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 Verbal (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 6 June 2010 (Undid revision 366416553 by Anthonyhcole (talk) this is a confusing addition. People can bring the discussion here themselves). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:44, 6 June 2010 by Verbal (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 366416553 by Anthonyhcole (talk) this is a confusing addition. People can bring the discussion here themselves)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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

    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.

    User:Donald Draper and User:Richie tenenbaum

    • Donald Draper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Richie tenenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)- "Donald Draper" is a new user whose contributions have been confined almost exclusively to the products of an obscure and possibly non-notable Swedish technology company, Oxeon and its products. He evidently is employed by Oxeon, judging from the credit line here. He re-created the article after it was speedily deleted. He also re-created Spread Tow after it was deleted, and has repeatedly removed speedy delete tags, maintenance tags and, via the tenenbaum sockpuppet, an AfD tag from articles, and promoted his company's technology aggressively, such as here. User:Richie tenenbaum is obvious sockpuppet, based on contributions such as .ScottyBerg (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Watching the AFD's related to the various products listed. DD's talk page is flooded with warnings and bot notices, so I'll hold off on posting the COI notice until and unless the other articles survive AfD. At that point, some COI guidance would be appropriate if he is to keep editing them. My guess on RT is that he's a fellow employee of the company as opposed to a sock. Technically I guess this falls in WP:MEAT territory, but I'm going to AGF that they're just a bit overzealous in wanting their company here, and not tag-teaming to spam us. If the articles survive AfD, I'll post some notes to them about how to stay NPOV and non-promotional. I think those articles are not too far gone to be savable with proper pruning. Arakunem 15:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I believe that Oxeon is fixable. If you check this citation you'll see that it refers to a number of conference papers by others. If in fact other researchers have discussed the idea of making 'spread tow fabric' from carbon fiber, there may be a way to get this material into encyclopedic form. Since Oxeon's technology is documented as far back as 2005, others could have referred to it in the meantime, and we might be able to find those references. Or the promoter of this article may know of them. I'd like to see evidence that Oxeon has actually gone into production with this material and the names of some customers, from a reliable source. Carbon fiber is literally rocket science, and it shouldn't be hard to establish notability if the facts can be proved. I see one mention of Oxeon in the book "Carbon Fibers and their Composites" by Peter Morgan. EdJohnston (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Oxeon was deleted. There are actually three manufacturers of this textile process, and this account has been promoting one, not even mentioning the other two. The notability of the process is highly questionable. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Australian Cattle Dog

    Greetings Arakunem,

    Herding dogs is one of the areas of my area of expertise. Citations are required to ensure that all Misplaced Pages content is verifiable (and a reliable source) and not just an opinion. I could cite any number of books or articles. The book just happens to be a comprehensive study on the work and training of more than 60 different breeds.

    It has numerous references to the Australian Cattle Dog as well as pictures of the breed in action. For example, page 7: "At present, Australian Cattle Dogs, Australian Shepherds, Border Collies, English Shepherds, Kelpies and McNabs are still the breeds most frequently found on farms and ranches in North American, but with fewer ranch jobs available for dogs, more herding dogs have found their way into urban and suburban homes. Page 13 includes a picture of an ACD heeling a steer with the caption: "A red Australian Cattle Dog illustrates how the breed gained the nickname "Heeler."

    Here is a link to the Table of Contents: http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=1

    TOC 9 shows the breed is included in the breed profiles:

    http://www.dogwise.com/Item_Inside.cfm?ID=DHE171&curImage=11

    Cheers, Errata addendum (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

    • Thanks for your comments Errata Addendum! Misplaced Pages always benefits from the contributions of Subject Matter Experts. The line between SME and Conflict of Interest can sometimes be blurry though, especially when it comes to citing publication with which the SME may be affiliated (I'm not asking you to confirm or deny that, by the way). The main issue here looks like questions surrounding the reliability of the book as a source. The original poster's concern was that Stockdog Savvy was a: A Self-published source and b:Did not appear to be relevant to the articles to which it was added.
    • Looking at the links you provided, and doing some looking on my own, the book does not appear to be Self-published, as Alpine Publishing doesn't seem to be a vanity publishing house, and the links you provided to contents do show that there is a certain relevancy to the breed pages in question. Still after looking around some, there's not a great deal of critical review of the book, which tends to be the gold standard for a reliable source.
    • And there's also the question of a potential link between yourself and the book, to where listing it as a reference could be seen as promotional. If that is the case here, you should read up on the Conflict of Interest guidelines to ensure that all material added is neutral and verifiable to accepted reliable sources. Again, I'm not asking to confirm or deny this. It is perfectly acceptable to assume that Stockdog Savvy happens to be the book that you're referring to when contributing, just as I have my own stack of books that I refer to when writing. As this is the COI notice board though, I make sure to mention the guidelines wherever an editor expresses that concern.
    • So as things stand now, my only big concern is the overall reliability of the book as a source. Other editors may question its use as well along those grounds, in the absence of some critical peer-review or other professional evaluation. Thanks for your contributions! Arakunem 19:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    Possible freelance editor account, User:Rexjoec

    Possible freelance editor account, User:Rexjoec:

    1. Zacks Investment Research
    2. Begslist Cyber Begging
    Both of these articles were deleted as spam/advertising.

    Note also spamming links to external sites. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

    sevan aydinian

    can someone please look at Sevan Aydinian

    each statement seems to be verified including links to MTV's website and what not. I believe it should be cleared of it's stamps' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Massmarkpro (talk • contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

    Apparently this is in relation to Sevan Aydinian which is a BLP that is too much like an essay (but not really bad). The main problem is the weak sources (although I did not check much). It should be improved, but we have worse. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

    Xenium88 (talk · contribs)

    Xenium88 says on my talk page that he is manager of this institute. I deleted the article as obvious copyvio, he has reinstated it saying on the talk page " this page has been submitted to permissions-en@wikimedia.org for approval of use of copyright materials ". I advised him to ask for its creation, citing COI, but he hasn't done that. I think he needs some advice and help and RL is going to keep me too busy for a while to do this adequately. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

    My advice got caught up in an edit conflict by sinebot which I hadn't noticed. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    Oops, left out the name of the article, which is Sun Tzu Art of War Institute and once again deleted, this time as G12 although I believe it was still copyvio (until the editor actually releases his copyright). Xenium88 also created Aventis School of Management, which has been prodded but as I'm writing this I've discovered it's copy & paste from several copyrighted web sites, so I'm about to zap it as as clear G12. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

    Sam Knox

    Autobiographical article - speedy delete candidate? - for not terribly notable artist who self-identifies as the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

    Hi, I am the author and the subject of the above listed article. I apologise if this has contravened Wikipedias rules. I have tried to make the article completely neutral and impartial, and I also deliberately avoided any spam issues by not linking out to my site or portfolios. If there is no way for me to resolve this conflict of interest issue, then I am happy to go ahead and delete the article.
    They aren't concrete rules, more like guidelines. I agree it's OK for neutrality, but it really doesn't demonstrate notability enough; apart from a few pieces in Lynn News about the MIN93 campaign I can't find any of the required third-party coverage about the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hi Gordon, there are plenty of references in the Lynn News and the Watton and Swaffham Times printed editions for my sports photography, and printed examples of quirky news articles in the Stratford Beacon Herald and Stratford Gazette newspapers in Ontario Canada. These examples are printed ones, rather than web based, so I can't provide clickable links to them I'm afraid. However, you can view scanned examples of some of my published work with printed credits referring to me as the photographer here http://www.flickr.com/photos/swampy_bogtrotter/sets/72157609614342607/
    I understand this can't be used as a citeable reference as it links to my own Flickr account, but I felt it was worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PentneySam (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    Felt it might also be worth noting that my photography has been used extensively on the Swaffham Rugby Club website, and also by other clubs around the Eastern Counties leagues, as well as in club advertising and promotional campaigns. PentneySam (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's often quite difficult to write a truly neutral autobiography. Please see the relevant guidelines HERE on those which will give further info on that. When it comes to autobiographies, our usual rule-of-thumb is: If someone warrants a biography enough, someone else will write one eventually. That said, the big problem here is the lack of sources that are considered reliable by Misplaced Pages's definition. They need to be third-party sources, that is: Misplaced Pages articles contain what others have already said in reliable sources. If you can list the printed newspaper articles as references, that will help to establish notability, depending on how broad the coverage is. Preferably the references will be used to cite specific statements made in the article. When your forthcoming book is published, peer-reviews and critical analysis of it will definitely be plus in the Sourcing department. Hope this helps! (And BTW, your photography is quite stunning!) Arakunem 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks Arakunem :-)
    I'll get to work this evening on sorting the editions and dates of as much of my published work as I can trace, and get it added to the article as citations.
    Many thanks for all feedback and help to you both Gordon and Arakunem. I really do appreciate it.86.138.25.150 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    I've added links and citations to the article now, as well as fixing the disambiguation issue in the first passage. Will continue to add citations as they become known to me.86.138.25.150 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    Wow, I'll say you did! For future reference, you can list the various print articles in the References section, and use the most comprehensive one or two as the inline cites, rather than list all 20 in a row. (I would have mentioned this earlier if I knew there were so many!) You can see that it does break up the article a bit, but not to worry. Thanks for adding those! Arakunem 15:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'll clean them up a bit later this evening so the flow of the article isn't as broken up by them. Those are just the tip of the iceberg, but I thought it would be overkill to list them all, and besides I've only listed the ones who's date of publich I am certain of.
    Thanks for all your help, pointers and guidance. This has been a learning process for me.86.138.25.150 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry I didn't comment earlier (I've been busy). I was hoping raising it here would jog the the topic toward finding sources. But I think this is missing a major point: it's not sufficient to collect examples of an artist's work. Misplaced Pages's notability criteria - see WP:CREATIVE - require third-party evidence, things written about the subject. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    As it stands, the sources don't appear to establish subject's notability, per WP:RELIABLE, and the presence of photographs in numerous publications does not by itself confer significance--has anything been written about the subject? There's also a conflict of interest. JNW (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, that was going to be my next comment. As I mentioned above, the rule of thumb for Misplaced Pages articles is: We write them based on what other people have already said about the subject, and not what we may independently know of it. If I write a book, I have to wait until someone else writes about it (a review, etc) before it could have an article, even though I as the author would obviously know more about it than anyone. This is why (again as I mentioned above), it is difficult to write about oneself, for that very reason. Do the references discuss you and your work in detail, or are there others that do? Are any of them available online, where a quick evaluation could put the question to rest quickly? Thanks for bearing with us while we sort through this. Arakunem 14:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    User:JABEYE

    I am a third-party working with the management company. Since Polly Samson now has a Web site, I added it. Then, I noticed a stack of incorrect titles. We are just seeking accuracy. No more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JABEYE (talk • contribs) 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

    • Hi JABEYE! If you haven't already, please read WP:COI, which describes the guidelines that editors with a connection to the topics they edit should follow to stay within Misplaced Pages policies. So far, I don't see a problem with your edits to the articles in question. A link to a performer's official site is allowed, and the other edits being mainly corrections of style and dates should likewise not be a problem. The fact that you have explicitly mentioned your connection in several locations also strikes me as further evidence of good faith. Be prepared to cite any facts that other editors contest though, if that should happen. Arakunem 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

    Robert Jacobsen v. KAM Detailed Patent Issues and Jacobsen v. Katzer

    COI: HereMedia, Inc. articles

    HereMedia (talk · contribs) was previously blocked due to violating username policy, and made edits in articles about the company and its products/services. MarkUmbach (talk · contribs) has since been editing exclusively in Here Media Inc. related articles, and a simple Google search suggests user is affiliated with company's PR dept. Subst'ed the COI warning to the user talk, alerting admins here in case other action is needed. Thx, Wikignome0530 (talk) 07:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

    User:Inventor, a/k/a self-described "Physicist and Inventor" Wolfhart Willimczik, wants us to be his webhost

    • Inventor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - feels that we should be his webhost, for articles about himself and his inventions in German deleted from the German Misplaced Pages, for articles about his latest invention to plug the BP oilspill, etc. He blames the Communists for his obscurity, saying they delete his articles in the German Misplaced Pages; and when his original research and non-notable inventions are deleted as rule violations, he has engaged in highly incivil attacks on other Misplaced Pages editors, saying we will be to blame if he is unable to publicize his ideas by posting them to Misplaced Pages, and we'd rather let the oil spill continue. Ignores the "Use English" rule; WP:CIVIL, WP:OR, and WP:NOT#WEBHOST violations abound. Orange Mike | Talk 13:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    Not to mention that by publishing his ideas here, he is essentially giving them away (as long as he gets named as the inventor). Perhaps that fact alone will get him to stop? Looking at the history, seems he wants to use the Google ranking of WP pages to link to him quickly when people search on the BP Spill - cut & dried WP:NOT#WEBHOST however well meaning he may be. (Though I suspect that engineers looking to plug the hole are not Google searching "How do I stop an oil well leaking"...) I see you've blocked him for 31, which regrettably looks like the only viable option right now. Hopefully it will get his attention and further escalation will not be necessary. Arakunem 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    BMJ marketing editing BMJ journals

    I just wanted to call attention people's attention to Lauraeabbott (talk · contribs). She is a single-purpose account editing journals published by the BMJ Group, and a "Laura Abbott" is listed as a marketing contact on their website. Her edits generally appear to be good, but I'd like it if someone else could take a look at her. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    Handed out the standard COI warning. MER-C 05:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

    Guineveretoo and FDA

    Despite warning her on her talk page, Guineveretoo (talk · contribs) continues to edit, almost exclusively in fact, on the FDA, its leaders Jonathan Baume and Elizabeth Symons and controversies regarding them and the organisation, despite being one of its employees and thus in breach of WP:COI. Haldraper (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

    This appears to be a continuation of Haldraper's insistence that the FDA is not a trade union, which was resolved some time ago, I thought. My only amendments to Liz Symons page was to reinstate the removal of a statement about her being a trade union leader, which Haldraper removed, and to correct the name of the FDA. I do not believe there is any conflict of interest in doing this, and would be interested to hear how there is a conflict. Guineveretoo (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    No, it covers all your edits to the pages of the organisation that employs you and its leaders. Haldraper (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • If Guineveretoo (talk · contribs) is an employee or otherwise affiliated with the subjects of the articles, then a potential COI exists, according to the COI guidelines. Note that this does not eo ipso disqualify Guineveretoo from editing articles in that area, as long as the edits remain neutral, and verifiable. Looking back over Guineveretoo's edits for a few months, most of them are non-controversial copy edits. The one edit that I see as possibly controversial, especially given the reverting thereof, is as stated, whether or not FDA is considered a Trade Union, and extending that to articles where X was "former trade union leader", and so on. This seems to me to be the crux of the issue, and looking through the talk page of FDA, this issue goes back a fair ways.
    • I should note that the COI Guidelines also state: "Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration." I'll let that sit without further comment.
    • I suggest referring this back to the talk page to settle the issue of "FDA is/isn't a Trade union". Remember that we go by the motto of "Verifiable, not Truth". If reliable sources can be found to support either point of view, they should be added accordingly. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page, then the steps outlined in Dispute Resolution should be undertaken. Arakunem 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    In fact, this dispute about whether or not FDA is a trade union was resolved some time ago. It is not controversial to state that FDA is a trade union, but merely factual. Guineveretoo (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    Can you point me to the final disposition of that question? I went back through the history and see some discussion over it, but no real consensus that I could see. A citation to an independent reliable source or 2 stating such would also pretty much settle the issue. "X is a former trade union leader <cite> and ....", that sort of thing. Arakunem 16:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    Middle 8

    Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Basically, this user is flouting our policy in attempting to whitewash the acupuncture page of any points that might cost him clientele or legitimacy in his acupuncture practice.

    While it is true that professionals in a subject are not necessarily acting inappropriately according to WP:COI, unequivocally this is what is going on here with his single-purpose account campaign. His User page proudly proclaims,

    People who make those accusations probably haven't read this, from WP:COI: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." So, STFU about COI.

    Shall I ask for a ban of this individual from acupuncture pages? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    Comment: Here we have more of the same WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT violations from User:ScienceApologist (block log) that have gotten him banned, blocked and otherwise censured ad nauseum for several years. I see no reason to dignify his childish behavior with a response. The only question I have is for other Wikipedians: why do we continue to put up with this editor's puerile disruption? --Middle 8 (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Harassment & WP:OUTING: ScienceApologist crossed a line when he posted what he believed to be a link to my personal webpage(see first link in list; I've removed it from this page). My WP account is pseudonymous, and I've been very clear that I want it to remain that way. I ask for oversight of the above diff and that ScienceApologist be sanctioned for this childish harassment as per WP:OUTING. If an admin here cannot handle an outing complaint, I'd be grateful if someone could point me to the proper venue. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Thanks very much to VSmith for oversighting the edits in question. --Middle 8 (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    I've filed a notice regarding what I consider to be ScienceApologist's harassment at WP:AN (diff; link to subheader). --Middle 8 (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    I would support such a ban. This editor is clearly here to promote acupuncture, and does have a conflict of interest. A topic ban from the area from some time would stop the immediate problems and should hopefully cause the editor to realise this isn't acceptable in future. Verbal chat 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

    • "Note that all his contributions of late are to acupuncture." Wrong.
    • "Claims that COI doesn't apply to him again." It doesn't, unless you want to ban oncologists from editing Chemotherapy or Christian ministers from editing Christ myth theory.
    • "Accuses, hypocritically, me of edit warring." How dare he.
    • "Claims protection for acupuncture under the umbrella of psychoanalysis." A perfect analogy.
    • "Denies the sources that have been provided showing the general consensus skepticism toward qi fantasies." Just find the sources.
    What a foolish waste of time this is. Anthony (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    We, being members of the project, would ban oncologists from the oncology articles if they were promoting fringe theories or otherwise harming the good of the project. Verbal chat
    Except I'm not promoting fringe anything -- only challenging attempts to portray aspects of acupuncture as more fringe than sources indicate. The sin I committed was to ask for sources supporting its alleged fringe-ness, and that pissed ScienceApologist off since he has no adequate answer. --Middle 8 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    "We? On whose behalf are you speaking? Anthony (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Verbal, don't change your statements after others have commented on them without making it clear in the text. It makes the thread unintelligible. Anthony (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Calmness, people, please. Looking at the Acupuncture article, which appears to have kicked this off, I see a lot of reverting in the last few days over "there is/is-no reviewed science", but shockingly little discussion on the talk page regarding that subject. Then SA posts here, M8 posts on ANI, both argue about just those postings on user-talk and article talk. Here's an idea: Everyone go out and have a Sunday picnic, then come back calmly and discuss what appears to be a controversial piece of text on the article's talk page. That is, and should be, the way we solve disputes like this, and not run posting accusations and attacks everywhere. Arakunem 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec)I see much discussion over the Pseudoscience infobox. I also see that such discussion has not prevented it from being added then reverted, both sides claiming consensus/no-consensus to add/remove. I see no discussion over the "there is/is-no reviewed science" add/revert/revert/revert war. That seems to be separate from the infobox issue, so should be discussed separately.
    • You are correct that the COI policy does not prohibit Subject Matter Experts, or even those with acknowledged COIs (or suspected COIs as seems to be the inference from ANI.... not asking to confirm that; I don't want to know) from editing in the conflicted area. However, the COI policy also says that a COI-affected editor should always discuss controversial edits on the talk page before making them. To me undo's and reverts fall into that category.
    • And per the discussion above, the Outing question is being handled at ANI (and curses for making me go there again :P ). I am hesitant to discuss a topic ban for either side here, as in general I am in favor of SMEs editing based from their expertise. Controversial or contentious edits must be thoroughly discussed, though, before going live. Arakunem 16:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Just to note that the edits I have made have not been about the infobox, and Middle8 is going against the discussion and RS in that case. Verbal chat 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    Categories: