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 Uzma Gamal (talk | contribs) at 14:24, 30 June 2012 (→Adverse effects to CT: Closed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:24, 30 June 2012 by Uzma Gamal (talk | contribs) (→Adverse effects to CT: Closed)(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:Los Angeles Jewish Home Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    BeijingWest Industries

    Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)

    Tech Coast Angels et al.

    Section 1

    This case is rather far reaching so I've attempted to organize it a bit to make things easier to understand.

    Tech Coast Angels is an investment company started by several people including Bill Payne (investor) (see section 3). The company has invested in several companies (see section 2), most of them near San Diego, California and their notability is not always well established (articles used as references are usually from regional or local news orgs which doesn't fully satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH). Ultimately, I think most of the subjects are notable and only one of the listed accounts is still editing the articles in question but the articles need attention for issues caused by the COIs. Wikitomando's goal seems to be the promotion of Tech Coast Angels and is the only account that is actively attempting to promote Tech Coast Angels and any of its investees or members. They are a member of Tech Coast Angels. There may be more to this than what I've found as Tech Coast Angels's portfolio is dauntingly large. In no way do I believe that anyone has intentionally tried to mislead or intentionally subvert any of WP's policies or guidelines but the situation still needs attention. OlYeller21 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

    Section 2

    These are the companies that Tech Coast Angels has invested in that I could find WP articles for. I've listed the company first then the user that I believe has a connection to the subject of the article. I'll discuss each, one-by-one.

    MicroPower Technologies was created by Wikitomando. WiSpry was created by Wikitomando and edited by SPA PorterCreativeGroup (WiSpry's PR company). Vokle was created by SPA 76.173.243.84 an IP from the company's city (doesn't mean it's a COI), Rsnoopyb (not quite an SPA but close) who states, "Now we've gained a lot more press exposure" ("we" meaning a possible connection) in an attempt to get the once deleted Vokle article userfied. Wikitomando edited Vokle once to fix the internal link to Tech Coast Angels. ElephantDrive is a company that Tech Coast Angels has invested in but has no edits from any of these users but I decided to include it for watchlisting. Green Dot Corporation has been edited by SPA Phreadriq who added promotional material but who has no clear connection to the company that I can find. SodaHead.com was created by SPA Qotsafan and edited by Wikitomando once to fix the internal link to Tech Coast Angels. The article was edited by several other SPAs with no apparent connection but did include the addition of copyrighted material owned by SodaHead.com. HitFix was created by SPA Dave1279 and edited by Wikitomando once to fix the internal link to Tech Coast Angels. OlYeller21 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

    Jeez. What a mess. I'm working my way through the articles - at first glance many of the companies appear not to be notable. I've already PRODed ElephantDrive and others will probably need to go to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how they are linked to TCA, but Jason Nazar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (PRODed already) and Docstoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should also be added to the list, having both been edited by User:Rsnoopyb. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    I get the feeling that Jason Nazar is a contributing member to TCA or has obtained contributions from TCA. I have no concrete evidence to support that but a simple search of the two shows that there's some connection. OlYeller21 01:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

    Section 3

    Bill Payne is a founder of Tech Coast Angels. Two of the accounts listed are duck worthy, in my opinion. The other, Cliu099, is an WP:SPA who has only edited Bill Payne related articles including ICEHOUSE (incubator), a company Bill Payne is a leading investor of (stated in article). A portion of the text added by Cliu099, in the Bill Payne article is taken directly from his website. Emmya557 is an SPA who briefly attempted to promote/add info for Bill Payne to Misplaced Pages but I see no connection. OlYeller21 21:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

    I've deleted Bill Payne (investor) as a copyvio, it could have been deleted as spam also. ICEHOUSE is notable. I've removed the worst spammy content from it and will watch it. SmartSE (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

    African Wildlife Foundation

    User AfricanWildlifeFoundation started a long series of edits with the summary "We here at AWF want to update a few of the sections on our page. We intend on revising one section completely and adding a whole new section at the end." I soft-blocked the account, inviting them to set up an individual account and explaining WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI; they quite properly set up Cheetah61 but, in spite of my explaining COI again, continued to edit at a rapid rate. I have therefore semi-protected the article for 24 hours, expiring 21:18 UTC 23 June.

    Many of the changes are evidently useful updates, but many are also new unreferenced passages, promotional not so much of the organization as of its aims. I am undecided whether it will be best to roll back the article to its state before they started on it, or to try to pick through the (70+) edits and undo only those that do not seem helpful. I am out of time tonight and will not have much time tomorrow. Uninvolved eyes and hands needed to sort the article now, and to conduct a dialogue with Cheetah61 about any further changes. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

    • I recommend, reluctantly but strongly, rolling back all the edits. I see nothing but good faith and some edits do add useful information. The lack of references is a problem. Far more important, a Misplaced Pages article like this should depict the organization as it is seen from outside. It is not a vehicle for the organization to present itself as it sees itself from the inside. A rollback is correct, with a friendly note inviting addition of information from reliable independent sources, with each source cited. We have to be consistent with the treatment of all organizations. Drop me a note if you feel I should do it as the editor who started the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I had overnight reached the same conclusion. I will do the rollback, before the semi-protection expires; that may make it easier for you to help with introducing any changes. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I left Cheetah61 a note offering to help. I start and watch a lot of pages, and quite often have to undo attempts to whitewash articles on politicians or organizations (yes, he really was convicted of corruption, as reported by all the newspapers). Compared to 99% of those, this one is so well-meaning! Oh well... Aymatth2 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

    Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist)

    First attempts at this article were created about four days ago, but Wxextreme never got anything more than the subject's name into the article, so I deleted them CSD A3. A new version was started about three days ago and worked on more yesterday by Wxextreme.

    After Wxextreme asked me to review the article, I looked through it. There were no references to newspaper articles or independent sources; the references that were to third-party sources were only to the front page of, for example, a college's website—Austin was never mentioned on that page or anywhere readily searchable. The one exception was that Austin is chair of the Board of Certified Consulting Meteorologists, which was verifiable from the CCM website, so I didn't delete the article A7; I did start discussion on the article talk page about her lack of notability and COI concerns.

    My COI concerns at that point were because the account editing the article, Wxextreme (talk · contribs), shared its name with Austin's company, WeatherExtreme. This morning, though, I got a message from Elizabeth Austin (talk · contribs), apparently the subject of the article. It read in part:

    I read with great concern that you have "Grave Concerns" about my c.v. I have absolutely no idea how others prove their resume but I am going to find other similar wikipedia sites and see if/how they are verified. I do not see the amount of references that are obviously required for this site as many others that are currently posted. How does one verify a c.v.
    By the way, I am cc'ing the following on this thread of conversation and will do in all future conversations also (their emails are not included below for privacy reasons but you will be receiving the email separately).
    Ed Warnock, CEO, Perlan Project Einar Enevoldson, President, Perlan Project Doug Perrenod, Perlan Project Ed Teets, Jr, NASA Dennis Tito, Perlan Project Michael Starler, Esq., Greenberg Traurig Gene Schwaum, Hanson & Schwam
    full diff of message

    My main concern is still the article. I don't see where the subject is notable, nor do other editors who have commented at Talk:Elizabeth Austin (meteorologist). I've tried to explain WP:V and WP:Secondary sources to Wxextreme, but I don't think the idea has sunk in.

    My secondary concern is the email carbons that the Elizabeth Austin account is claiming to send (though I have not received an email from her yet), from the standpoint that it may lead to an influx of single-purpose accounts.

    In any case, what I'd like is assistance from the community, either to find the secondary sources about Austin so that we can establish notability for her per Misplaced Pages guidelines and have the article edited neutrally so everything's good, or to explain to Austin and her colleagues our rules on independent/secondary sources and why her article doesn't, in its current condition, meet Misplaced Pages standards. —C.Fred (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

    I've made a few changes and added some citation requests, two of the references fail verification and I'm struggling to see how this would survive an afd at the moment.Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

    Retta Rizzo‎ and others =

    In the discussion page of Retta Rizzo‎, the principal editor appears to have outed himself (although that is far from certain) and then asserted

    I did write it but because of lack of experience, my office hired someone else to make edits. He worked on the article at some point over the past week, right before the deletion message was added.

    . The only editor that can be referenced by that comment is User:Ultimatedriver who has very recently been blocked. However, before the block he was a very active editor for the three weeks his account existed with many edits to autobiographical articles. My concern is the reference to "someone else at the office" from which I took the inference that there is a business here turning out biographies, presumably on a paid basis. Whilst that of itself is not a great problem, the lack of declaration of COI is. I would appreciate an experienced admin casting an eye over this to see whether there is an undeclared writing school at work here. Thanks  Velella    13:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

    Planet Cazmo

    Article has been created and substantially edited by users whose names appear to imply a connection to the company or the product, who do not edit any other articles, and who in some cases assert a connection to the company.

    Peshawar Cantonment (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

    Island Inkjet

    Randy Wayne (biologist)

    This seems to be self-promotion of a non-notable crackpot claiming to describe Special Relativity with fluid dynamics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.70.61.102 (talk • contribs)

    Yes many problems with the article. I tagged it; if problems can not be fixed, we should consider PRODing it or trimming it substantially. Also I suggest removing or changing the word above after "non-notable" in the post above mine -- good idea to be polite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    BinaryPhoton is clearly Randy Wayne, as evidenced by (for example) his peculiar overuse of italics and quotations in both his "academic" papers and Misplaced Pages articles. I doubt that Wayne meets our notability requirements; the article claims that he is "known" for work in biology and physics, but all references given are to his own papers, and not to third-party sources which claim that the research described in these papers is of any significance. Most of the "Career" and "Education" sections is overly detailed, and reads more like an academic CV than an encyclopedia article. The lengthy bibliography includes many opinion pieces, book reviews, one-paragraph encyclopedia articles, and papers in journals where the publication bar is obviously very low. All this betokens a very low-impact researcher trying to underhandedly give himself the appearance of importance. I suggest sending it directly to AfD. (PRODding it will just result in BinaryPhoton contesting it, even though that account is likely a sock of Photontoo, the SPA which created the article.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Looks like someone has CSD'd it on the grounds of no assertion of notability. It was promptly recreated by BinaryPhoton, then PRODed by another editor, and then the PROD message removed by BinaryPhoton. Further discussion is developing on the article's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    List of world records in canoeing

    It seems they are having a pissing match on wikipedia. I have reverted a few edits. Some don't like COI editing the page. IMHO we should just delete the whole article or put a {cn} tag on each entry. Canoe1967 (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

    FindTheBest

    I was told by several administrators to submit an article here to be reviewed for COI. Please find the article in my user sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Evanthomas1/sandbox Could an admin or editor review the article for COI? Thanks for your time and help!Evan (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    From my read-through, it looks to be non-POV. It may contain some unneeded information like the product categories. The See Also section should only contain links to articles that exist unless you plan on creating them. The last issue would be that of notability. The articles contains several references and not all of them are independent and significant coverage - that's OK but it means that not all of them can be used to establish notability. As a regular page patroller, the Alexa ranking would sway most of my doubt and I'd maybe leave a {{notability}} template until I or someone can go through each reference. That so many references come from the same source is a flag for patrollers as well.
    Ultiamtely, I think it's ready for mainspace. Thanks for being forthcoming about your connection, it really makes things easier for everyone. I don't endorse it idly; if you run into issues with it, please let me know and I'll do my best to help you with the article. OlYeller21 17:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    Per request by Evan I'm reposting my comment from OlYeller's Talk page here:
    I'll chime in on VentureBeat, being intimately familiar. They're a big deal for anyone in the Silicon Valley tech startup scene. VentureBeat crushes quite a few household names in the Techmeme leaderboard. It was started by a former SJ Merc journalist. Should be a quality source.
    As a former Silicon Valley tech PR pro, my experience has been that VentureBeat is a respectable publication - one of the top reliable sources we would expect from a startup. User:King4057 16:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    One thing though: I wonder if we can find better language for "interactive platform which drew inspiration." I fixed the See Also links. They are cap-sensitive. User:King4057 16:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    That line did catch my eye. I assumed the reference at the end of the sentence backed up that claim. I probably shouldn't have assumed.
    I think the article is probably ready for mainspace. I don't believe that it qualifies for any speedy deletion criteria being in mainspace may bring some constructive criticism. I'd like to help ensure that the article is safe in that any issues brought up can be addressed by a neutral editor but I'm leaving in about 2 hours on vacation and won't be able to do much on WP until probably 7/7 or later. OlYeller21 16:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have rewritten that line to read "Products and services are presented in a search results page (SRP) similar to Kayak.com's flight finding platform" and with a reference to the correct GigaOm article. There was an error in the previous reference and it was directing to Alexa.com's traffic report, not the GigaOm article.
    Thank you User:King4057 for fixing the "see also" links.
    OlYeller21, thank you for recommending this article for the mainspace. What are the next steps in moving forward? Do I move the article to the main space or should I wait for an admin to move it? Have a nice vacation! Evan (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Please disregard my previous questions OlYeller21, I just saw your edits on my user page. Evan (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

    Durdans Hospital

    • These s.p.a.s and IPs have created and maintained this article in a high state of spamminess. Since I stubbed it and one of them reverted, I am asking that some uninvolved admin take a look at it and (if they concur with my analysis) protect it in a spam-free version. Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

    Alexander Cornell du Houx


    Sorry to come back again, after the last notice, the article was stubbed and reworked. The user in question (presumably, the father of the subject from his username) has repeatedly deleted sections of the article which source back to newspaper articles. In the talk section, it is very clear he has a conflict of interest. He has not responded to requests to find neutral language. Rainbowsprinkles (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


    "Accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and may result in sanctions against you." (Please see above) In comments (which I believe to be fair), I have made it clear on Alex Cornell du Houx's Talk page why I am writing under my own name and why other editors in this dispute should as well. Or they should declare why they are seemingly fixated on this local issue, among the long list of my son's accomplishments. This narrow focus of those who created the Misplaced Pages page is evidence of bias, as described in my recent Talk comments http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Alexander_Cornell_du_Houx. (I think the rules suggest a link rather than re-posting comments.) Btw there is a lot of reading to comply with the rules and spirit of Misplaced Pages, and I'm not sure everyone has done their homework. In any case, my point is that there is no valid reason for an Alexander Cornell du Houx Misplaced Pages page at all. Maybe someday, but meanwhile his rivals should wait for something encyclopedic to react to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Cornell du Houx (talk • contribs) 21:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    You did not discuss the edits you made or, for that matter, source your original edits/content. I attempted to ask you to come to neutral language (eg - not copied and pasted from press releases), but you just deleted my edits and the edits of others. To be clear, you are able to make edits (see above), but the edits that you've made so far have not been neutral or used any citations. Rainbowsprinkles (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    From what I'm seeing, the influence of a COI is not well established. To summarize what I've read, the article included an incident where a women was granted "a temporary protection from abuse order from a Belfast District Court judge alleging that Cornell du Houx, her former boyfriend, had taken photos of her while she slept and had acted in a threatening manner." (quote found here). From what I understand, a temporary protection order is granted based on charges and is extended after a hearing. A settlement was reached before the hearing so no actual evidence was presented. It's a sticky situation as is usual with such quick settlements because no evidence is ever publicly presented leading to much speculation. He's innocent until proven guilty in court. He's apparently guilty by way of settlement in the court of public opinion.
    Rainbowsprinkles, you're pushing it. Saying, "when you posted material from his website (against wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality)" is not entirely accurate. In fact, unless he was using his son's website to back up "widely held opinions" that aren't actually "widely held", citing his own website violates no guidelines or policies. Also, he did discuss his edits after he made them. That's how we do things: edit, revert, discuss. From what I'm seeing, both sides have a legitimate argument regarding the inclusion of content and you're quick to jump on the COI gun to discount his arguments.
    Paul Cornell du Houx, thank you for being forthcoming about your connection. It usually makes things much easier for everyone involved. Questioning the attention being paid by others here at WP doesn't usually end well, in my opinion. After all, we're all here donating countless hours to create and manage content for free so the intent of all editors could be easily questioned. In my opinion, it's best to assume good faith and focus on the relevant Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. As I mentioned above, everyone is welcome to edit without discussion but if the edit is determined to be controversial (via revert), a discussion should be had before more reverts are made and things degrade into an edit war.
    As is usual with such cases, Misplaced Pages is not a court and if there's a controversy about what is to be covered, cover the controversy. Of course, reliable and independent sources would need to be used to show that such a controversy exists.
    In my opinion, this is being way overblown. I usually try to avoid jumping into a content dispute via this noticeboard but it seems to me like this issue can be easily covered with a single sentence, three tops. The current content eclipses the entire content for a state representative which to me is a huge red flag for undue weight being given to a topic.
    Let's see what others think. OlYeller21 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    I endorse OlYeller21's analysis. Undue weight is being given to the protection order issue, but it is an issue which appears to have enough coverage to be notable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with Tagishsimon's view here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    I have edited the paragraph and removed the COI template from the article. I also left a message on the talk page explaining my actions. Unless anyone feels that the issue still needs attention besides watchlisting, I consider this issue resolved. OlYeller21 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Sister Roma

    I have added several news reports and NEUTRAL content. Could someone please see if the COI or references needed tags need to remain. If so what has to be done to have them removed. Panther Pink (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Adverse effects to CT

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    Closed. The request fails to identify a specific editor. No diffs posted to establish a close connection external to Misplaced Pages between any specific editor and the Adverse effects to CT topic. This discussion has not and will not result in COIN determining whether a specific editor has a COI. This discussion has not and will not result in COIN determining whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet the requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline. Closed by -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

    Adverse effects to CT is a subject in which there is conflict of interest between the public right to know of every adverse effect that was determined, or that is suspected, and the industry's interest to minimize knowledge of the public of such adverse effects for various reasons, that may include profit, habits of practice, guilt, legal reasons, or other reasons. Recently, an attempt was made to edit the adverse effect section of X-ray_computed_tomography, however the attempt was resisted, and the edits were reverted for a variety of excuses. Due to the nature of the issue, and the possibility that a conflict of interest is involve, I am opening this discussion here, where the discussion of the matter is most appropriate. I invite the people who has participated in the edits and discussion before, to read the WP:COI guideline, and declare any proximity to the subject that they have, because it could affect their point of view regarding the issue, whether they are aware of it or not. --Nenpog (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

    Being part of "the industry" is not a conflict of interest in Misplaced Pages's terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest."WP:COI --Nenpog (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    All the was ever asked of the editor in question is that they use 1)high quality sources 2) sources that discuss CT scans 3) use due weight. These have not yet been done. Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (please reply on my talk page) 05:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I have not been accused, but I guess I do have a COI. My wife has cancer and benefits from CT scans as a patient. On the whole, I think I've been following the COI policy anyway, but I welcome feedback.--Yannick (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I am one of the editors that Nenpog is accusing of having a COI:
    --Guy Macon (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Here is what is troubling about this case. I am a regular volunteer at WP:DRN, helping out with whatever cases come in. We deal with a wide variety of topics; right now we are working on disputes about BP (the oil company), The Beatles, Cognitive behavioral therapy, American Staffordshire Terriers, The Streisand effect... and X-ray computed tomography. I didn't go to Nenpog. Nenpog came to me. What Nenpog is asking you to believe is that he chose to open a discussion about CT scans at WP:DRN only to find that by an amazing coincidence the dispute resolution volunteer working on the case just happens to be someone who secretly wants to expose people to dangerous radiation from CT scans. Apparently I have spent six and a half years editing Misplaced Pages without ever editing anything related to CT scans, all the while waiting and lurking for Nenpog to file a DRN case so that I can do my Evil Deeds and collect a paycheck from the CT Cartel. Furthermore, Nenpog wants to declare another editor to have a COI simply because he is a Canadian ER Doctor. Now one would think that a Canadian ER Doctor would have an interest in helping his patients -- ordering a CT scan when he believes the results are worth the risk of increased radiation exposure and not ordering them when they aren't worth it. But Nenpog -- without s shred of evidence -- is claiming that the doctor really wants his patients to get cancer, and that, despite everything we know about Canada's health cares system, somehow he has a financial interest in promoting these unnecessary CT scans. I do suspect a COI here. It is easy to figure out the motivations of everyone but Nenpog himself. His behavior has been to attempt to turn the page into an attack piece against CT scanning. Again and again he has inserted material about how dangerous CT scans are, Typically, he inserts the negative material without any sources, then when challenged on it, adds primary sources, sources that require synthesis, sources that don't actually say what he claims they say, etc. In all of this he has achieved 100% consensus against the changes he want to make -- not a single editor agrees with him. I have to wonder why someone would behave in such a manner. In my opinion, the only solution here is a topic ban. Nenpog has proven that he is not capable of cooperating with other editors on this topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    In contrary to what Guy Macon wrote, I did not write who has a COI, and thus didn't accuse any specific someone. I assumed that everyone acted in good faith, even people with a COI. Meaning - perhaps the people with a COI are not aware that they should disclose their COI, so I wrote to everyone about the WP:COI guideline, and waited for them to disclose their COI on their own, because according to the WP:COI "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing.", so I let everyone the opportunity to act in a way that can be assumed as doing the right thing. I also thought, that perhaps the people with a COI think that their actions are objective despite of their COI, and they are not aware how their COI can affect their judgment and make them think less about the quality of sources that are against their COI, or make them fail to see obvious relation of sources to the article, or make them think that the matter that is against their COI is not important, and thus that its weight is low. Their COI might even make them think that anything that is against it is written in a way that isn't aesthetic, and cause them to rewrite material that is against their COI, in attempt to make it more pleasing for them, thereby toning down anything that is against their COI, and if that doesn't work, then make the article more aesthetic by hiding what seem to them as not aesthetic by putting it under wrong titles, or even in the wrong section, or even shove it down to the bottom of the article, where readers of the article, who read it sequentially, will not be exposed to it, if they will stop reading in the middle. Yes, I think that all of that could happen to someone with a COI, who edit in good faith, and therefor I leave the opportunity open for people to do the right thing and disclose their COI on their own. --Nenpog (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I am Canadian ER doc as mentioned and thus for those who know how socialized medicine works none of my income depends on the existence of CTs. My health region actually prefers if I do not order CT scans but of course sometimes people need them. Anyway back to editing content. Would like to note that Guy Macon has been trying to mediate this current disagreement regarding what is a suitable sources. And many other people have provided extensive feedback already.Doc James (talk • contribs • email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Nenpog's specific accusations (and arbcom member Elen of the Roads warning that they violate WP:NPA) may be found at the links I provided above. That being said, in the above statement Nenpog claims to not have listed any editors for COIN to evaluate for a possible COI, and indeed he has posted no user notifications. If he has no COI to report, why are we here? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    One would not find specific accusations in the links Guy Macon provided above. We are here, because while discussing at the DRN, a volunteer there (TransporterMan) has demanded to stop discussing COI related issues at the DRN, and has suggested to discuss COI related issues at the COIN. --Nenpog (talk) 05:42, 30 June 2012 (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.

    N4G

    I have posted an accurate & genuine synopsis of factual issues affecting N4G which is being removed, and effectively censored, on a regular basis by people who want to hide the truth for commercial reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ElderScrolls6 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC+0)

    The above comment appears to be about an entirely different case. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    I agree. It appear to be about N4G, where that editor (ElderScrolls6) seem to edit. How about moving it to its own section? --Nenpog (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    Categories: