Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mrm7171 (talk | contribs) at 03:04, 7 March 2014 (→Occupational health psychology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lexington62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and subtopics)
• Traditional Chinese Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (and subtopics)
• Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• So, you're saying COI applies not necessarily to anyone who might profit from portraying their profession favorably, but only to "professions of dubious consideration"? --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 23:33, 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)

• Related: Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2#Re: Outside view by jps --Guy Macon (talk) 23:36, 14 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)

• Middle8 and another editor accused me of skewing the facts at acupuncture. If there was a problem with the text then why haven't you tried fixing it? Where was the discussion on the talk page where you showed there was a problem with the text? Middle8, please stop making false accusations against me when I am editing in good faith. I started this thread on the talk. See Talk:Acupuncture#Legal and political status. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 15 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)

• (addendum: disregard following comment; let's leave this open) --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 19:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC) ... I'd hoped to get a range of input and have a serious discussion, but with QuackGuru disgruntled over an RfC/U and hijacking the thread, that's obviously not going to happen this time around. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me) 01:10, 16 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))

• Why do you think that acupuncture cannot be studied using double-blind tests? See . Also see (skip down to "What Is the Scientific Evidence for Acupuncture?"), --Guy Macon (talk) 02:55, 17 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)

More @Jytdog: I've commented further below; per that reasoning, I think that potential editorial bias vis-a-vis profession per se falls under WP:ADVOCACY rather than WP:COI. That ties in with your point #4 about commitment. Although anyone fortunate enough to go to grad school and choose a career they like (and even moreso in a mid-life career change) can be said to have enthusiasm, a field like acu, in which there is presently controversy, is particularly liable to the temptation to rationalize biases that can easily arise from enthusiasm. That being said, I'm savvy enough to know that much of the controversy isn't so much about the science as the rest of the world catching up with and accepting the science. To the extent that reason is a whore, I'm not yielding to temptation where MEDRS's are clear. (You already know this, but for anyone following this exchange, I talked about a recent disagreement over MEDRS, in which I very likely appeared unreasonable, in the diff above, at the RfC discussion).

I'm grateful for your going the extra mile and giving such considered feedback and encouragement. More in other venues like my talk page. regards, --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

please see below. btw, your statement above about "That being said, I'm savvy enough to know that much of the controversy isn't so much about the science as the rest of the world catching up with and accepting the science" is a bit eyebrow-raising to me - I am not aware of any "killer" study that proves that acu definitely works (way beyond error margins for placebo) for any given indication; that you would say that even here raises my level of concern that you might be editing on acu topics at times with an advocate's ax to grind, bringing a strong belief in the efficacy of acu that goes beyond what reliable sources allow..... oy. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(sigh) ... I meant that statement in exactly the opposite way that you took it. (I should have been explicit; you don't know me very well.) The science (which shows little if any evidence for efficacy) has yet to filter down to more popular sources and depictions of acu that overstate what it can do. A phrase that came to mind when I wrote that comment above, though harsh, was "it's all over but the shouting"; it's actually not time to stick a fork in it, but that time may well come in the near future, depending. ... You can assume MEDRS-literacy with me; remember, I'm also a scientist. It should be obvious to any scientist reading last year's pro-con editorials in Anesthesia & Analgesia which paper was thin gruel and which was strong medicine. The authors of the former admit as much in the title. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 09:23, 3 March 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)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it does mean the same thing: here's my reading of it.

In terms of acupuncture specifically, I realized we already have a strong real-world precedent: academia. Acupuncturists write, review and edit publications in which acupuncture's effectiveness is discussed, in all types of sources (primary, secondary and tertiary). And they do so despite the points editors raise above re controversies in the field. Acu'ists are (co-)authoring and reviewing all sorts of studies, including the ones finding a lack of evidence for acu's efficacy (or evidence for its lack of efficacy). Acu'ists sit on review boards for groups like the Cochrane Collaboration, which is unsurpassed as a MEDRS. They're not considered to have COI just because they're acu'ists; they're just like any other professional writing about their field, for whom COI arises not from profession per se but from their "external relationships", as WP:COI puts it. Hence, an acu'ist would be conflicted in writing a review of various kinds of needles if he were being paid as a consultant for a company known for selling a particular kind of needle).

The fact that academia finds no COI inherent in simply being an acu'ist writing about one's profession, combined with the fact that global consensus on WP:COI hasn't changed, indicates to me that (a) acupuncturists indeed fall under WP's general case of subject-area expertise, and that (b) they are not subject to any exception arising from controversy over its effectiveness. If they can be trusted to make judgements about controversial aspects of acupuncture when writing MEDRS's, then they can certainly be trusted to edit in those same areas on Misplaced Pages! I'm comfortable with this analysis at a conscience level, a WP-community level and a real-world level, notwithstanding the fact that some editors will always disagree over any topic. Please comment, particularly editors uninvolved in current disputes in the acupuncture topic area. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 08:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

academics are not a good parallel. academics earn their living by a) getting a salary to teach and research b) which salary (in the sciences) often comes from winning competitive, peer reviewed grants; c) those grants and the research they fund investigate hypotheses solidly grounded on previous science. That, is not you. The better parallel is practicing doctors, who make their living based on patients walking in the door. The more people who believe that acu is safe and effective, the more potential customers you and other practicing acup'ists will have. And since the field in which you practice is controversial, having wikipedia say good things about it can only benefit the bottom line of you and your colleagues. Can you really not see that? (real question) I pointed you to Misplaced Pages:Conflicts of interest (medicine) for exactly this reason. Please see the following quote (emphasis added): "'Being an expert', including being a licensed healthcare professional, has never been considered a conflict of interest by the Misplaced Pages community. However, in the past experts have tried to use Misplaced Pages to promote their own theories beyond their prominence within the scientific community, and that is always inappropriate." That is where the concern about WP:ADVOCACY comes in really clearly. But it is borderline, as per what I wrote above. There are elements of COI here, that you open yourself to when you push beyond what sources allow. I am totally sympathetic that you are dealing folks who (in my view) push too hard to invalidate the whole field and any possibility that acu may have a legit place in treating patients, but that does not give you license to push too hard the other way... Again, please do see the list of situations where Misplaced Pages:Conflicts of interest (medicine) warns where healthcare professionals might find themselves in a conflict of interest, and please heed the advice there about what to do in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(See also my reply just above; you read my comment exactly the opposite way I meant it). Yes, WP:MEDCOI makes sense, I take it seriously, and I understand the issue of docs who could profit from too-favorable depictions of their treatments. I mentioned that right there in the second set of bullet points under the thread-starter. I really don't think I "push too far the other way"; it all depends on my good-faith reading of sources, but an acu'ist either does or doesn't have a COI no matter how well-behaved s/he is.

I do think that standards in academia bear: I'm talking about acu'ists -- not MD's or PhD's, but people with acu-specific credentials, collaborating with the former -- doing research that may effectively cause their own profession to cease to exist. (Note, some of these people also get paid to do acu; I know some of them, and for some one can tell by the author info.)

I agree that the situation for acu'ists is closer to the ADVOCACY/COI border than the (very?) large majority of healthcare professions. If there is COI, abiding by WP:COIU isn't that big a deal, since in most senses it's a description of an ideal editor. But WP has never said that profession alone causes a COI and I don't think it should go down that road. All acu- and TCM-connected professionals need to take all aspects of MEDCOI very seriously. Expert editors in these topic areas should be encouraged, if they're doing good work; only if a user exhibits a pattern of self-serving bias should potential restrictions kick in, imo. --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 00:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Swenzy, yet again

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.

• Remember the 13th (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Viral marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Diff: )
• List of hoaxes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Brian Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Syrian Electronic Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 50.162.190.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• This was also deleted previously at Remember The 13th Hoax via AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• I've opened up an SPI for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• I'm the one who edited all those articles and made the Swenzy one, I think you should delete all of the articles pertaining to swenzy. I was not paid but I do fear the concerns that you guys have rules and everyone must abide to them. 50.162.190.150 (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

MobiCart in particular, and Jeremy112233 in general

• MobiCart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jeremy112233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

• In 2013, User:Novaseminary wrote some words on Jeremy's talk page. They have been revised by an oversighter, but some are left. The remaining words read: "You have an interesting edit history. How do you choose which new articles to write? Do you always follow WP:COI? I ask because some of your editing strikes me as being a bit promotional. And, for instance, you've uploaded professional looking images with emailed-in permission indicating you have at least the permission of the subject (if not a business, agent, or other relationship) and then went on to write about the subject. And you have claimed to be a ghostwriter in the past. Do you still ghostwrite? Are you still A professional author and entreprenuer?"

• 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)

• I looked briefly through some of Jeremy's sandbox articles. I found User:Jeremy112233/My sandbox/107, perhaps one of Jeremy's most promotional creations.

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)

OK; thank you for the explanation and the compliment. I guess no COI declaration shall be forthcoming unless User:Novaseminary knows of some smoking gun. I still suspect that Jeremy is here to make money through paid advocacy instead of to build an encyclopedia. I am sad that WP:AGF may require us to give Jeremy the benefit of the doubt anyway.

Dear Atama and dear all: Even if no COI declaration is forthcoming, many of Jeremy's creations are problematic. He's created over 400 Misplaced Pages articles. The majority are about living people, corporations, or products. About his articles in these three topic areas: they to be about subjects of questionable notability, to be somewhat promotional, and to mention only good things about the subjects. What can we do to help dissuade him from writing such articles in the future?

And dear Novaseminary: Could any of the oversighted words at <http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AJeremy112233&diff=549448481&oldid=548762808> lead us to any evidence that Jeremy112233 has a likely COI?

Cheers,

—Unforgettableid (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what words were oversighted. It does look like Jeremy112233 notes on his user page that he formerly edited as User:In_fusion_productions until that user name was "retired". (oddly, Jeremy112233 claims User:In fusion productions was created in December 29, 2010, but the log shows it was created in 2006, though there was a page move on December 29, 2010.) I don't doubt this claim as they have similar editing styles. User:In fusion productions was blocked for having a username giving "the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website" (User_talk:In_fusion_productions#January_2012) and Jeremy112233 was created around that time and they also overlapped as editors. Anyway, by using the user name "In fusion productions", it's not clear whether Jeremy112233 means to note he is associated with In Fusion Productions the company or organization or just liked the name. I can't find any discussion of that. There seems to be some sort of connection between In Fusion Productions the company and WikiExperts, though. I didn't know what to make of it, so I asked. Has Jeremy112233 denied being a paid editor? Novaseminary (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I've never been paid for anything :) When I first started out a long while back I used a bad username and had to change it; however I have made that clear on my userpage. I'll be going back through some of those other early pages I wrote to remove the kind of material Unforget has pointed out as well. I had been focusing more on trying to bring articles up to good status and creating judicial stubs lately. I actually had no idea that there was a userpage that dates back to 2006! Can you give me the link to where I can see the page move? Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see it now in your text. Not sure why that would have happened, as I never made an edit before 2010. I checked out that old user page as well and it appears no edits were made that far back either. Strange. Also, I did like the name, after a dance I saw back in the early 2000s called "In Fusion"--I'll try to find a link to it for my userpage as well. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So you don't have anything to do with the ghostwriting company/organization "In Fusion Productions" or Wikiexperts? What a funny coincidence that you have noted you are a ghostwriter and originally used a user name the same as a ghostwriting company that also happens to have some connection to or commonality with Wikiexperts (whose employees have been banned). I'm sure you could forgive one for having thought otherwise a la WP:QUACK. Maybe the founder(s) of In Fusion Productions were inspired by the same "In Fusion" dance back in the early 2000s. Novaseminary (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I did used to ghostwrite a long time ago, as previously noted. However, I have never worked for In Fusion Productions and actually didn't notice it until you brought it up. Obviously I should have actually as apparently the name was already taken. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've also never worked for this In Fusion Productions either here. Or this PR firm here. I'm starting to scare myself a bit here with how many others have had the same name... (found another one here and here). Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So just to clarify, you're not employed by Wikiexperts now, or in the past, in any capacity? Nor have you owned a company called In Fusion Productions? -- Atama頭 20:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I have never owned a company by that name, or owned a company by any name, nor have I had any contact or employment with WikiExperts. I did take some interest in the debates around the Wiki-PR and WikiExperts debates a while back, but outside of sharing some opinions with the community about the best way to deal with the socking issues that was the extent of my interest there. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding the issue that has been raised regarding the style on the MobiCart page, I was thinking about doing a rewrite of the page but wasn't sure whether that would be appropriate while this conversation is ongoing. I'll probably wait until it is over, however I am definitely open to a recommendation on how to fix the issues there and will ensure that the perceived mess is cleaned up. I also will not remove the improvement tag there unless somebody else verifies that the issues have been fixed just to play it safe. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a very bizarre coincidence, then, that the owner of In Fusion Productions, and COO (former or current) of Wikiexperts is also ghostwriter, but I'm going to take you at your word, I suppose stranger things have happened. Just note that per our COI guideline it should be fine for you to at least participate at the discussion page of the article even if others still consider you to have a COI for whatever reason, as doing so is considered uncontroversial (and even encouraged). If you already have a draft, or are working on one, just link to it and ask the other editors what objections there are to it, or make suggestions for fixes on the article talk page. -- Atama頭 20:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Good advice, I may simply leave the page to others in order not to inflame the situation. It has inspired me at the very least to take a wikibreak from page creating and revisit some of the more gnome-ish things there are to do here on the site. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is bizarre indeed. Jeremy112233, you linked to many fusion-named companies and said you had not worked for them. But you did not link to the ghostwriting company, actually called "In Fusion Productions" when the company's guru.com site is the first to appear on google with a search for "In Fusion Productions", your former user name. From what you've written, you have no affiliation with this organization, either. I wonder if this would justify a CheckUser request? Novaseminary (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't go through the entire Internet looking for every significant company under the name, I cut out after the first two Google pages. There are a tremendous amount of fusion/production/s/inc aren't there for some reason... Anyhow, no that too is foreign to me. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not for fishing - A checkuser is going to want more than a suspicion. Specifically, you'll need diffs showing behavior between Jeremy112233 and other account(s) that are close enough to be suspected of sockpuppetry, but not close enough to conclude sockpuppetry. CU is specifically restrained in usage to protect editors' privacy, per the WP:OUTING policy, which is another reason why I'm suggesting that we take him at his word for now. COI concerns can only be pursued so far before they are considered harassment, and privacy concerns generally outweigh COI concerns. This may change somewhat if the Terms of Use for Wikimedia get changed (which may affect disclosure of paid editing, see here) but for now try not to get too aggressive about this issue. -- Atama頭 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Changes made to non-WP sites since my first post here lead me to believe something very "coincidental" is going on. But to avoid outing, I won't mention them here. If those terms do change, maybe this should be reviewed again. Novaseminary (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

In another coincidence, it looks like Jeremy112233 created and has regularly edited the article covering the COO of Wikiexperts that Atama mentioned above. Novaseminary (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I did create that page for that name, around the time it came into the news. I found some particularly bad reviews for his work in the past and made sure it was up on the site. I also recommended they delete the WikiExperts page on their talk page, as I don't think it is notable. Still don't. I think we should have something closer to the Wiki-PR page (at the most; my personal feeling is that we should AFD it), which covers the editing of the company that led to the ban and not the company itself but I was overruled. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me??? Attack pages are against the rules. Looks like another block is coming your way.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.109.63 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 4 March 2014

Accusations without evidence are also against the rules, would you care to substantiate your claims? If you're referring to sourced criticism, that's how neutrality is achieved in articles, by including positives and negatives about subjects (based on what we can verify). -- Atama頭 05:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to argue that the James_Cummins_(author) article (about an individual who is president of In Fusion Productions, and was at least recently, if not still is, the COO or WikiExperts) created and primarily edited by Jeremy112233 (formerly editing under the user name "In fusion productions") is too negative. It is quite an extensive article for an author whose major work (according to the article) is published by Clark-Nova Books which "publishes exclusively fiction and nonfiction by Canadian authors under thirty." Quite the contrary; I tagged it because I don't think the sources in the article now establish it meets the notability guidelines for authors, and should possibly be considered for deletion based on my quick review of it. (Before actually nominating it for deletion, I would do a more extensive review.) Anyway, one wouldn't bring this to COIN arguing there was a negative conflict of interest. In fact, the language noting the "particularly bad review" was already in the article by the time the subject of the article, or someone who took a photo of him as a tourist, released the snapshot Jeremy112233 uploaded into the public domain as confirmed by OTRS. A bit of misdirection by the IP perhaps--that is, the IP seeming to take on Jeremy112233 as being too hard on James Cummins in the article? Novaseminary (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Finding a photo online and releasing it is what I do for most of my pages if I can find a public domain one. Photos I add are nearly always registered under my account, unless it is a 3.0 upload where the original author keeps certain rights (for example, see here for a photo I recently uploaded, which was taken by someone else but the upload name still has my username there). Up until early 2013 I would often just do it under my account name and not worry how OTRS assigned them, however I've since changed that practice as a lot of my photos started getting deleted and I needed to be more careful. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Mark W. Rocha

• Mark W. Rocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mark W. Rocha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pccweboffice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wallabyjenkins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mac912 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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:

• 00:16: I post message of Rocha account talk page, advising on WP:Autobiography and WP:COI.
• 00:54: Rocha account replies on my talk stating it is not Rocha himself.
• 02:49: After a flurry of edits to the AFC, the Rocha account removes {AFC submission} template from AFC -- this is the last edit to the AFC.
• 02:53: Mainspace article created by PCCweboffice account.
• 02:56: Rocha account removes {Unreviewed} template from mainspace article.

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

• Lakshmi Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Varmais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Shangri-La's Mactan Resort & Spa, Cebu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Edsa Shangri-La, Manila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shangri-La Hotel, Tokyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) among others...

User

• Readyforlara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Dear SFK2. I'm currently working to improve and add pages for WikiProjects Hotels as I have a good understanding of the major hotels in the region, as you noticed due to my previous professional work as a writer in the area. I feel my expertise can assist in this area. Am starting with the Shangri-La's due to their being an Asian-based group who in many cities bought or built landmark buildings, contributing significantly to the local economy and the development of some of their locations. I'm constantly striving to ensure what I include is relevant and not PR-style (see Edsa Shangri-La talk page). I do come against very different opinions from experienced wikipedia editors, some which seem to prefer not to have any hotels on wikipedia and place them under speedy deletion, while others welcome them and give me advice. I try to ensure everything is fully referenced and matches the many similar pages that are already part of the Misplaced Pages. Do let me know if you have any concerns, or indeed, advice, on how I can continue to assist with WikiProjects Hotels. Readyforlara (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:BellviewMatt and Bellview Winery

• Bellview Winery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• BellviewMatt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Occupational health psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• iss246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psyc12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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.

• External links
• List of academic journals that publish OHP-related articles by Paul Spector
• European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology
• Society for Occupational Health Psychology
• American Psychological Association's Work, Stress, and Health Office
• American Psychological Association's Public Interest Directorate
• NIOSH Occupational Health Psychology Site

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, (particularly tag team characteristics in that article) and Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles However I may be wrong. So here is some recent editorial from the last 48 hours, for others to make that judgement instead.Talk:Occupational health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Around January 16, in the health psychology talk page Mrm7171 accused me of both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry as if I somehow could control Psyc12. Although Psyc12 and I share some of the same views, we also have different views. For example, we had different views regarding whether to include in the health Ψ entry reference to i/o Ψ. Psyc12 supported its deletion. I did not. This tag team charge is baloney and a diversion from what is a real problem.

The real problem is that Mrm's edits and claims are often destructive:

1. Destructive behavior that got him banned a few times from Misplaced Pages.
2. Walls of text on talk pages.
3. Inserting minor points in an entry as if they are major (e.g., a scholar misattributed the coining of the term OHP to another scholar).
4. Attempting to pigeonhole OHP as a subdiscipline of, first, i/o Ψ.

look at

1. Later, attempting to pigeon OHP as a subdiscipline of health Ψ.
2. Still later, attempting to pigeonhole OHP (once more) as a subdiscipline of i/o Ψ.
3. Denigrating the president of EA-OHP because he is a medical doctor.

NO, I did not denigrate this person. That is a complete fabrication. He may be a very fine medical doctor. Where is your evidence I denigrated this person iss246?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Claiming EA-OHP and SOHP are "clubs," and not really learned societies.
2. Claiming I am opposed to all external links (e.g., industrial hygiene) in the OHP entry when I raised objections to the external links he proposed (which were not directly relevant).
3. Claiming that ICOH-WOPS has nothing to do with OHP.
4. Claiming that I don't like Tom Cox, the founder of the journal Work & Stress, as if Mrm7171 could read my mind; for the record I have on talk pages said I admire Tom Cox.
5. That NIOSH has nothing to do with OHP.
6. Accusing me of not having a doctorate then changing his mind and accusing me of having a doctorate.
7. Accusing me of not being a professor then accusing me of being a professor.
8. Accusing me of being paid off by NIOSH or SOHP to insert external links on their behalf.
9. Another editor wrote about Mrm with regard to Mrm's ban in January of this year: "I feel that he will probably not be able to change sufficiently to become a useful editor, at least within the areas of his distinctively strange ideas. I would support a indefinite ban, preventing him from editing all psychology subjects." This quote was from one of the only Misplaced Pages editors Mrm likes. Can you imagine the views of the editors he does not like!
10. Raising again and again scurrilous and often irrelevant claims that have no merit.

It goes on and on. I will say it. I think he should be banned from Wikipeda. Iss246 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Iss246 I can see you are trying to make this WP:Boomerang on Mrm. Please note that a) you need to present difs if you want to make claims about what Mrm wrote - you cannot just make assertions (making such assertions just makes you look bad); b) this is not the board that will produce a block or ban of Mrm; you are kind of wasting your efforts and everyones' time in trying to do that here (which again makes you look bad). I reviewed some of the difs that Mrm presented and I don't think he has a good case that you have a COI; you do seem to be advocating for your field pretty consistently and you may want to consider making sure that you don't cross the line in that regard going forward. For example, in the discussion over adding OHP to the psych template, you never really responded to what those opposed to you were actually saying, and instead just kept repeating yourself and pushing for what you wanted. Happy to discuss this elsewhere if you like; this is not the place to go into that, as it is COI board.Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, my response to your comment is on your talk page. I can document every claim I make. 18:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am disappointed that iss246 is allowed to post such a tirade of unsubstantiated, biased personalization, and in point form, no less, running down this page. My case (appropriately presented here and on the advice of an administrator) is not spurious and certainly not scurrilous. However iss246's baseless irrelevant claimsabove are purposely distorted and fabricated, without any evidence or diffs to back them up and are clearly misplaced in this COI forum, in a desperate attempt to 'deflect' these genuine advocacy and promotional concerns that many editors have over the years as well as your 'dogged' editing on these issues against all consensus see again here your discussion, particularly DctorW's final comments to you regarding your promotion of OHP into the applied psychology sidebar against all other psychology editor's consensus iss246.Template talk:Psychology sidebar/Archive 1 under the header: Psychology:Sidebar, 3 March 2011. DoctorW's comments are very telling and I concur with his frustration. see comments here

I was tempted to respond to each of these claims 'one by one,' but stopped myself This is not the place to do so. Iss246 is clearly 'deflecting attention from the actual diffs and evidence I provided to support a pattern of advocacy and promotion for over 6 years of your society for 'OHP' advocating and the conflict of interest points raised by administrator Atama. You will not listen to anyone else. You seem not to understand what is wrong with promoting your outside interests in these articles on Misplaced Pages. You won't take direction. You think it is your right to do so. You continue to make baseless claims, without evidence, which can be considered personal attacks in that context. Your stringent opposition in those 'OHP' related articles to any other independent editor adding a NPOV is obvious. See the 'walls of text' created here in the last 48 hour to my attempts to add 'anything to this article'Talk:Occupational health psychology. That is why again, I am again asking Atama, to please make this clearer to iss246 & psyc12 and place some parameters on their promotional editing and conflict of interest in articles relating to their 'OHP' society membership.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

I think you may be giving too much weight to what is simply ordinary professional activities and membership in professional societies. I was a member of the American Chemical Society for 25 years, but that was simply the default choice for someone working in the field of chemistry. If I go out and join an advocacy group for home schooling or an environmental group, that likely reflects a much greater ideological commitment. Being a member of the American Chemical Society and having received government grants for chemical research does not constitute a COI disqualifying me from commenting on chemistry issues in general - its simply the norm for anyone practicing chemistry as a profession. I suspect the same applies here. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that members of the American Chemical Society would take ownership of the chemistry article or use it as a promotional tool for the goals and advertising of your professional society Formerly98? The two 'OHP' society members iss246 & psyc12 have been placing multiple external links, all leading back to their Society website, their OHP society newsletters, and other promotional and advertising material, including conferences that the 'OHP' society pay for sponsorship, and any and all, of the other affiliations so heavily promoted throughout this article. Just like the chemistry article though, the occupational health psychology article is instead dedicated only to the broad topic of occupational health psychology which is a multidisciplinary topic.

This article in my opinion at least, should not be so heavily influenced by an 'OHP' professional society, and its members and include only carefully selected and screened content as far as reliable used and the masses of promotional material for just one 'OHP' society saturating and clogging the article. That would be like saying the chemistry article for example, could 'only' include external links, opinions and content from the American Chemical Society, their journal, and their members. Why then are these two 'OHP' societies so 'prominent' in this content of this separate article, mentioned over and over, when so many other relevant fields, professions and reliable sources also deserve inclusion, to achieve something close to a NPOV? This 'OHP' society also has its own article. However occupational health psychology (just as chemistry or cardiology or any other similar example) is not synonymous with the 'OHP' society just as chemistry is not synonymous with the American Chemical Society? I would be interested in other editor's opinions on these advocacy and promotional issues identified?Mrm7171 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What material should be included, then, that is not from these OHP societies? Does the material in some way promote the societies? Is it biased in its presentation, by making assertions shared by these societies and not showing a differing viewpoint? Or are you just objecting to anything being included that is referenced to these societies? I'm not dismissing your concerns here with these questions, I remain at least a bit concerned about two advocates of an organization relying too heavily on material provided by that organization as references for an article. But I'm trying to figure out what kind of bias it's introducing to the article to have those references. -- Atama頭 18:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Occupational health psychology and the Society of 'OHP' are distinctly different topics and different articles. My example above was the broad general topic and article on Chemistry, compared for instance to one of the many different private chemistry societies and groups around the world, that may be interested in the broad topic of chemistry. They are far from being one and the same. The same principles applies here. On one hand the broad topic and article on occupational health psychology, which many different professions and disciplines, journals, texts, courses, practitioners and so on are involved with around the world. And then, on the other hand, one particular 'OHP' ‘society’ with its own unique culture and internally governed, by its own set of rules, regulations, ideologies, agendas etc. Iss246 & psyc12 are both members of this privately run 'OHP' society and both very strong advocates for the goals and viewpoints of their society. That is why Atama has correctly identified the COI issue and other editors have further identified advocacy and promotional issues based on evidence provided on this COIN.Mrm7171 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is currently clogged to the brim with information about the ‘OHP’ society and events and affiliations. For example, the entire section on Historical Overview, in the current article, especially 'developments after 1990' almost entirely relates to the historical overview of the 2 Societies of 'OHP' not the field or topic of occupational health psychology, which this article is supposed to be about. Mentioning specific government and private organizations like NIOSH, that these 2 editor's 'OHP' society may be associated with, and pay (through sponsorship deals) to be associated with, seems of no relevance to the article on the topic of occupational health psychology. Why is this article clogged with advertising and promotion to events relating to their private 'OHP' society?Mrm7171 (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Falcon Aviation Academy Comment

• User:Spin1197/Falcon Aviation Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:Spin1197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

I did give the the editor a chance to improve the article to an acceptable standard, after a polite request at User talk:DESiegel#Company Article for WikiPedia. Note my comments at User talk:Spin1197/Falcon Aviation Academy. Note also that I placed {{userspace draft}} on the draft, so it is not indexed by Google until and unless it is approved for mainspace. DES 14:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I did find some hits on HighBeam in terms of newspaper articles, so there does appear to be notability to support a page there. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

• Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Spike-from-NH (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The English-language Uncyclopedia, originally at uncyclopedia.org, was forked in January 2013 after Wikia attempted to censor its content. Wikia has left the old project open in direct competition with the new one, en.uncyclopedia.co, and "Spike" or "Spike-from-NH" is an administrator on Wikia's fork of this project. That puts him in very blatant WP:COI as he has been repeatedly removing information on the fork (and the context behind it) from Misplaced Pages's article on Uncyclopedia. Other users have requested repeatedly that he stop, but the content deletion continues. K7L (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I invite perusal of Talk:Uncyclopedia and of my talk page. The active question is whether certain text is independently verifiable. This has been under discussion on the talk page since Beetstra, most recently, asserted on the talk page that the Fork website is not automatically notable. The text in question concerns the rationale for creating the Fork. The only thing approaching sources is posts of the Forkers themselves. My deletion of that text, made after two days' notice, has been under discussion for nearly two weeks, during which no one has asserted verifiability and all the conversation has been ad hominem. K7L's claim shows he is as personally involved as I am; a neutral observer would not conclude that removing pornography and, for a while, imposing a Content Warning was "censorship" nor describe Wikia's continued operation of its website as an offense against the Fork site. Cathfolant, Isarra, and DungeonSiegeAddict510 are active on the Fork, the first two under other names.

Regarding "repeatedly removing information," my role for the last year has been to change overt advocacy to a more neutral presentation. I neither agree with Beetstra that the Fork is non-newsworthy, nor with K7L et al that it is the exclusive new home of The Community. I have been trying for Misplaced Pages not to take sides, starting with K7L's false description about a year ago of the original website as "seemingly abandoned."

Discussion of my COI is a tactic to evade discussion of the accusers' COI, and to divert from discussion of the edit in question. The Forkers have used Misplaced Pages as one of their battlegrounds to divert viewership to their site. Their goal here is not encyclopedic content but victory by silencing an opponent. Spike-from-NH (talk)

My -3 cents on this, is that at least have there be links to both the wikia version, and the fork. Both are different implementations of Uncyclopedia. Like you have Ubuntu, and then you have Kubuntu, both different implementations of the same project. Consider the wikia site Ubuntu, or the master copy, while the fork is Kubuntu. Both are different, have their flaws and features, and bring something different to the table. However, both do share the same backbone, of misinformation presented in a satirical, or nonsensical format. What I did yesterday, unaware of this situation, was simply notice the lack of a link. Anyways, I don't wish further conflict, as it might impede my ability to write about yo-yo's and such on this fine encyclopedia. I will have no further say in this matter, as yesterday's doing was merely out of the fact that both deserve to be recognized equally, not one over the other. Again, same underlying concept, different implementations. I do not wish to be involved deeply in this matter, so please do not use my name as evidence or whatever. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 19:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If we were to take every statement in Misplaced Pages's article on Uncyclopedia which is from primary sources instead of WP:RS and delete it outright, this would be a very short article - maybe even a stub. That might be an option... but if this is done, it should be done to the entire article (and not just the discussion of the split in the English-language wiki) and should be done by someone who is not connected to the subject matter. Allowing an Uncyclopedia administrator to selectively remove info from our article about Uncyclopedia is a WP:COI nightmare and violates WP:NEUTRAL rather severely. K7L (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I said I wouldn't say anything more, but if needed, I could talk about the split from a non-biased standpoint. Despite conflicts with the wikia site, I'm still neutral towards both sites at the time of this statement. But of course, if someone more qualified is around, by all means, they would be better than I. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 20:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok I hate to pop in with such an unrelated and annoying comment but please, DungeonSiegeAddict510, the nounderlinelink, sigexpand and sighidden spans in your sig don't work here, so they're just taking up space; your sig takes up six lines of code, too, which I think is kind of wrong. Might want to peek at WP:SIG.

As for Spike...I wouldn't single him out, no, but imho he has been committing the same exact ad hominem offence he accuses others of doing, apparently in an attempt to deflect criticism. This whole section is just a pile of uncyclopedians going at each other. Gack. Cathfolant (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally, don't confuse bans and blocks. They are not the same thing here. Now enough nitpicking, I must be off. Best of luck. Cathfolant (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Btw Isarra does not belong in this, Spike, as she has not been involved in editing the article. Don't bring in uninvolved editors for no reason. Cathfolant (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

No, indeed. Isarra's role was to post to my talk page pressuring me to make my life happier by unwatching the Uncyclopedia article. Coordinated "independent" posts is a recurring theme of this dispute; IPs have made your most outrageous edits so that editors with usernames can focus controversy on the revert.

DungeonSiegeAddict510: Unfortunately, your analogy sidesteps the central issue of notability. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What makes you think there was any 'coordination' going on? I see no evidence of any such coordination so it appears you are simply assuming bad faith. Furthermore, I believe Isarra to be an excellent and honest wikipedian and uncyclopedian who has a lot of respect for rules, so suspecting her of coordinating others to further her supposed cause even though she says she has recused herself seems to me nothing less than ridiculous. Cathfolant (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Isarra posted at Section 15 and 19 of my talk page, not with "excellence, honesty, and respect for rules" but to pressure me to withdraw, threatening the process that you have now initiated. I did not claim she posted anonymously. Of course members of the Fork coordinate their actions on their IRC channel and in their Forum, or you would not be here, nor certainly DungeonSiegeAddict510; as you now post at the Fork about manufacturing "independent" press coverage of your website to satisfy concerns such as those of Otterathome and Beetstra. Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I am actually banned from #uncyclopedia IRC, so I wouldn't know. My stake in this is of nil value to me. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That is your interpretation of the events, and I do not believe it is accurate. Pressuring you to withdraw is perfectly reasonable, as it is quite obvious to almost everyone but you that you have a COI and should not edit the article or at least take extreme care, and I would assume good faith that she really does not want you to stress yourself out by keeping an eye on the proceedings here; that is understandable also, as you have seemed stressed lately to some of us. You are failing to assume good faith on Isarra's part. I have not initiated this process as you so strangely claim but rather K7L. You have not claimed here that she posted anonymously, but you did imply as much on your talk page when Isarra said she would recuse herself from the Uncyclopedia stuff and you said you didn't buy it because plenty of anons had been editing the article; and in any case I have amended my statement here accordingly as you did not claim that here. As for your last sentence, this latest discussion (which for those interested can be found here) has in all likelihood no bearing on whether Isarra coordinated anonymous users, and though I take just as negative a view of manufacturing notability for the fork as you do, I believe it is only natural for us to discuss such things and participate in discussions here, and referring to it in the way you have done seems another failure to assume good faith. You might well be very pleased if the forkers could be all found guilty of gaming the system or whatever it is, as then you would be able to deflect any concerns about your own behaviour, exactly as you say is our intention - but I will assume good faith and go on as if you were not doing that. Cathfolant (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Brian Edwards (celebrity talent executive)

• Brian Edwards (celebrity talent executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Entertalkinginc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.159.80.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Promotional edits on behalf of Brian Edwards. Perhaps someone could retitle the main article as well; the 'celebrity' alone is puffery. JNW (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the account's protestations, googling entertalkinginc leads to www.EnterTalkingClientRelations.com, which in turn brings us to.... JNW (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They are either a role account or impersonating being one, so I've blocked them per the username policy. I'm not seeing signs of WP:BIO being met though - maybe it should go to AFD. SmartSE (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think you're right--looks like an attempt at notability by virtue of proximity. Though not well sourced, there is a claim to notability based on several awards and honors. JNW (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Follow up: Article is subject of a deletion discussion, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Brian Edwards (celebrity talent executive). JNW (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom Hunter (artist)

• Tom Hunter (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tomhunterart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 81.147.113.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

We had a perfectly decent short article until today. It appears that a lot of it has now been lifted from the subject's website, with excessive external links in the article's body (many to the artist's website) and listcruft for external sources. One question is whether this should be cut to the pre-Tomhunterart version, to address all these issues in one swoop. JNW (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the external links list contains some sources that could be used in an article expansion, so I would leave those that appear helpful. Short of that, as the new material isn't referenced properly, I think it would be appropriate to remove it. That would be more helpful than using a high number of improvement tags for issues that may not be fixable but for the removal of said content. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach. The current tags, as well as starting a thread here, have the secondary purpose of slowing down the COI accounts to allow objective parties time to improve the article. I must leave the keyboard now, but may return to this later. In the meantime anyone who'd like to implement the above suggestions, or at least keep an eye on the article, is welcome. JNW (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For the moment I've done a preliminary cut of content to the pre-copy/paste version. JNW (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

As a minor update, Tomhunterart has messaged me on my talk page and asked for help understanding why his updates weren't accepted. I suggested he use the talk page in the future; so it does appear that we have some kind of confirmation that the artist himself is behind the edits. Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Since then I've added some properly sourced content back in. JNW (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sahara India Pariwar

• Sahara India Pariwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shivani.malik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user account seems to be a single purpose account. His/her contribution log and edit pattern suggests than he/she is editing on behalf of Sahara to promote the company interests and using Misplaced Pages as a platform for WP:Promotion. He/she has been given final warning twice for adding unsourced content and not adhering to npov. User is interested to edit only related articles (Sahara India Pariwar & Subrata Roy). A soft block is warranted to draw the user's attention towards Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

user:Cotswold Tiger/The Study Society

• The Study Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cotswold Tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears these have a conflict of interest. Cotswold Tiger (talk · contribs) is an SPA. Overly promotional language. The article misdescribes pseudoscience woo promoters as "leading scientists". Refuses to acknowledge a COI when politely asked. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether The Study Society is notable; but I'm struggling to find independent sources for it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what an SPA is? I simply wanted to contribute information about an organisation which is a Registered Charity and has a very long history - surely that makes it notable. There is no conflict of interest except that I have long been interested in the history of it, if I wasn't interested how could I write the article?

If there is overly promotional language, then let's remove it, I have no wish to promote it.

Claiming the article promotes fringe views is ridiculous - it doesn't give or promote any views at all, it just says what the organisation does. There is a huge list of references provided.

Some of the named people are proper scientists - look them up in Misplaced Pages!

I don't understand why Barney has decided to attack and vandalise the page. He seems to be on a crusade. I reverted his vandalism and he has reverted it back. I can't fight a fanatic.

I have no interest in wasting my time with this Barney's trolling and if Misplaced Pages can't deal with people like him then the article will be lost and a little knowledge removed.

--Cotswold Tiger (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is a description of a society that "is a centre for the study and practice of a number of approaches to self-discovery and spiritual development" so it describes their study and practice. I don't see the basis of accusing Cotswold Tiger of a conflict of interest just because he chose to edit this article. Maybe he "refuses to acknowledge a COI" because there is none. Liz 19:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much Liz. Barney has just sent me a threatening message saying I may be blocked for reverting his vandalism several times. I am a beginner at Misplaced Pages, he is clearly an expert, and it seems I have no chance against him. He has added tags saying the subject is not notable (despite registered charity, been around since 1971), and that it presents fringe theories, when it presents no theories at all.

What we have here is one person (or a group) determined to attack pages they don't like, not because they really break Misplaced Pages rules, but because they have a campaign to promote their personal views. I have not yet learned how to find out what Barney gets up to on Misplaced Pages, but I took a wild guess and looked at the Rupert Sheldrake page - sure enough there he is again, trying to impose his views of the world. Any advice will be welcome. I just hope I'm not now going to be blocked as threatened by him.

--Cotswold Tiger (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that Cotswold Tiger was "politely asked" about a COI... Was that an attempt at humor? It's pretty blunt, even curt to say, "State if you have a conflict of interest with The Study Society." Then it becomes an interrogation when you follow up with, "Answer the question." BtBB, I'm warning you, if an editor removes content from their user talk page, leave it alone. Edit-warring to maintain accusations on an editor's talk page is very aggressive, and you already have a spotty history with edit-warring.

Costwold Tiger, you don't need to feel intimidated, and feel free to remove that information from your user talk page if you'd like. If Barney the barney barney reinserts the information I'll block them, it's that simple.

Now, to get to the matter at hand, I don't see that there is a conflict of interest, necessarily. Cotswold Tiger may have a narrow focus, sure, but that doesn't equate to having a COI. It's not even accurate to label them a single-purpose account, because I see edits like this one and this one that don't seem to be related to the society. A COI may exist, but that is usually determined by an editor's disclosure of information... For example, if Cotswold Tiger stated they were editing on behalf of the society, or claimed to be a member to demonstrate having special knowledge or authority on the subject, or gave a real-life name that was known publically to be a member, something like that would determine COI. But it's difficult to make such a determination absent such disclosures, and continuing to badger an editor about the subject is harassment.

I see there is now an AfD for the article. The notability of the article should be determined there. By the way, Costwold Tiger should have been notified by the AfD as the article creator and a significant contributor to it. -- Atama頭 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama: Thanks for your input. I had not been notified of the AfD. I am shocked that the whole thing might so easily be removed because of one determined person's personal views. If it really reads like an advert, that is unfortunate and of course it should be edited so it doesn't - I still think it reads as factual. But to claim that this organisation is insignificant, given its long history, seems quite unfair.

Please can you tell me how I challenge or reply to the AfD? Do I simply add some text to the AfD page? Please point me in the right direction. Thanks. --Cotswold Tiger (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It can't be removed because of one person's point of view. An AfD is a discussion page where editors are invited to comment on whether or not they feel the article should be kept or deleted. It is not a vote, where the number of people asking to "keep" are counted against the people asking to "delete", the result is generally determined by the strength of arguments on both sides, and how well those arguments seem to satisfy Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. You should reply at the AfD itself with your comment. The tradition is to start your line with an asterisk (*) followed by a "Keep" or "Delete" followed by your reasoning. Usually, the word "keep" or "delete" is put in bold text (using three single quotes on either side, like: '''Keep''' and not with double quotes like: """Keep""") to draw attention to what the gist of your argument is. For example, a Keep argument may look like this:

• Keep - This article is notable because the New York Times wrote a long article about it, and it was the subject of a documentary on PBS -- Atama頭 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Usually, we keep or delete an article based on whether or not it is notable. An article is notable if it has significant coverage (more than a passing mention) in reliable sources. I see that the article already has a large number of sources, so what will determine its notability is whether or not those sources are considered reliable (I'll say right away that references to The Study Society itself and its publications aren't), and whether or not the coverage is substantial. You may also find additional independent sources not already in the article to strengthen its notability. If you can successfully argue notability, and convince others to your viewpoint, then the AfD may conclude with the article being kept. An AfD usually lasts for 7 days, though it can possibly last longer. At the end of 7 days an administrator will decide what the consensus of the discussion is and will make a decision. -- Atama頭 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Atama: Thank you for all your guidance.

--Cotswold Tiger (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Economy of Serbia

Hi. In the interest of transparency I'm declaring that the Government of Serbia is my client and I wish to contribute to the Economy of Serbia Misplaced Pages article. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Triumph International

I am affiliated with Triumph International, which is currently a stub that I would like to work on bringing up to "Good Article" status. I've offered a draft on The Talk page and was hoping someone might take the time to review my work, verify that it is an improvement to Misplaced Pages and - if appropriate - merge the draft with article-space per WP:COI. Any help would be appreciated. CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution