one person. I hope it gets addressed. Jakew wouldn't be a problem if someone neutral were watching. Instead, the ones mandated with watching Jakew are blindly supporting everything he does -- with ample evidence, some presented above and lots more hidden in the history. User:Jayjg is now apparently no longer editing, as so one major supporter isn't here anymore. And now the formerly good cop in that good cop/bad cop duo, User:Avraham, seems to be behaving like Jayjg did in order for this blind acceptance of Jakew's "expertise" and domination of all circumcision-related articles to continue. Maybe User:Coppertwig will take the good cop role from now on, who knows; he seems suited for it. In any case, it doesn't look good on Misplaced Pages. Blackworm (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the pamphlet you posted a link to is pro-circumcision, though in fairness there's no sign that Jake wrote it; it simply lists him as one of the people supporting it. I still say there's no evidence of COI in the sense it's used on Misplaced Pages. You're not in a COI either just because you're anti-circumcision. COI kicks in only when we have reason to believe someone is prioritizing outside interests over the interests of Misplaced Pages. It would make more sense to request mediation, or file a request for comment on the article, asking for fresh eyes on it, and it may be worth asking Jake here to make an extra effort to edit from both perspectives, or a disinterested one, to avoid even the appearance of COI. If you do the same, and if both of you stick very closely to the content policies, the editing atmosphere there should improve. SlimVirgin 04:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You obviously missed "who contributed to its formulation." Co-wrote it, sorry. COI also kicks in when we have reason to believe someone is prioritizing personal interests over the interests of Misplaced Pages (see WP:COI), a fact you still have not commented on despite my mentioning it long ago. I have reason to believe that is what is happening. My explanation is detailed at length above. Ultimately, the true damage is only done because of those who enable Jakew to pursue his outside, personal advocacy interests here. There's not much else to say about it; either the community agrees, or it doesn't. Blackworm (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

To save you from having to guess, Blackworm, I was sent a draft of the brochure, and I sent some comments about it by email. It's possible that another pair of emails followed (comments on my comments, etc); I'd have to check my email archives to be sure. Jakew (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, why won't you say who e-mailed you to join discussion of this topic? Remember: disclosure and honesty go a long way. Blackworm (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add my input. I think Jake's conflict of interest is specifically about the medical aspects of circumcision. He has a great interest in the supposed benefits of the procedure. Consequently, the historical and social aspects of circumcision are not been given a fair hearing. I agree with slimvirgin, a fresh perspective on the article would be welcomed. As for Jake's behaviour, it is hard to convey to someone who hasn't experienced editing circumcision related articles how difficult he makes things. Often an edit which improves the article, he reverts in order to discuss it ad nauseum on the talk page. I feel this is not for the good of the article but just to make things as hard as possible to change the article. From his point of view he benfits from having 2 pro-circ admins (one orthodox Jewish:User:Jayjg, one Muslim:User:Avi) who back him on nearly every occasion. It isn't unusual to have religious editors on a topic that is part of their religion. Obviously there are some negative aspects of circumcision but I feel their religious views may be stopping them from allowing the article to reflect a NPOV. I haven't worked out user:coppertwig, but he obviously thinks Jake can do no wrong; so in effect Jake has 3 "votes" on his side whenever things get moved to the talkpage.

It may surprise you to know that Jake seems to be refreshing his watchpage nearly 24 hours a day, only resting for a few hours in the early hours to get some sleep. For someone to watch the article so meticulously is kind of strange in my opinion. It makes you wonder if he has too much invested in the topic. This is what I think Blackworm and Gary are getting at - maybe not COI, but too much invested, which causes the articles to suffer. I realise he works from a computer, but still, it doesn't exactly make for a collaborative effort (which I thought was what wikipedia was all about). See here for a prime example of discussion of an edit which improved the article but was vetoed for the wrong reasons:Talk:Circumcision#Structure_of_article. As to why things have been stuck for so long I think Jake's behavior has played a part in this. Most editors are put off as Jake uses: Misplaced Pages:Gaming_the_system and Wikilawyering. He tries to make out his reverts were for the good of the article and that he is just following the rules, however he constantly stretches these rules and applies them when they aren't applicable. To an inexperienced editor , they are quickly put off from editing again. What is worse, even experienced editors do not realise he is doing this or choose not to bring him up on it because they share Jakew's point of view on circumcision (usually the edit reverted casts circumcision in a bad light). Tremello22 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Break #2

We see above how User:Blackworm, User:Tremello22, and User:Garycompugeek will approcah this; it seems to be a direct outgrowth of their views on circumcision. However, that is not the matter under discussion here. It is, simply, is there a conflict of interest vis-a-vis wikipedia guidelines? According to the wikipedia definition, at least to me, there is not. POV, yes, but a brief perusal of Tremollo22 and Blackworm's edit will demonstrate just as strong a POV as well. Personally, I find Tremollo's accusations that the religious beliefs of others renders them incapable of editing the article neutrally to be insulting, but it isn;y the first time I've been insulted in that way on the article (I think there were about five times that accusation was rendered). Tremollo's entitled to his opinion, no matter how off-base that may be, as long as it does not interfere with editing the encyclopedia according to its guidelines.

In a nutshell, I think that everyone here needs to step back from the pro- and con- circumcision aspects and approach the question purely Is there any evidence that there has been editing of wikipedia to promoting outside interests over and above that of wikipedia? Yes or no? Simple. I think the answer is clearly no, but I've said that already. -- Avi (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi, I didn't say you weren't capable, I said you haven't shown yourself to be capable. There is a difference. I was talking about you specifically too rather than in general. Tremello22 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackworm, re the BMA quote: in my opinion, replacing "and benefits" with an ellipsis was quite a reasonable edit in the specific context of the quote. This is not the place for content disputes, so if anyone would like me to explain why, feel free to ask me on my talk page or (if still relevant) on the article talk page. If that's the worst allegedly POV edit of Jake's that you can find ...

By the way, Blackworm, I've put some more replies to some of your above comments on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put a proposal on the talk page about how to eventually close this thread. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I've put a further reply to Garycompugeek on my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to address the possible conflict of interest notice. I think in such disputes it's often helpful to have comments from an outside editor who's unfamiliar with the parties involved and unfamiliar with the article/subject at hand. Hopefully taking a step back and providing a wider perspective will be helpful. I've reviewed the discussions here, on the users' talk pages, and on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Based on all the material reviewed, the core of the conflict is over article neutrality with the editors alleging that personal point of views have affected the neutrality of articles. However, I do not see any evidence of a conflict of interest.

If an editor holds certain personal opinions or beliefs and is a member or supporter of organizations that further those beliefs, making NPOV edits to an article would not constitute a conflict of interest. (For example, if a Christian, who belongs to an evangelical group, writes biased NPOV claims in the article on Jesus, this would not constitute a conflict of interest. It would only be a violation of WP:NPOV.) The issue at hand here is a question of NPOV, not conflict of interest. A resolution needs to be reached regarding the NPOV disagreement, and there are proper avenues for dispute resolution (Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution). However, as there's no conflict of interest in this case, it does not belong on the conflict of interest noticeboard. I hope this disagreement can be resolved quickly, and I think that dispute resolution is probably your best path forward.Dgf32 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

What is an NPOV edit? I've shown what I believe to be non-NPOV edits, and non-NPOV edits that in my opinion could only be discovered through a careful re-examination of the source and an appropriate response by someone given the community's nod to maintain a sense a balance in that area. In my opinion, I've consistently made a distinction between personal opinions or beliefs, and personal interests; and given confirmed examples demonstrating the latter in Jakew's case. As yet, no one has addressed these outside interests, preferring to repeat faulty analogies not indicating the appropriate levels of interest in the publication of materials advocating a minority viewpoint (pro-circumcision at the levels evident from the pamphlet, and evident from the substance of Jakew's other Internet publication outside Misplaced Pages, being a minority opinion, as the mainstream sources clearly indicate) demonstrated here. If personal interests regarding the promotion of views are not part of the domain of WP:COI guideline, I suggest removing the phrase "personal interests" from WP:COI. Alternately, please provide examples of strictly personal interest not involving material gain nor recognition that would be the subject of this guideline. I'd be glad to simply remove references to personal interests, and/or adding a phrase similar to "for material gain or recognition" if that is the preferred option. Alternately, there is discussion for suggestions on a better resolution. But clearly the letter of the guideline diverges from the defenses raised here, thus my involvement in Jakew's case is at an end, shifting to the guideline itself. The plurality of opinion dismissing this case seems to indicate that the guideline needs to better express its spirit, as its letter seems rejected and/or ignored. The combination of a dismissal of Jakew's conflict of interest and the status quo on the text of the guideline certainly does not seem a logical conclusion. However, it is one I'm prepared to accept if that is the community's wish. Blackworm (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, "personal interests" can be understood in the sense of obtaining a personal advantage, such as promoting one's own fame: not just being interested in a topic. The categories later in the guideline expand and clarify the meaning. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not described as categories, they are described as examples. I presume that means it's not an exhaustive list; but the point seems moot, as one of those examples states, "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest."WP:COI Note again that the "in a nutshell" doesn't just say organizations, it says " your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers ." You don't even need an organization or even a loose association to engage in advocacy in an area. It indeed clarifies the meaning, but not in a way that reflects your position in my opinion. Blackworm (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you're interpreting "interests" in a much broader sense than that which is intended. I don't think it is intended to be so broad as to encompass a point of view about a given subject, but is rather intended to mean "personal gain". I think that the examples help to illustrate the intended scope.

Furthermore, your claims about "levels of interest in the publication of materials advocating a minority viewpoint" are contrived to the point of absurdity, and aren't even accurate, being based upon little more than misrepresentations. First, my "level of interest" in the pamphlet to which you refer involved replying to an email, giving my feedback on a draft of the text. Second, you haven't supported your claim of a "minority viewpoint" (and, since this isn't a content discussion, you haven't established why it would be relevant). You have only quoted from a single major source (the BMA), and while it is certainly a major viewpoint, it is erroneous to claim that it is a majority position. (Had you selected, say, the World Health Organisation, or the American Academy of Pediatrics, you would have found a completely different "majority" viewpoint. Perhaps selective quoting isn't the best way to find majority viewpoints?) Let me finish by summarising your claim, in my own words. I replied to an email, giving my comments about a draft pamphlet that expresses a point of view (which it does, though not quite my own point of view nor how I would personally express it) that arguably disagrees with the view of a single, selected medical association. Are you seriously suggesting that this is what is contemplated by the conflict of interest guideline? For goodness sake, this is nothing more than an elaborate personal attack, thinly disguised as a COI accusation. And it's time for this nonsense to stop. Jakew (talk) 09:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This is not the proper venue for this discussion. This disagreement is, at its core, over article subject matter. The debate needs to return to those differences in opinions. While disagreements over deeply held beliefs can easily lead to interpersonal disputes, all this time and effort would better be spent resolving the issue at hand. I'd even be willing to help moderate any discussion on article content if any one thought that it might be helpful. While I'm sure that you will continue to disagree on this issue, hopefully you can come with some kind of working solution that everyone can at least tolerate. Dgf32 (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest and offer tho help in this matter dgf32. I feel COI guideline's are left purposely vague and this leads to interpretation. I have tried to lay out my concerns in a logical fashion. If the community rejects them so be it. Jake I apologize for any discomfort this has caused you but I still do not feel you are being completely candid with us. In my dealings with you, you have shown yourself to be the staunchest supporter of circumcision I have yet to come across. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've requested here for someone to close this thread with a resolution or summary. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2009 (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.