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

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

Revision as of 16:28, 2 August 2009 editFT2 (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators55,546 editsm →Siemens PLM Software: tweak← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:40, 3 August 2009 edit undoAthaenara (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits moving inactive discussion to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Circumcision Next edit →
Line 30:		Line 30:
	== Requested edits ==		== Requested edits ==
	* '''].'''  ''Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{tl\|Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.''		* '''].'''  ''Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{tl\|Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.''

	== ] ==
	{{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) }}

	{{Collapse 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)

	{{Collapse bottom}}

	== ] ==		== ] ==

Revision as of 00:40, 3 August 2009

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Shortcuts

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)

This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes:

This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:

1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.

2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.

3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.

Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.

Are you in the right place?

An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}.
Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead.
This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy.

Notes for volunteers

To close a report

Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.

Other ways to help

All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest.
Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.

To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Home Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

Category:Requested edits. Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

SAP AG

Could use some attention, a number of recent edits have been by accounts whose usernames are associated with the product. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that Sapecohub was blocked for spamming, I don't know if that solves the problem but it should help. -- Atama 18:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DIMA285

Resolved – Editor was indef blocked for "disruptive editing". -- Atama 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Dmitri Bulykin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DIMA285 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DIMA285 (talk · contribs) Presumably Dmitri Bulykin? Is taking ownership of the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He continues to edit despite four warning on his talk page. I don't have any interest in working on this article but did revert his latest edit. Maybe a short block is in order. Rees11 (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sam Chupp

Sam Chupp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sambearpoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Entry was created by the subject, and the majority of edits appear to be either by him or by his wife. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.32.12 (talk • contribs)

Not exactly fresh, last edit of Sam Chupp by Sambearpoet was March 2007. Article is a stub, contains exactly four sentences. Without a reference to backup that Origins award, you might even be able to get it through an AfD.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Maurício Dottori

M.dottori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created non-neutral biographical article, the user's first Misplaced Pages activity in over a year. sixtynine 23:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've proposed the article for deletion. If someone other than the author contests the deletion I'd ask them how the article subject satisfies WP:N and if I don't feel satisfied with the answer I'll bring to AfD. So far I haven't seen much to suggest he would. If I do feel satisfied it should be monitored to be sure that the author doesn't continue to influence article content as it has clearly been promotional. -- Atama 22:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Deyber

Robert Deyber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robertdeyber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Written by User:Robertdeyber, the whole thing reads like a promotional piece. Example: "Robert Deyber has given surrealism his own modern twist, complete with Facebook and Twitter pages to prove it. As he exploits literal interpretations of the English language, Deyber’s surprising and comically visual approach to common phrases makes viewers of his paintings think twice about expressions they routinely use."--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned it up a little and chopped out most of the artyfartyspeak and promotional stuff. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BKWSU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related articles, COI, POV, UNDUE issues

I would appreciated some advice on how to deal with these articles. They are mainly created and maintained by the various per-incarnations and re-incarnations of User:Lucyintheskywithdada, who administers a website biased strongly against the BKWSU, and as a result the articles have substantial POV issues.

I also have a COI issue which I admit I have previously handled badly and have been "strongly discouraged" from editing according to the article arbitration ruling a couple of years ago. I took about a year and a half away and now I want to take another shot at resolving the issues with the article but this time do everything the "right" way.

The problem I have is that there is quite a lot of work to clean up these articles. They appear well referenced but a lot of the references are cherry-picked to sound shocking, unsuitable sources, used out of context or even completely concocted by Misplaced Pages editors with an axe to grind. I have started to document the problems I see with the article here and here. Would appreciate comments on the following options...

I continue to document the issues with the article and then put a COI edit request on the article talk page when I have a substantial number of edits to suggest.
I edit the article(s) directly myself but with permission/oversight granted via this noticeboard and after proposing the changes on the article talk page.
Someone kindly volunteers to go through the article(s) with a fine-tooth comb and remove the POV, UNDUE issues.
Revert the article to a version previously achieved by working with the consensus of other editors before User:Lucyintheskywithdada eventually overpowered us again with his various user accounts.
Revert as above as a starting point to immediately solve the article issues then re-introduce any new material from the present article that may still be useful.

In the short term I would appreciate that the article is tagged as having multiple issues as described and also tagged as being a WP:COI article.

The main related articles I can see are List of Brahma Kumaris, Adhyatmik Ishwariya Vishwa Vidyalaya, Dada Lekhraj, Living Values, Values education, Dadi Janki, Brahma Kumaris Beliefs. More may be found here.

Thanks & Regards Bksimonb (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You username suggests that you are connected with the subject matter. If that is the case, you also have a conflict and should read WP:COI yourself. Please do not edit the article yourself but discuss on the article's talk page the changes that you think ought to be made, doing so in a neutral manner and with reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate what Ukexpat has said, you'd be better off with suggestion #1 (make requests on the talk page(s) when you propose changes) and suggestion #3 (ask a third-part to fix problems). I don't know if there are any Wikiprojects that would be interested... -- Atama 22:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi ukexpat. Thanks for the advice. If it's OK with you I would first like to understand where you are coming from a bit better. Yes, I am connected to the subject matter and have declared as much clearly in my previous post and on my user page. That's why I'm posting here. Would I be correct in interpreting what you say as meaning that you don't believe any BK should edit the BKWSU article?

Also, I'm not clear why you believe I may not have read WP:COI. As I understand it, all the options I suggest, including the ones in which I edit myself, are possible if they are made as non-controversial edits, which would mean only making edits that, "have been agreed to on the talk page". That's what initially lead me to believe that it might be OK for me to edit the article as long as took reasonable steps to obtain agreement from non-involved editors, in particular, editors with expertise in COI issues.

Why would I want to edit the article myself? Because the amount of work involved is substantial and I may find that no one else is prepared to do all that. I recently had some success using the COI edit request system for some basic changes to related articles, and I am most grateful to Themfromspace for helping me with that, but I'm not sure how it would scale up to dealing with the main article.

In response to Atama, I believe the appropriate wikiproject would be WikiProject_Spirituality. A quick look at the discussion page and I see lots of old posts that seem to have been left unanswered. Also, I previously tried involving other editors familiar with NRM's but who had no connection with the BKWSU. What happened was that we all got accused of being meat puppets because we appeared to act in concert against one highly disruptive editor who has since been indef blocked for upsetting other editors on other subjects. This time round I would prefer involving editors who are not even connected to any NRM or even spirituality. Then there can't be any pro/anti NRM politics and we can concentrate on the article content and policy.

If options (1) and (3) are the only options available, though, then I will give it a shot. I would be grateful if you could look at the article version I proposed and let me know if you think it would be an improvement on the current article. I just want to get a feel for whether or not this would fly as an edit request. If not, then I will continue with plan (1) and document each and every problem I can find with the present article.

Thanks & Regards Bksimonb (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments were based solely on your post here. I was merely stating the usual advice for editors who wish to edit articles where they have a COI. Talk page discussion is the best approach because it leads to consensus, rather than plunging in and editing the article, which may tick off other editors. Even if your edits are constructive, the very fact that you have a COI may cause others to hit the revert button hastily and cause further frustration. – ukexpat (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. I will try proposing the revert to the non-hatchet-job version on the article talk page and flag it as a COI edit request. It may be refused on the grounds that it's too extensive but I guess it's worth a try. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen songs

I specify genres of songs by Queen from rock to progressive rock, heavy metal etc. but some users reverted my edits without comments and don't contact me. What I can do?--Ole Førsten (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you checked the article's talk page (and archives, if any) to see whether consensus has already been reached as to the appropriate genre? – ukexpat (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In no way does this problem have anything to do with the conflict of interest guidelines. -- Atama 22:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Joe12811 and Bob and Penny Lord/Journeys of Faith

Joe12811 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - For two years, this account has done nothing except add links to books, tapes, etc. by these two writers. It's hard to avoid a conclusion that this is either one or both of the Lords, or somebody working for them. The NPOV problem is obvious from reading the spammy "article" about them linked to in the subject line. Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

*I guess I did not understand about linking a book reference.

These are books available at Barnes and Noble and Amazon and ebay If this is a conflict of interest no problem Just let me know and I will forget about it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe12811 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Games Convention Asia

I've edited the Games Convention Asia article as per the suggestions on the talk page and included new information for this year's convention. Could anyone help me see if it's neutral now? S7r4t4 (talk) 08:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a substantial difference between the time that the article creator last edited the article and now. It's essentially a different article. There is still a lot of work to be done but I'll remove the COI tag. I'm however putting a primary sources tag on the article, as most of the article's references are to the GC-Asia web page. -- Atama 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please watchlist Brooke Fraser if you can

I was wondering if more eyes could go on Brooke Fraser due to ongoing BLP issues. If you have the time, please watchlist this article, and perhaps review it for any BLP problems. Thanks!-Andrew c 14:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify why this is a potential COI problem, Scottligertwood is apparently Scott Ligertwood, Brooke's husband. He has made some recent (controversial) edits to the page. -- Atama 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Large Self referential original research issue

A recent edit to the Korean cuisine article by Stephane mot (talk · contribs) had me curious as to the page she sourced her information from, so I did some research. Looking at the source page, seoulvillage.blogspot.com, I found out it was a blog written by her. After looking at her editing history and comparing that to her blog, almost every addition she has made is self referential pointing back to her own page. I have warned her, but this is a pattern of edits that go way beyond a simple warning. I need an admin to figure out the next step. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I would give the user a final spam warning (because it clearly is spamming) - if the user continues, report to WP:AIV. – ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Railway Museum

Resolved – Per Sswonk below. -- Atama 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

3RR conflict:

User claims to be a long time employee of the article subject and has edit warred over infobox content, specifically the use of a reporting mark on rail equipment owned by the museum. Appears to have a WP:POV contrary to standards established over time in the {{Infobox rail}} field "marks=" and has begun to challenge the supporting reporting mark article merely to make his infobox edits seem justified. Please take a look. Sswonk (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WuhWuzDat was admonished for edit-warring (as was the other party in the dispute), and was warned by an admin not to work on the article (at the least the admin suggested that they stay away due to a COI). I can't tell what in the article is unduly promotional. I've considered adding a COI tag to the page but I'm not sure what would have to be cleaned up. -- Atama 23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything needs cleanup either, more concerned about the spillover into other articles where the COI may not be obvious. Wuhwuzdat has commented on my talk page, appears to have issues with the other party in the 3RR dispute. Maybe for now just look at my talk to see if you think the editor will completely refrain from editing that article, in his remark judging by the tone it appears his involvement is more than a casual gnoming presence. Sswonk (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that he does intend to continue editing the article. WP:COI is a guideline and in the short time I've been involved with this board I haven't seen an editor blocked or sanctioned simply because of their conflict of interest with a subject. I've seen that COI exacerbate other issues, for example a person placing a spam link on an article is more likely to lead to a quick indef block if they are clearly affiliated with the group they are spamming about. When WuhWuzDat engages in behavior such as 3RR, I think that any reviewing administrators (or arbitrators) would take the COI into account when determining punishment. Certainly a topic ban on the article in question would be likely in their case, assuming they continue other behavior that violates Misplaced Pages policy. I don't think the COI alone means that they can't edit the article any longer as long as they behave themselves in the process. -- Atama 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm interpreting your response to mean we'll just need to watch what happens. I don't think I have anything further at this time if you want to archive this thread or place a {{Resolved}} on it – thank you for your input. Sswonk (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean, if they try to own the article or edit war any more, or do anything else against policy then I'd expect a slightly harsher response than an editor without a COI would receive. But until then just see what they do. -- Atama 17:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Clive Fiske Harrison

fiskeharrison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This has been flagged as autobiography. It is not, as is clear, he is my father. However, I am aware there is a conflict of interest, so having sourced the material, I leave it to other editors to change it should they find it lacks neutrality.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That still counts as an ‘autobiography’. I would also question notability here. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically not - an autobiography is a biography written by the subject himself (see auto- on Wiktionary), but it is a COI. – ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was: This is still covered by the autobiography tag. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it a COI? I doubt he's being paid. Not disagreeing necessarily, just wondering where we should draw the line. Rees11 (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Getting paid isn't the only Conflict of Interest that can exist. I would love for a WP article to exist about my father, but to create one myself would be CoI. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I don't think it is - I have tried to be fair to the sources used, NOT to my own view of the man. However, I felt duty bound to put it up here myself, which is not to say it actually deserves to be here. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The part of WP:COI that applies here is in the close relationships section where it states, "Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest." Later in that section it states, "The definition of 'too close' in this context is governed by common sense." That's why the COI doesn't automatically apply, for example, for a person editing an article about a religion they follow, or someone who's a fan of a rock star editing that person's page. Someone who is the subject's son would be considered "too close", I would think. -- Atama 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a potential COI

Hi there. I am a curator at the Imperial War Museum. Anyone who looks at that article's revision history will see that I have made extensive additions to it. Mindful that I might be accused of a WP:COI, I have endeavoured to abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and to stick to facts sourced from WP:RS.

Given Misplaced Pages's definition of CoI, Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages I do not believe I have done anything wrong, as my motivation was to produce a more encyclopedic article. For comparison version prior to my first edit and current version. Thank you for reading. IxK85 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edits look great to me, consider nominating the article for review, it probably deserves Good Article status. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest declaring your COI on your user page by saying that you are a curator at the museum. You don't have to disclose your real-life identity (in fact I suggest that you don't) but by being up-front about your connection to the museum you'll be more likely to find that others assume good faith in your edits. I'll second what Irbisgreif has said, the article looks great and I'd say that your edits speak for themselves; there shouldn't be any need for you to avoid editing the article despite your connection to it. I think this is why WP:COI is a guideline rather than a policy, there are good editors like you who can contribute positively to an article despite the COI. Both WP:WikiProject London and WP:WikiProject Museums have assessed the article in the past, and you might want to drop a note at the talk page of each Wikiproject to ask them to reassess the article (it's certainly past "Start Class" at this point). -- Atama 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fox IP editing patterns

216.205.232.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

An IP address owned by Fox. They are adding defamatory information to competitors pages (see ], ] but the real COIN comes from the edits to Fox TV series, in particular House . TharsHammar and 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This editor can hardly be viewed as acting in good faith, I suggest letting an admin know. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Jason Allentoff

Resolved – Article was speedily deleted under G-4. -- Atama 15:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jason Allentoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Editor User:Jerseyshorewatch, with no other Wiki edits besides those involving Allentoof, is repeatedly removing edits without explanation. They do not respond to questions about the content, or their behavior. References that were checked do not confirm statements made in article. User:Jerseyshorewatch and anon 64.81.219.210 may be the same person. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that "Jerseyshorewatch" is Jason. In any case this is a clear vanity article, and the subject seems to fail notability requirements. I'm going to propose the article for deletion through AfD (it seems too controversial for a prod due to Jersheyshorewatch's actions). -- Atama 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute... In setting up the AfD, I found that the article had already been created before, and deleted through AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Allentoff. I'll put a speedy deletion tag instead. -- Atama 16:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The previous AFD is four years old. You might want to do another one; I'm not sure a G4 is the right way to go for an article deleted four years ago. (Though the information presented does seem to be relatively similar.) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got it on watch, you might be right and the CSD will be rejected. If so I'll definitely bring to AfD. Thanks for the advice! -- Atama 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor crusading on the part of a religion

User:HappyInGeneral is an adherent of Falun Gong and pushing the titleing and wording of Persecution of Falun Gong in Mainland China to a more and more POV position. To quote him "I can assure you this page will be renamed The Genocide against Falun Gong in the PRC, when I'll find enough reliable sources." Yes, he is searching for reliable sources, but his adherence to this faith and the fact that it is only he and User:Asdfg12345 who strongly support the extreme POV over the objections of User:Simonm223, User:PCPP, User:Dilip rajeev, User:Bobby fletcher, User:Ohconfucius, and now myself, including threatening RfC's for good-faith edits and attempts to maintain NPOV in the article gives me strong reason to suspect him of a severe CoI. There is much discussion on the NPOV noticeboard and talk page already, but the CoI needs to be explored and dealt with. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add that he prominently displays this quote on his page: "I agree with Dante: The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crises maintain neutrality, there comes a time when silence is betrayal." I think it's clear that the CoI in this case has overridden the NPOV policy in the mind of this editor. I consider it unfortunate that I can't bring myself to assume good faith. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to oppose WP:NPOV policy, I guess you could do it in a worse way than quoting MLK, Jr. :) But I don't think that WP:COI applies. COI is based on a person's affiliations. For a COI to apply, HIG would have to be attempting to promote themselves, an organization they belong to, or someone else they are closely related to. Simply being a believer of Falun Gong is not sufficient. Other examples of when a COI doesn't apply: a neo-Nazi editing a page on racism, a person of Catholic faith editing an article about the Pope, or a member of the Harry Potter Fan Club editing the J.K. Rowlings article. Just because you have an interest in a subject that doesn't mean you have a COI. Now, if HIG wrote a book about Falun Gong and wanted to mention that book in the article, that's a COI. If HIG was a member of a pro-Falun Gong organization and wanted to add their web site as a reference, that's a COI. Otherwise there is only an NPOV problem, and you've mentioned that the NPOV issues are being addressed elsewhere. I hope that this clarifies things, sometimes what is and isn't a COI can be difficult to distinguish (see the exhaustive circumcision debate at the top of this noticeboard for a particularly apt example). -- Atama 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NederlanderWorld

Resolved – user indef blocked as group account Rees11 (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NederlanderWorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nederlander Worldwide Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User name suggests a COI, possibly promotional too. Rees11 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Meets CSD A7. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I reported to WP:UAA, we'll see if they get blocked for having a promotional username as well. -- Atama 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I had to PROD, SD was denied. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the fast action on this. Rees11 (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: user Amandarose1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has appeared in its place and removed the {{prod}} tag. — Athaenara ✉ 07:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Afd as a contested PROD? – ukexpat (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't believe it's going to AfD, but okay. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Port of St. Helens: group account? Definite COI.

portsh (talk · contribs)

Possible group account ("Port of St. Helens"), being used to edit and create COI pages (1, 2). WP:UAA said to bring it over here. Not sure if anything needs to be done, though I'll use {{welcome-coi}}. tedder (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's more to be done. As I've stated on the talk page of the article, it's clearly going to be a notable subject so the article's existence is justified, I just wish it wasn't a COI account that created it. Either way, no real harm done, the COI account should avoid editing the article in the future and hopefully other editors will expand it properly without bias. -- Atama 01:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama, thanks for looking at it as an uninvolved third party. Cheers, tedder (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic resonance neurography

Magnetic resonance neurography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Diffusion MRI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Afiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on the infomercial shown in YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kAZr6BUc0), I believe one of the editors, Afiller (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Afiller), of this wikipage has direct financial interest in promoting Neurography through this wikipage on Magnetic resonance neurography. CogitoErgoSum101 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

On Afiller's talk page, there is a discussion already regarding this matter. In that discussion his COI was presented to him, and he stated,

"I wrote an extensive review of the history of computed radiology. I am a neurosurgeon. I then cited the review when I added to history sections in this field. In any case, I have no interest in violating any guidelines. Please feel free to remove all of my contributions. I teach and write books (e.g. "Do You Really Need Back Surgery" for Oxford University Press) to inform the general public. However, fortunately, Misplaced Pages has a wealth of knowledgeable contributors (many of whom conceal who they are). I guess I'd better stick to academics. However, it was my impression that this issue was raised when I first started doing contributions. These were reviewed and approved by other editors and appreciation expressed. There was no warning that I was violating some rule and needed to stop writing. I think you are mis-stating the policy, but as I said, please feel free to remove everything I have written if that is what your fellow editors think is appropriate."

He seemed somewhat upset about the COI accusation, and this is really a touchy subject. On the one hand, Afiller is Aaron Filler, the same person quoted a number of times in the article and the same person who wrote or co-wrote a number of the sources used as references in the article. On the other hand, he is very up-front about who he is and has added a wealth of knowledge to MRI-related articles (and I presume others as well). I have to think that WP:IAR trumps WP:COI in this area, where losing Afiller's help is more damaging than a potential COI problem. (I myself am 99% of the time against the whole WP:IAR policy, even though it's considered the "first rule" of Misplaced Pages, but once in a blue moon I actually think it should apply.)

In any case, Afiller doesn't seem to have been disruptive, and Misplaced Pages never has enough experts. I would suggest that no action needs to be taken against him. I doubt very much that he has "direct financial interest" in Misplaced Pages, I can't imagine him editing MRI articles to make a buck considering his credentials. As long as he doesn't violate WP:NPOV or other such policies his editing should be not only allowed, but appreciated. -- Atama 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - the following was the initial assessment on the Neurography page it appears on the discussion for that page :Afiller (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Authorship

I was asked to take a look at this because it's possible that one of the inventors of the technique may be involved in writing the article <edit: this is not a problem in and of itself, but it is good to be aware of the guideline on writing about subjects you're involved in>. I read it and made a few minor tweaks. Overall I thought it was very good, and well referenced. You can tell it's written by a professional. I marked one spot I thought needed a reference, and one I thought needed explanation in layperson's terms. Ideas for improvement include adding explanations in layperson's terms and using more scientific review articles, which are preferred over primary literature in Misplaced Pages. If the technique has disadvantages compared to standard MRI, they should be included per the very fundamental neutrality policy. Thanks for the great work on the article so far, I look forward to seeing more from these contributors. Don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you need any help or want to discuss anything. delldot talk 19:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC) I will leave a note on wikiproject medicine. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC) From reading this article, I have no idea how widely or where it is practised. A google search lists the Neurography Institute as the exclusive provider (on google description but not the page), which gives me concerns about notability. Now this article needs to mention this material in a neutral fashion. also needs some criticism - is it widely taken up? If not , why not? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

CogitoErgoSum, Atama - Thanks. As I have pointed out in other areas, there are many conflicts that are not disclosed that are harmful. For instance, most academics depend on grants and academic promotion so they always promote their work. This is generally clear to all who read. Misplaced Pages poses a special problem because it is often anonymous and there is no formal process to document conflicts. I have posted information on the inventions in the articles and on my userpage. In the Diffusion MRI page, we had the conflict of editors supporting a scientist who heads up grant committees at NIH. If you are applying for a grant in your field, it is great to support the NIH section chief over a competing scientist -but that presents a conflict - often undeclared. I have also encountered very upsetting conflicts of interest with regard to teaching and training. Spine surgeons don't want patients to know about piriformis syndromes or neurography because it may provide an alternative diagnosis so they don't get spine surgery. I once organized a co-conference for the Cedars Sinai spine institute along with their spine instrumentation course and had prominent speakers from around the country coming. The spine surgeons forced us to cancel because the instrument manufacturers did not want spine surgeons learning about alternatives. Now how do we disclose to patients the training bias of the surgeons who were prevented from learning about new diagnostic methods that might reduce the frequency of inappropriate spine surgery. In any case, in academia, we don't try to prevent publication from anyone whose job depends on their work or there would be no one left to publish. Similarly, we don't automatically prevent publication by people who are being paid unearned money by some corporation as long as it is disclosed. We don't want to criminalize inventing things. I developed MR Neurography because there was no method to image nerve reliably and I perceived that people were suffering unnecessarily because of this. I spent years of work successfully figuring out how to do this and I have then spent years doing careful formal large scale outcome trials - as have also been done by others who I have never met - all of the studies from the various groups are finding similar accuracy and efficacy rates so my own work is demonstrably accurate. There are those that feel that patents are bad and inventors are bad people. However, time and again, it seems to turn out that intellectual property rights are beneficial to society and inventing new solutions is helpful to society. We can also look into excluding any expert from writing in an encyclopedia - relying only on non-specialists. This has some supporters but has many obvious problems as well. I feel that a person should disclose who they are so conflicts can be clear. The citations on the Neurography page leave no doubt about my interest in this area. I am glad that so many thousands of people have been relieved of pain and suffering because of this invention and the work done to verify its clinical efficacy. I do want more people to know about it and understand how it can help them get the best care and that is certainly my bias. Multiple providers are noted on the page.Afiller (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CogitoErgoSum and Atama - I have also added a conflict of interest statement to the MR Neurography and Diffusion MRI articles with a full formal conflict of interest statement on my user page.Afiller (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, your edits have been very constructive. We just like to take a close look at possible CoI's to make sure nothing violating other rules has taken place. Those who don't hide CoI's and make constructive edits should feel free to continue editing, but be aware that people will take a closer look than they might otherwise. Irbisgreif (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's give this a day or two and if nobody else has any strong objections it would be best to remove the banners on the pages. -- Atama 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Atama, Irbisgreif - Thanks for the explanation and the positive words. I see that Ibisgrief has already removed the banner. I also did a drawing, references and a "How it Works" section on the Spin Echo article - just to be cautious - because it relates to MRI, I will put the COI notice on that page as well.Afiller (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Afiller, put the COI on the page's talk page, not the main page. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wannamaker Agency

WAgency234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Created The Wannamaker Agency and own userpage with spam advertising said agency. Tckma (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CSD it all and request an admin look into the account. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Both ads have been deleted via CSD already. Tckma (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I requested an admin to look into the account at ANI. Tckma (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not much to worry about here on CoI then. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Copernic

Paul-Michel (talk · contribs)

Paul-Michel self-identifies as the web marketing agent for Copernic. (See Talk:Copernic Agent). He is creating articles about Copernic's products. While technically not speedyable, it's obviously using Misplaced Pages for promotion. --B (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a COI notice on their user talk page. -- Atama 21:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Declaring a potential COI

I find a curator of a museum putting a notice above, written in polite and businesslike language, saying he could be regarded as potentially conflicted, but that "I do not believe I have done anything wrong, as my motivation was to produce a more encyclopedic article".

I could also write something like that about something I did a couple of years ago. I've done more than an eighth-of-a-million edits to Misplaced Pages in the course of almost seven years, not one of them by any automated or partially automated means (bots or whatever), including creation of a fairly large number of new articles (would you believe Misplaced Pages actually had no article on Cavalieri's principle until this year?!) (see the partial list on my user page). Two people whose identities I don't recall have added links to papers I wrote that were published in scholarly journals. (I think one of them was an anonymous user identified only by an internet protocal number belonging to a machine somewhere in Britain. That proves that at least one person noticed my paper. Who'd 'a' thunk it?) And I have added one myself—maybe two or three years ago. These were in three separate articles.

I also "do not believe I have done anything wrong, as my motivation was to produce a more encyclopedic article". I could point out exactly which article it was. But today I am not feeling very benevolently disposed toward Wikiepedia's COI community, in part because I believe them to be guilty of systematically violating Misplaced Pages's assume-good-faith policy. I wish I could think that the polite and businesslike tone above is how the COI community typically works. But it is not so. So I'll phrase it a different way: See if you can guess which article.

(Well, actually, I don't think there should be any difficulty......) Michael Hardy (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do think this is a bit of a publicity stunt on your part, consider taking off the spiderman costume? Irbisgreif (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The "spiderman" item you've linked to says:

Sometimes even the most saintly of Misplaced Pages editors become involved in disputes over content.

So at least you've succeeded in recognizing that I am among the most saintly of Wikipedians. Congratulations. Oh, and I see that I will be able to edit again some time after the heat-death of the universe (if not immediately after).

Something really needs to be done about the guilty-until-proven-innocent nature of some of the practices of the COI community, including some of the boilerplate templates they use.

(In one case several years ago, a person of perhaps marginal notability named Harry Binswanger edited the article about himself, deleting an erroneous assertion that he had taught courses at Duke University, and, I think also deleting an erroneous statement that he was the editor of a scholarly journal. All he did was delete claims that he had accomplished things that he had not. But it got him a warning about COI. More recently I've observed someone getting boilerplate warnings that he shouldn't do advertising or promotion, before anyone adduced any evidence that he had done so, or for that matter even asserted it. Guilty until proven innocent.) Michael Hardy (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience here has been that CoI's are only problems in conjunction with other problematic editing. I can't speak for too far in the past, I only decided to dive into the backend of wikipedia recently. With the exception of a misunderstanding I've apologized for, I've allways assumed good faith here. Perhaps if you feel things are too heavy handed, you'd like to get involved and help out, giving advice and reminding people to remember to assume goodwill? Irbisgreif (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch, I think something sharp nicked me. Seriously, WP:COI is a guideline only and if nobody is misbehaving nothing really happens from a COI notice. The COI templates can be used to post inappropriately rude things on a person's talk page, but so can the templates at WP:SPAM and WP:VAN and any number of places. -- Atama 04:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, the talk page is that way. The noticeboard isn't a place to talk about COI guidelines or conduct of the noticeboard, it's to request assistance in COI matters. I suggest moving this discussion there. -- Atama 04:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I was not attempting to publicize a cause; I was just more-or-less reflexively expressing how I felt about recent occurrences. I had just found out that COI has its own notice board and is a community.

Standard COI templates violate the assume-good-faith rule in a very emphatic and unqualified way. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I happen to agree with you, and I've said as much here where the discussion probably belongs. It's not a bad idea to have a discussion on the COIN talk page also, about courtesy in warning editors about a COI. But that discussion probably shouldn't be here on this page itself. -- Atama 04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Norvall Jerome Pickett

Having never run into any real COI problems before, I'm not sure if I'm jumping the gun here, but I thought I'd be cautious and see what some other people think.

The subject of the linked article has a son whose name matches the username of the article's main author. The article has plenty of citations, but none of them are actually to material that substantiates the article's claims. Rather they are typically just links to the homepage of any of the various organizations that the article's author has been associated with, containing no mention of the article's subject himself. I took the links out to prevent linkspamming and to make clear that the information in the article was not yet verified.

Since then, the original author has restored them with what seems to me like an unfounded rationale. I'm coming here because the author has what appears to be an obvious conflict of interest, but I'm also reticent to address it straight out because of the outing rules, which I suppose could be strictly construed to ban this. I'm just hoping someone with more experience in this area can offer some guidance. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The outing rules don't apply to information that an editor voluntarily provides. When the editor chose to use his real name as his username (assuming it is) he gave that information freely. Inquiring about any possible real-life connection to the article subject based on what they've done or said in Misplaced Pages isn't a violation of their privacy. Now, if you had done some off-wiki sleuthing and came across info, and then brought it here and confronted him, that would be a different story. -- Atama 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. No Inspector Gadgetry here; the username just was a clear match to the name in the article, and I've since discovered that he outs himself on his userpage. The userpage also shows that his edits, which are numerous, are primarily limited to topics with which a COI would be likely. Again, I'm not sure if just stating that possibility on your own userpage is enough to notify people of the conflict, or if the editor should be making those notifications at each article's talk page, or if he should just be staying away from the article altogether. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are no set rules. Stating the COI on his own page I would think is sufficient declaration, it's certainly a sign that he's not trying to sneak in anything under the radar. You've addressed your concerns in a civil manner both on the talk page of the article and the editor's talk page, and I think the AfD is also appropriate, you've handled everything properly in my opinion. -- Atama 05:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough. Thanks for the guidance. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I might as well weigh in on this. I am an inclusionist and see no problem with including minor notables, persons known in their communities and circles but not to the greater world. Its not like a few KB of memory is expensive. I also can't quite get my head around the conflict-of-interest controversy. Direct promotional articles, or articles defaming persons should, of course, be limited. However I can't see Joe Blogs from Florida being interested in writing an article about California pizzas. Certainly article creators have some interest in the subjects they write about. Otherwise there is no reason a person would write about someone. I personally knew George Swain, a person with numerous articles written about him, so he is notable. But he was what would be considered, to anyone who saw him, to be a desert tramp. Who else in the world would know enough ABOUT him or cared enough, or had the knowledge about writing Misplaced Pages articles, to write an article for inclusion? Who else has the intimate knowledge of the History of a subject to include the necessary details? You won't find those details in newspaper articles. I know it is not Wiki policy but there is a need and a place for Eyewitnesses to History. It is something sorely lacking in Misplaced Pages. When I wrote the article about Norvall Jerome Pickett I tried very hard to use a NPOV. I wasn't hiding my identity behind a made up user name as many do (see above). He had a place in the History of the towns and communities where he served. He was well known, to almost everybody in those locations. Many of the references I included because there is no article about those subjects in Misplaced Pages, articles that NEED to be written as they are institutions that are notable. I think it is time to expand our horizons in Misplaced Pages, or else there needs to be something created that will allow for this to happen. DavidPickett (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry but you want to fundamentally change what Misplaced Pages is. Misplaced Pages not a place for first-hand accounts or personal research. You can't provide information provided by yourself. This just isn't that kind of a web site. Misplaced Pages only contains information that is backed up by sources found in other places. It's how the whole site functions. And by the way, the encyclopedia gets by just fine when Joe Blogs from Florida writes about California pizza, because he'll just include information found in the California Pizza Weekly magazine.

Now, if I may make a suggestion (and please don't take this the wrong way), but if this is your only interest then Misplaced Pages might not be the place for you. I'm not saying you don't belong, every person who wants to contribute positively is welcome and you've definitely done nothing wrong that would mean you shouldn't edit anymore. But if you find Misplaced Pages's policies too restrictive for what you want to do, there are other places you can go. There is a list of wikis maintained on Misplaced Pages that you can look over to see if perhaps a different wiki would be a better place for the info about your father. WikiIndex is another place to find other wikis that's located on a different site. Or, you can check for other places that aren't wikis at all that you can post the info. But honestly, you're not going to be able to publish original research on Misplaced Pages, that's never going to happen. -- Atama 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to check out new projects on Meta, some might fit what you're thinking of. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That is very sad for Misplaced Pages in that it becomes only as good as the news articles that are out there, which are usually biased, one sided, or do not give the whole story. To get the "Whole story" you need people who are not influenced by the Editorial slant of the newspaper or magazine which has the "Original" "Research". You need people who lived it. DavidPickett (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a completely legitimate criticism. When you consider that Misplaced Pages is based on "verifiability, not truth", it might lead you to wonder, "Why isn't the truth more important?" Unfortunately I think that while that would be a wonderful goal, it won't be achieved in a collaborative project like Misplaced Pages because different people will have their own idea of what is and isn't the truth. That's why we have to fall back onto news articles, books, and other sources outside of Misplaced Pages itself, because we can be more objective that way. It can lead to a situation where you read an article that has information that you know to be false, that you've seen with your own eyes that it's false, but if some newspaper story cited in the article says otherwise there's nothing you can do (at least no here on Misplaced Pages). -- Atama 18:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for listening to my concerns anyway. Glad to know someone understands Misplaced Pages's shortcomings. If I were to be quoted or have a column weekly in some local rag I could be "notable", but someone such as Jean-Philippe Susilovic who is never written about but appears weekly on TV is not notable! Thanks anyway! DavidPickett (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the article for Jean-Philippe states that the notability isn't established, and obviously it isn't in that article (there's almost nothing in the article). But just a quick search on Google News shows plenty of mentions. That's an example of an article that needs improvement, not deletion, because reliable sources can be found. A bit off-topic but I thought I should respond. :) -- Atama 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI/self-editing by subject of article

EdBedden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) would appear to be the subject of the article Marc Leepson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Although the subject passes WP notability test, it appears he is self-editing, and with all the links to personal pages on Facebook etc, the article is bordering on a vanity page. 98.169.235.230 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Get involved now

I made some comments here. The only person who replied agreed with me. I forbid those who don't get involved with this to complain to me about my construing their silence as consent. So wake up, if you haven't already. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

.......oh, and can someone here help with this? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Siemens PLM Software

Siemens PLM Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The talk page comment on this was raised as a concern. Further checking quickly showed the article was apparently the writing of an individual at the company itself .

None of this means the article is an automatic delete, but given one user has critiqued it very strongly and the COI issue, can the article be reviewed to see if it is overly promotional, non-encyclopedic, or meets WP:CORP?

FT2 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories: