Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 2 March 2014 (→Occupational health psychology: signed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:14, 2 March 2014 by Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) (→Occupational health psychology: signed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections 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-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    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
    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: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:Sharp Memorial Hospital 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

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

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

    This situation is a bit odd. I've been watching several state-level articles from this organization for a while due to copyright violations and advertising. I don't like leveling that accusation without evidence but there's at least 40 articles to check the history of and I don't think that any topic bans or blocks needs to be given.
    I support having this report here due to how easily the AfD, possible followup AfDs, and just the overall situation may quickly deteriorate due to the nature of the subject (national-level political party).
    The AfD is attempting to sort out which state-level organizations in this party are notable and which are not (there are currently 31 articles listed in the AfD). All-or-nothing arguments have sidetracked the discussion so level heads are very welcome. Outside of that, I don't see any reason for discussion to take place here. OlYeller21 20:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Lexington62 has posted to another editor saying "The Constitution Party of West Virginia is trying to organize a team to perform this task on the rest of the CP state pages to save them. If you can help, would you please send an email to correspondence@cpwva.org? Thank you, and God Bless!Lexington62 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)" This is clearly a conflict of interest. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    The user's own page is effectively a disclosure of COI. Which is normally something I'd appreciate. Except for the fact that they state, "The respective state party chairman HAVE ALL BEEN INFORMED of this project and will be performing their own content editing to add local material and specific references to elevate the page from stub class." Which means that there is the potential for large a number of people to be editing articles with a clear conflict of interest that may be undeclared. The AfD closed with the result that all of the pages be turned into redirects, and for the material to be merged. Lexington62 declared their intention to maintain and develop stubs for all of the state articles by coordinating with state chairmen, and specifically declared that any redirects will be changed to stubs. That was before the AfD concluded, so that plan may have been aborted. The editor has not been active for a few days, so we'll see what happens. I can't say that I'll be able to watch each page but if it becomes necessary for an administrator to intervene and Dougweller is unavailable, I can assist. -- Atama頭 16:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks to Atama and Dougweller for your work on this. I have all of the pages on my watchlist so if any are recreated I will know and pass it along. On a side note though I have somewhat stepped back from this since Lexington62 has accused me of political motivations in my AfD nom. It's probably better to let others handle the merging and redirects so as not to unnecessarily muddy the waters. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

    Acupuncture

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Obviously retaliatory (I co-certified an RfC for this editor) and off-topic. (Factually inaccurate too, for the record... the bad edit was an acknowledged cut-and-paste accident). Might be worth collapsing the text (template hat/hab).... --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    I believe you when you say it was accidental, but, regardless, when accidents make it look like you are changing article text to skew it towards a contentious professional POV you must have, it is important that we identify the best ways to remain above the board. If you had had a strict policy -- as others do -- of not editing in article space when relating to subjects with which you have a vested interest that extends to financial spheres, this would have never come up. jps (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    STOP. Accidental duplication of an entire paragraph enumerating adverse events is not a POV-push. This is disruptive, retaliatory and underhanded. I posted here in good faith seeking feedback, and these posts from QuackGuru and jps are an attempt to poison the waters. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 23:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    He did delete the Adams 2011 reference but he also previously deleted the text from the 2011 meta-review. This happened on two different occasions. One time we could believe him it was an accident but he did it two separate times. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously, this shouldn't even be here. But I will say that comments like this are why an RfC/U exists: repeating false allegations that someone has already corrected is not cool. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • A wikipedia article which describes pseudoscience/a fringe theory or alternative medicine is always going to be difficult for its proponents to edit neutrally since the article will be generally negative on the issues of validity and plausibility etc. A fringe proponent will inherently find it difficult to edit neutrally in such a topic. For example, I have yet to see a case where a fringe proponent consistently follows WP:MEDRS in their speciality. In the topic of astrology for example, the astrologers that have continued to edit the section about the scientific basis of astrology ended up being topic banned because they couldn't allow negative content about their discipline to stand. Something to consider, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Acupuncture was a mid-life career change for me; I was a scientist before. The first response to this Ernst blog post by one "Skeptical acupuncturist" wasn't me, but nearly could have been. The climate was different in the '90's and acupuncture seemed so promising. At any rate, I do understand MEDRS and sticking close to good sources. I also know the profession from inside out, like Ben Kavaoussi, and can help evaluate TCM-specific sources. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 17:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    QG, I'm sorry you're disgruntled about the current RfC/U, but your comments plainly belong there, not here. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a bit of a question regarding whether or not there is a conflict of interest per WP:COI. I think this is the kind of case where the line get a bit blurred because "close connection" is fundamentally a grey area.
    In my opinion, with this case, COIN should serve two functions. One is to determine if a topic ban needs to be placed on someone based on their connection to a subject whose article they are editing. The other is to help bring editors to a situation to attempt to solve a content dispute where personal beliefs may be affecting the outcome. WP:NPOVN was created exactly for that purpose as well (I think it should be reported there as well).
    I don't see any need for a topic ban at this point. The discussion is heated and there are accusations of personal attacks and lack of WP:AGF but it looks like most of those accusations are based on a disagreement rather than personal attacks that require blocks. Even if they get to the point of blocks, they're not really close to warranting a topic ban. On a side note, falling back on personal attack accusations and personal attacks themselves are easily trumped by good arguments. I'm not saying that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF should be ignored - at all - but don't let yourself get caught up in that fight when the goal is to create a good article for Misplaced Pages (if that's not your primary goal, you shouldn't be editing the topic).
    As for the content dispute, I agree with IRWolfie-'s statement. The controversy on Misplaced Pages will mirror the controversy outside of Misplaced Pages but the difference is that WP:MEDRS is a guideline for a reason and the community issued a topic ban in the case of astrology for a reason. If any participants find themselves disagreeing with WP:MEDRS or the topic ban, they need to realize that the playing field isn't same here as it is outside of Misplaced Pages. Making arguments that are based on the findings of sources that don't satisfy WP:MEDRS aren't going to be given as much weight, or possibly any weight, like they might outside of Misplaced Pages. Anything that's described as pseudoscience is going to be controversial and WP:MEDRS inherently shows Misplaced Pages's stance in that controversy.
    Unless someone suggests a topic ban or blocks, I think this discussion regarding this report would be best served at the article's talk page. OlYeller21 20:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    I will not be suggesting a topic ban because I don't believe in them. On the other hand, I do think it is problematic that Middle 8 has been consistent in insisting that he is completely above the fray when it comes to this issue. I suggested that he simply stay away from the articlespace and continue to contribute in the talkpage. This was rebuffed rather angrily, but I do not begrudge him that since he thinks he is in the right. Nonetheless, the last think I want is for this discussion to be interpreted by him in the future that he has no conflict of interest. I think he does have a conflict of interest, rather plainly so. I'm not sure whether that means he should agree to my suggestion or not, but the fact that he will not acknowledge this concern makes it difficult to have the conversation when it comes to looking at his activities. jps (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    If I didn't acknowledge the concern, then why did I start this thread? Unfortunately, your abetting QuackGuru's vendetta has completely sidetracked it, rendering any meaningful collective insight unlikely. We'll start afresh some other time, so no harm; but the drama and wasted time was preventable. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    You explicitly say on your user page about conflicts of interest that you have "None declared." That's simply not acknowledging that you have one. You could even couch it as, "I don't think I am acting untoward, but it is understandable why some think I have a conflict of interest." But you won't even do that. You won't acknowledge the existence of the complaint. jps (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    Sure, that's been my opinion till now, but because I might be wrong I came here -- so of course I acknowledge a potential COI. Not sure what your problem is ... I thought you'd be pleased by this development. And sure, I'll be happy to change the wording; my views are evolving, and I'm not rigid. I'm not going to press my view no matter what; that would be inappropriate and disruptive. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    Wording changed on user page, thanks for timely suggestion --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    That makes sense. I haven't read through the entire situation so take this with a grain of salt - I suggest that both parties remember that our opinions on a topic aren't particularly important. The opinions of reliable sources is important. If reliable sources, outlined by WP:MEDRS think one thing and sources that don't satisfy WP:MEDRS think something different, the latter's opinion isn't included in the article. It's quite that black and white, obviously, but that's how things should be going.
    We all get in arguments where we think our view is "right" but Misplaced Pages isn't concerned with what's "right" or "true" (as crazy as that sounds). Misplaced Pages reflects what's verifiable. Opinions published by Misplaced Pages should reflect the overall feelings of reliable sources.
    Does that help at all? Again, I'm not completely familiar with the entire situation so maybe I need to shut my mouth (fingers). OlYeller21 21:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
    Well-said. MEDRS is something I know well. I didn't mention it, but I'm also a degreed scientist, so I grok the literature. I will add, as gentle nudge, the jps's own biases have gotten him into some topsy-turvy positions with respect to MEDRS: see at WT:MEDRS. I think jps oversimplifies pseudoscience demarcation and discounts grey areas. Acupuncture is controversial precisely because the results are mixed, and jps's default position appears to be that all non-null results are to be discounted as the work of fringe proponents. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    This is the classic pseudoscience defense. It is no more valid when Middle 8 says it as when a parapsychologist says it or when a ufologist says it or when a creationist says it. It's all the same thing over and over again. Those of us in the trenches, it is claimed, see everything as a bullseye. What's not appreciated by the critics is that their particular fondness for their particular idiosyncratic idea is just as reasonable as the others who have particular fondness for their idiosyncratic ideas. The Vickers source has been impeached so well and so often it's not worth bringing up again, but, needless to say, independent sources all agree that its meta-analysis does not show efficacy in the way Vickers et al. have promoted it to have done. No biggee, just a slight little problem with the NCCAM funding junket. Not here to right great wrongs, of course, but the content is clearly not accepted as the last word on the subject, in spite of the protestations of, would you believe it?, acupuncturists. jps (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    Like I said, your views on demarcation are oversimplified; the more scholarly sources acknowledge grey areas and multiple criteria for demarcation. Do you respect Michael Shermer? (Perhaps in a moment you won't.) He makes the exact same argument that you just called a classic pseudoscience defense. In a book chapter (in a book edited by Massimo Pigliucci, another prominent skeptic and expert on demarcation, and M. Boudry; 2013), Shermer classifies acupuncture as "borderlands science", in between science and pseudoscience. From what I've seen online, it's an impressive book. ... But see how far afield from the original question this is? I may need some level of moderation next time, and may have to have the discussion in user talk space where hijacking can be swiftly dealt with. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 07:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    Acupuncture is not a pseudoscience. It is a practice that practitioners claim can provide certain medical benefits, but the arguments that these benefits exist ultimately boil down to pseudoscientific arguments. The best they've got is that there is a sympathetic nervous response which is beneficial, but they posit no evidence for this beyond the simple observation that putting needles in a living animal provokes a sympathetic nervous response (the benefits of this response are clouded in obscurity). It is important to make the distinction that the practice itself is not a pseudoscience, and only in the meanest sense would someone classify a practice as such. Putting onions in your room to ward off a cold, though a folk remedy, is just a practice. Only when you claim a mechanism does such a claim become pseudoscientific. Shermer understands this, even in the source you cite. You do not seem to understand this. jps (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    There have been a number of people who have contributed to this thread that are neither myself nor QG. They all mention at least a possibility of a conflict of interest. But, it seems like you're going to dismiss their comments as being somehow tainted. And you accuse me of being cynical? jps (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    WP:IAD. When threads are hijacked, the depth of discussion suffers, so naturally I'd like to have a deeper consideration later. And of course I am grateful for the feedback we have been able to garner. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 06:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    I Call Shenanigans. QuackGuru has posted exactly three comments and you replied to every one of them. Jps has posted six comments and you replied to five out of six. By comparison, you have made fourteen comments, and I have made one.
    You are free to simply skip the comments that you don't like. Nobody will think the less of you for not responding. Quite the opposite, actually.
    If, by some chance, you are strapped to a chair with your eyelids tied open in front of a monitor showing a QuackGuru-only feed and The QuackGuru Song by Gilbert Gottfried blasting in the background, then let me address this message to your captors: First of all, keep up the good work. Secondly, please take away his keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    @Guy Macon, my comments above are sincere; any apparent shenanigans are artifacts of my communicative style (which obviously needs work). But from your remark, I can see that my excessive replies ended up causing at least as much disruption as anything else. Maybe even more than all of them put together. Clearly this is a lesson in progress for me. Thanks, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • From Beyond My Ken, reposted: I don't see why one's profession should be any less of a potential COI than one's employer -- it depends on the editor. Some can write about their work or their company in a straightforward and neutral manner, while others are so strongly connected to them that they cannot achieve objectivity. In the case of a quasi-medical procedure like acupuncture, which, by its very nature, cannot be studied using double-blind tests, and therefore is largely reliant on anecdotal evidence, and is highly subject to the placebo effect, there's always going to be a certain amount of clashing between those who truly believe in the technique, and those want to see some objective proof of its efficacy. That means that we need to be much more concerned about the self-interest of the people who edit the article. Given that, acupuncturists who edit it are bound to be held to the highest standard, which means a declaration of their potential COI and, if their editing isn't pristine, following full COI procedures. BMK (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC) (reposted here 19:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC))

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

    @Jyt - Far from tldr, I find your comments exceptionally insightful and helpful. You obviously "did your homework" regarding the topic area (and current controversies within it, on and off-wiki), my relationship to it, and my editing in general. Quite a pleasant surprise. (comments in progress -- I'm posting right now in order to "bump" the thread so that the bots don't archive it, and will add more presently... see also my comments at QG RfC. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 20:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

    General case

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

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

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

    It's still there, just in a different form. Read WP:EXTERNALREL, where it states, "But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Misplaced Pages." I do agree that the previous language was clearer and I'm curious as to the justification for its removal. -- Atama頭 19:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    Eh, I see that this was already addressed over on WT:COI with more-or-less the answer I gave. :p -- Atama頭 19:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

    Swenzy, yet again

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

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

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

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

    Mitch Meyers

    Editor has been adding and restoring promotional statements, BLP content not in listed sources, and deleting CN and COI tags, among others. Editor (whose only edits have related to a current company, two of its founders, and a previous company they were involved in) has a verifiable WP:COI, and has avoided discussion of that COI on talk pages. Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, the editor has a verifiable COI, easily verified at least if we assume WP:REALNAME here. And the editor's actions seem to violate almost every suggestion made in our COI guideline. -- Atama頭 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
    And now that we've launched a COI investigation, suddenly another editor has popped up making the same edits to the same articles, also with no statement of COI. What a coinkydink! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    This edit is problematic... not sure which is right. SmartSE (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    I suspect that's more of a "success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan" matter; a campaign that large clearly involves more than one person. However, the sourcing on the Meyers assertion is problematic, as you've noted elsewhere. NOTE: I have added the new user name to this COI properly now. Should I start a simultaneous WP:SPI on them? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    To AGF here a bit, it's possible that Nick created a new account not including his real-life name in an attempt to get privacy. If the old account no longer edits, then there should be no violation of WP:SOCK. I like to give editors a bit of wiggle-room and err on the side of privacy (realizing that WP:OUTING trumps WP:COI until someone is clearly abusing the former to support the latter). My suggestion is to wait on that SPI until the Nickroady account edits again; if so, then file the SPI. Behaviorally speaking, as someone who has participated in many SPIs in the past, it looks like they're the same person (notice the similarity in edit summaries between the two accounts). But we allow someone to abandon one account and start using a different one if the old account is never used again, especially if the old account included identifying information. -- Atama頭 18:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    Fair 'nuff. I will hold off on any SPI, barring further compelling occurences. However, I would like to see practical motion on the COI (in addition to Smartse's very useful help with edits.) Nick's COI is clear; the new account, even if it is not Nick, is editing in the exact style of someone with a COI, and so passes the duck test. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

    Sameera Weerasinghe‎

    Autobiography, with persistent copyright violations and promotional intent. JNW (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

    I'm sending it to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

    John Parr

    This user self-identifies as a representative of the subject e.g. - some of the problematic edits include deletion of maintenance templates , ignoring talk page warnings, article talk page tampering , and in the user contribs, multiple cases of "factual addition" without referencing, and clear symptoms of WP:OWN . Dl2000 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

    • I'm not an Admin so know authority here to actually do anything. But FWIW this does look like a pretty clear case of COI and persistent disruptive editing. I suggest that user:JPMLTD be blocked from further editing on the article in question if that is in fact possible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I have blocked JPMLTD for three days as they have continued removing maintenance tags after being blocked for that previously. I'll leave some advice on their talk page. SmartSE (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

    Paracetamol (asthma section)

    There is no evidence of a conflict of interest. As a content dispute this is better discussed at Talk:Paracetamol. SmartSE (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

    Multiple deletes of accurate and properly referenced content on Paracetamol (asthma section). All information suggesting paracetamol’s epidemiological link to asthma is a valid link deleted (content referenced by many peer reviewed medical journal articles), while every bit of evidence suggesting link not valid left in (referenced by significantly fewer sources). Not neutral. Significantly slanted toward view that favors pharmaceutical manufacturer.

    Additionally, these edits appear to involve paid conflict of interest editing by individual with ties to the pharmaceutical industry. The content repeatedly deleted does not represent “undue weight”, as it's referenced by numerous peer reviewed medical journal articles. The repeatedly deleted content includes detailed and specific factors which link paracetamol use to asthma.

    Paid conflict of interested edits suspected in this instance by user Formerly 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) He has attempted multiple tactics to censor this information, including misrepresentation of this information as undue weight.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paracetamol&diff=596143963&oldid=596137886

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paracetamol&diff=596291033&oldid=596186085

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paracetamol&diff=596291033&oldid=596186085

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paracetamol&diff=596570621&oldid=596563551

    Review of Formerly 98's edit history includes multiple and frequent edits of medication side effects, which involve censoring or downplaying adverse events, suggesting paid conflict of interest editing involving ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

    Possible conflict of interest by moderator Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jmh649 was contacted directly by Formerly 98 and responded by deleting the above mentioned content. He claimed to have originally deleted it because a concise summary of the information was very similar to a concise summary found in one of the review articles referenced. He cited “copyright violation” as reason for the deletion. However, the true reason for the edit apparently was not copyright violation, because once the wording was changed to remove any hint of copyright violation, he stated it was now proper to delete it because it was now not concise enough, claiming the asthma section of the paracetamol page is somehow clearer with every bit of evidence suggesting link to asthma true deleted (referenced by many sources) while every bit of evidence suggesting link to asthma not true left in (referenced by far fewer sources) Extreme lack of neutrality.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paracetamol&diff=596341712&oldid=596341479

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talk • contribs) 22 February 2014 (UTC)‎
    I suggest you start by reading WP:MEDRS. As for supposed 'conflicts of interest', you have yet to provide the slightest evidence to back your assertions up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    No basis. User:BoboMeowCat is an WP:SPA who is new and doesn't understand how we operate. Editor is engaging in tendentious editing on this issue, as evidenced by the user's contribs. Suggest an admin warning to User:BoboMeowCat followed by a block if the behavior persists. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    Bob copy and pasted nearly a paragraph of text from one of the sources he was using and than tried to edit war it into place. He has now paraphrased it a bit but it is still a little to close to the source in question IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    My editor page clearly discloses that I am a former pharmaceutical industry employee. I probably have biases just like everyone else, but no COIs. In order to minimize the influence of any personal biases, I've actively sought input and review of my work from senior editors and admins, as User:jmh649, User:Jfdwolff, and User:Anypodetos can attest. In the present case, recognizing that I was arguing an adverse event issue from the "industry" point of view, I sought input from Jmh649 at a very early stage in the disagreement in order to avoid even the appearance of pushing a NNPOV. I am more than happy to discuss my overall contributions here as well as any specific edits that anyone is concerned about.
    As an example of my interactions with other users that I disagree with, I'd like to offer the discussion currently at the bottom of the Finasteride Talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Finasteride. It is open-minded and respectful. I'm also responsible for about 90% of the current content of the ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin articles.
    As a parenthetical comment, I'd like to protest the fact that I was not given the courtesy of being notified of this posting. I learned of it just now by accident. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    Formerly 98, If no COI, what is your current rationale for repeated deletion of accurate and properly referenced content? Link to most recent deletion:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Paracetamol&diff=596789453&oldid=596780661
    Multiple references from both primary and secondary sources indicate the deleted content does not represent “undue weight”. The deleted content not from "isolated studies" but rather repeatedly demonstrated in many studies. On the asthma section of the paracetamol page, all evidence which suggests link to asthma valid repeatedly deleted, while all content suggesting link may not be valid, left in place. This is not balanced or neutral.
    PS- I mentioned my conflict of interest concerns multiple times in talk:Paracetamol. Also, it was my understanding that when I previously listed your user name above in this format Formerly 98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), you would be notified.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    I am surprised that BoboMeowCat felt compelled to assume bad faith on behalf of Formerly 98. Last time I checked, paracetamol was sold generically for about 1p/tablet and a microscopic profit margin.
    If the "conflict of interest" is simply a matter of how to present the evidence, this is a content dispute that should be discussed on Talk:Paracetamol and this should be a snowball close. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fluor Corp.

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

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

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

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

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

    Big Debate South Africa

    Admitted COI account creating and editing article on his tv show and autobiography. Have requested intervention re: username. More eyes on these will be helpful. JNW (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

    It looks like Cashdan's page has quite a bit of imbedded external links. While he likely qualifies for a page, I'm going to remove those at the very least. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I really appreciate the feedback, which I have read very carefully and considered very carefully, about the potential conflict of interest in my contributions on Misplaced Pages. I want to make clear that I have not been paid to edit anything on Misplaced Pages, and the company I work with is a non-profit entity. However it is fair to raise this issue with me as I am very close to the subject matter of the pages I created and edited. Hence I have done everything I can to edit my contributions very very carefully, stating fairly all sides of the subject matter. I note that my contributions have been referred to WikiProject South Africa, which is great - I look forward to seeing the input from the participants in that group. Despite my closeness to the subject, I think that my contributions to date are balanced and conform to Misplaced Pages editorial guidelines. From this point onwards I will refrain from directly editing the content which has a potential COI. Instead I will raise any issues I have on the talk page, as advised. I will also apply for a name change, since my current wikipedia username is too close to the name of an entity . This has been a learning curve and I appreciate all the feedback! Incidentally - what are imbedded external links? I guess that those are urls from outside wikipedia embedded in the article? I guess those should be in the external links section, and links inside the article should be restricted to other wikipedia pages? I continue to learn! BroaddaylightSA (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, that was where you put the single brackets and url surrounding certain terms. In the future, the best practice is to use these links as references if there is good content to pull from them and to only link words or phrases to other Misplaced Pages pages. This helps us avoid indirect spamming of the site. Feel free to ask any other questions you might have. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

    MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general

    Hi all. I am in the midst of a dispute with Jeremy112233 an article he's edited. I would like your opinion whether or not we may assume he's done paid advocacy on the MobiCart article he created.

    I shall divide my accusations into three parts.

    Part 1: Novaseminary has already asked him if he has any COI, and he ignored the question.

    • Jeremy deleted Novaseminary's words from his talk page (his custom is to remove all negative words from his talk page). Jeremy replied that he emails article subjects to request photos.
    • Jeremy ignored all Novaseminary's other questions.

    Part 2: Let's look at one of Jeremy's articles.

    • Let's not look at an article to which Jeremy's made complex edits — such as the RH article, in which he's added, removed, and restructured content, all in one edit. A simpler way to determine whether or not Jeremy is a paid advocate is to look at a article he's created. Let's look at MobiCart.
    • MobiCart is a 12-person operation. (CrunchBase) It started in the UK, but after its founder left the company, it was moved to Singapore. (Steve O'Hear, TechCrunch) Before the move, Jeremy wrote an article about it. The article said only good things about the company. The article's "Awards" section made up about a quarter of the article's text. Even after the founder left, nobody cared enough about the company to update the article to say so.
    • I think the MobiCart article is one of Jeremy's more promotional articles.

    Part 3: Let's look at a few other articles of Jeremy's.

    • Jeremy has created quite a few articles about companies; a small proportion have been deleted. One deleted article is "Buckfire and Buckfire P.C.", a poorly-sourced article about a non-notable law firm. It cited several sources which were republished copies of PRWeb press releases. (user:cmadler)

    It is true that, on half a dozen separate occasions, Jeremy has contributed to COIN discussions. But this does not prove whatsoever that he has no COIs.

    Dear COIN participants: May we safely assume that Jeremy has a COI for the MobiCart article?

    I thank you for your time. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

    I would say that Unforgettable has been stalking me at this point, as after a brief interaction at Restoration Hardware, where I tried to engage with him multiple times on his own talk page, the user decided to instead accuse my of having a COI. He then began editing pages I had created in the past (looking as if he was looking through all my past contributions) , see here, one of which was a good edit, and now he is discussing MobiCart. I would appreciate it if the user could engage over the content at the Restoration Hardware page, instead of attacking me. Always like comments on my sandboxes, but I don't really have time to respond to everything. I have created well over 400 articles, and to stalk and attack the few articles that were deleted is a little bizarre. And yes, I remove obsolete things from my talk page. I have been vandalized in the past (my userspace is semi-protected) and don't enjoy viewing past negative interactions every time I open my account :) The user also leaves out my responses regarding the King article and offer to teach the editor how to get free images for his pages--and that he has deleted my multiple entreaties to him on his talk page to discuss the content issue from which this posting originated. I've been stalked before, but this is a little out there. Lastly, if you find fault with the Mobicart article, please do edit it. I really don't care if it stays or goes, it was an hour's work at most and feel free to take to AFD. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    I can only assume that the editor saw this board in my contributions history and decided it was the best place to continue his personal attacks against me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    I generally don't like to bother engaging in talk-page debate with any user if I suspect that the user is a paid advocate. Debate with paid advocates can be an exercise in frustration, and I feel it's sometimes unnecessary. I looked at some of Jeremy's contributions for a number of reasons, but I think the main reason is that I wanted to know whether or not he is a paid advocate. Indeed I edited the Xconomy article he created while doing so. Indeed I left out Jeremy's full response regarding the King article, and his kind offer to User:Novaseminary; he is welcome to repost them here. Indeed I have deleted Jeremy's words from my talk page. Jeremy twice told me that COIN is the best place for discussions like this before I started this discussion here. He is right: COIN is indeed the best place for discussions like this. —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    You are absolutely right, COIN is a better place to take an accusation of COI, however probably not the best place to take a content dispute. Though I am glad you are now willing to discuss issues, rather than levying edit comment epithets. I'd be happy to reengage with you about the Restoration page any time. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    For now, I just want for COIN to determine whether or not you have a likely COI at MobiCart. We can leave the RH article alone for the moment. You are right that some of the edit comment epithets I have made are quite severe. The most recent one on your user talk page is for the benefit of future Wikipedians who are searching through its history using "Find in Page". —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    I would just like to point out that you first started attacking me on the Restoration page, then carried it elsewhere, and you've just admitted to this as well as hunting through my past contributions in reaction to our interaction on the Restoration page. It would be nice if we could be constructive here :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

    If I hadn't suspected you of paid advocacy, I wouldn't have accused you of paid advocacy on the Restoration talk page, nor would I have looked through your past contributions for paid advocacy, nor would I have accused you of paid advocacy here. I admit, as we agree, to having hurled severe edit-summary epithets. (The severest was probably "I suspect Jeremy112233 of having a conflict of interest (COI), advertising/promotional editing, and/or adding vanispamcruftisement to Misplaced Pages. +{{subst:coin-notice}}." The other was probably "Reverted to revision 589920219 by BiH: Jeremy112233 seems to be a paid editor: see, e.g., User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/107. I am restoring list of competitors, sourced Consumers Union criticism, and more". I think the problem, in both cases, was that I failed to make clear enough that these are only my personal suspicions and could be wrong.) I, too, hope that the conversation here will be constructive. —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

    Looking over the evidence presented at the beginning of this thread... No. I see no reason to suspect Jeremy112233 has a COI with MobiCart. And suggesting paid advocacy is an even bigger leap. I'm a bit concerned about one line that you said, Unforfettableid: "But this does not prove whatsoever that he has no COIs." Jeremy112233 or anyone else does not have to "prove" that he has no COIs, nor can anyone, and asking people to prove a negative is an effort in futility. The burden of proof is on youto show evidence that he has a conflict of interest, and you've failed to do so at this point. I'd also like to point out that if MobiCart is "one of Jeremy's more promotional articles", then he's doing a pretty good job. While I can see how it could be seen as promotional, it's pretty minor and just needs a bit of a rewrite. If you have a dispute with him, I suggest that you deal with the dispute directly and not try to attack the other person's credibility. -- Atama頭 23:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
    Atama, you made a number of excellent points. Two of your strongest points are:
    • That defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
    • That it's up to me to find sufficient evidence to convict, and that if I don't, then the defendant shall be considered innocent.
    And you made other important points. Thank you for all the feedback.
    One of your points was that my evidence is wholly insufficient to convict Jeremy. Fine.
    Please take a look at the list of articles Jeremy has created. Mostly BLPs: some tiny stubs about judges, and some longer and much more promotional BLPs about other individuals. Also a fair number of articles about corporations and products. And finally, some other articles. Would it be fair to say the following?: That, considering all the evidence presented, it is very possible that he makes a living as a paid advocate — but that the evidence is wholly insufficient to convict him, and that I shouldn't have accused him based on such flimsy evidence.
    Or was it foolish of me to even have considered the idea that he is a professional paid advocate?
    Cheers,
    —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    Well, to start with this isn't a court, and we don't convict or have defendants and plaintiffs. By "evidence" I didn't mean to imply any such thing, and I apologize if I did. When I asked for "evidence" I was only suggesting that drawing conclusions about a person's conflict of interest requires a solid indication that they have a relationship that would cause a conflict of interest. I just wanted to make that clear.
    Now, when we make such a declaration (whether stating that a person has a COI or is a paid advocate), it's based on very clear indicators. Generally, this is by the admission of the person involved. If you want to establish that Jeremy is a paid editor, what you'd need to find is an instance where Jeremy has stated that he is working on an article for a client. Or perhaps where he has a list of articles that he has been paid to edit. We can't determine such things based solely on what kinds of articles a person has edited or created, there isn't enough there. Practically every COI case is determined by something that an editor has admitted to, whether they openly declare their connection to an article subject, or they sign their real life name which happens to be the name of an article subject's relative, or is mentioned as the owner of a business or author of a piece of literature that an article is written about, or some other disclosure along those lines. Absent anything like that we really can't draw any conclusions.
    I'm appreciative that you've been so cordial in this discussion, as others who bring an issue to a noticeboard (whether this one or another one) are more accusatory, prone to hyperbole, or tendentious in their accusations. But I still don't see any reason why we should even suspect, let alone declare that Jeremy is a paid advocate or has some other COI. I hope that my explanation was clear enough, but if not I'd be glad to help clarify the issue further if needed. Thank you. -- Atama頭 03:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    It just occurred to me, for examples of how COIs are determined, you can look in other threads on this noticeboard, where a COI is determined and then editors discuss how to handle the issue. -- Atama頭 03:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

    Mark W. Rocha

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

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

    Self-described advocate editing Lakshmi Rai

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

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

    User:Readyforlara on Shangri-La articles

    User

    PR-style editing and heavily promotional language on articles related to Shangri-La hotel the associated hotel chains. That along with the user's stated profession suggests that there may indeed be some COI issues. -SFK2 (talk) 13:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

    User:BellviewMatt and Bellview Winery

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

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

    Occupational health psychology

    Hi everyone

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Instead of psyc12 & iss246 taking note of what I thought were fair and objective points made by administrator Atama, regarding the specific COI issues with their membership of the society for OHP, these editors have instead aggressively ‘lashed out’ at me personally and made ongoing baseless claims without any evidence, to 'deflect' these identified COI issues. Atama’s advice also seems to be completely ignored by psyc12 and iss246. See here from the past 24 hours objective edits: Talk:Occupational health psychology I also present further evidence based on this edit history of what appears to me at least, very consistent with Misplaced Pages's definition of Misplaced Pages:Tag team and Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles However I may be wrong.

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

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

    Falcon Aviation Academy Comment

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

    I'm sure you're correct. It's worth noting that the article was first deleted, then restored and moved here. DESiegel gave the editor a chance to work on the article in userspace. I did a quick search for coverage of the academy but found nothing, so I'm not sure if the place is notable enough for inclusion. I will say that it was mentioned at Atlanta Regional Airport prior to spin1197's involvement at that article (which updated information about the academy). My suggestion is to give them a chance to try to come up with a workable article, and maybe even assist them a bit if you can. They're willing to try to follow proper procedures, and I wonder if they're willing to accept the possibility that due to a lack of notability, their organization may only merit a mention at the existing airport article. -- Atama頭 05:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    Categories: