Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:58, 15 February 2014

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.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. 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:

Alli Sports

• 59.101.84.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EGorodetsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 59.101.112.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This company may be attempting to promote their various products again. To summarize, MTV/NBC owns a company that promotes a large collection of sporting events/competitions. The company previously added lots of copyrighted and advertorial content to Misplaced Pages under accounts that mirrored the company's name.

As a reminder, they previously attempted to do this and 18 articles, 2 categories, 2 templates, and at least 5 files were deleted per A7, G11, and G12. You can find the whole investigation here, the WP:COIN report here, and the WP:ANI discussion here (for some reason, it seems to have been deleted instead of archived).

Articles that were deleted have been recreated with slightly different names (Winter Dew Tour 2008-09 to 2008-2009 Winter Dew Tour).

The IP editor has been adding Winter Dew Tour links to every article that has anything to do with sports related to the Winter Dew Tour. Essentially everything they've added to Misplaced Pages and edited has to do with the Dew Tours. EGorodetsky created the new articles with slightly different names and added text to the articles he created that's taken verbatim from the standard press release for these events. I thought I'd mention this here because the pattern is similar enough to previous issues to warrant a look and I'm sure they can explain whether or not they have a close connection.

I'll look more closely at this situation when I have more time. OlYeller21 16:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I added another IP address. They added the same copyrighted material to Dew Tour. OlYeller21 01:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

2009–2010 Winter Dew Tour is up for deletion for a copyright violation. Two other articles were deleted for the same reason. I think COIN regulars are looking for other articles but it's hard to be certain. I'm going to look for more problematic articles but the IP editor(s) are jumping around a lot in that IP range so it's been difficult to find everything they've been working on.

If you find article or editors that are adding promotional or copyrighted material related to this subject, please list them here. OlYeller21 16:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

User:JLohrWines/J._Lohr_Vineyards_and_Wines

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

We are trying to update and expand our company page on Misplaced Pages. We have created a draft page for 3rd party review to hopefully implement these changes. All sources are cited throughout and all statements are public fact/knowledge. Thanks!

Draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:JLohrWines/J._Lohr_Vineyards_and_Wines JLohrWines (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

User:JLohrWines, this page doesn't look half bad, but before attempting to post it I would revise the style of writing to be as neutral as possible. Right now there are some promotional words and phrasings that could prevent the page from settling as is into Misplaced Pages, so I would go through it with a fine-toothed comb to remove anything you can see that is intended to show the company in a promotionally positive light. Such as the word "acclaimed". If you can do that, then I could see this piece as a decent addition to Misplaced Pages. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! We have gone through and updated. We have been trying to keep this article neutral throughout the process. How would you recommend getting the article (or next round if needed) posted?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JLohrWines (talk • contribs) 22:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

S. Ballesh

• S. Ballesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Krishna Ballesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shehnai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Krishnaballesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shiva2586 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

While Misplaced Pages needs more articles on underrepresented topics, these editors are intent on promoting their cause. Potential COI and autobiography issues; good-faith attempts to keep the article neutral and free from errors are being reverted and editing is borderline disruptive. Attempts to reach out to the editors through talk pages has not stopped them from continuing to make COI edits. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems likely that there's a language problem here, and that perhaps invitations to participate in talk have been ignored for that reason. However, even after making generous allowances for that, for the acknowledged relative difficulty of finding reliable sources on India-related topics, and for general systematic bias, I agree with PaintedCarpet that the edit pattern is bordering on being WP:Disruptive. More eyes would be welcome. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

i cant understand you report sir... help me to edit... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnaballesh (talk • contribs) 17:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Several of the edits by the two accounts have been identical, and this appears to be the work of one editor editing under two accounts. Rather than take this to an SPI for blocking, I would advise Mr. Ballesh to have a read of Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts. Ruby Murray 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Monster Monpiece

• Monster Monpiece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nippon Ichi Software (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User with suspicious username is making edits to Monster Monpiece, an article about a Japanese videogame developed by Compile Heart. Nippon Ichi Software is another Japanese videogame developer, and editing of articles by "competitors" (regardless of whether the user is genuinely an employee or not) qualifies as COI. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

User was banned (WP:USERNAME violation). Edits were reverted. I think plenty of people have it watchlisted now. OlYeller21 20:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Bob Leaf

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

I am self-declaring an interest. I have cleaned up this article at the request of a mutual acquaintance of the subject, with whom I have a business relationship. I invite other editors to review my edits. I have also made this declaration on the article's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This highly controversial assertion: "Credited as "the father of public relations"..." is backed up only with a dead link. That needs to be rectified or removed. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have just replied to your near-identical comment on my talk page: That seems to be a temporary glitch; the link was working fine yesterday, and loaded for me just now, on the second refresh. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Constitution Party of Alabama (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 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)

Pattern Recognition in Physics

• Pattern Recognition in Physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ouadfeul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The journal Pattern Recognition in Physics was published from March 2013 until it was terminated this past January by the publisher, Copernicus Publications. It seems the reasons for this include that the editors (both of whom were climate change "skeptics") appointed other editors in a "nepotistic" manner, and that one paper in the journal argued that their results "shed serious doubt on the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project." The journal's editor-in-chief was Sid-Ali Ouadfeul, who works for the Algerian Petroleum Institute. Now we have an account with the username "Ouadfeul" editing this page in a manner that is clearly biased against Copernicus's managing director, Martin Rasmussen: Jinkinson talk to me 15:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: the article has been fully protected by Mark Arsten. While I'm not sure if this was necessary, it seems to have succeeded in driving Ouadfeul away from the page, or for that matter, its talk page. Jinkinson talk to me 04:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

A self-confirmed advocate (lawyer or publicist) has wiped out his client's page- one that was diligently edited and reviewed over a period of a year and a half

Jimmy Henchman is a claimed client (although it is unclear what type) for this person user 67.81.205.59 (talk). This person has partially blanked and completely changed the substance the page that many people worked on for a year and a half. .

The diff is here https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238

There were some attempts to restore it. Then user 67.81.205.59 (talk) next complained: here and here explaining that Jimmy Henchman was his client without providing citations to support his objections to the extensively litigated version he blanked.

History: In August through September of 2012 many of the issues were litigated and decided here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman with a resulting Keep decision based on WP:HEY and my work. Since then, the article has been diligently worked on by these editors: STATicVapor TheHerald Jfmantis Turgan Rmhermen RonJohn and Yamado Taro and myself.

I feel that the blanking of the page by 67.81.205.59 who has a stated financial COI, his/her later complaint and the subsequent attempt to censor the page has had a chilling effect on all the diligent editors I've mentioned above. Moreover, none of 67.81.205.59's objections were mentioned on the Jimmy Henchman talk page but his cause apparently taken up a few editors working in concert to blank the page and all its references. I'd greatly appreciate a ruling here and an attempt to restore and protect the article to the pre https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238 state. As Jimmy Henchman is currently serving a life sentence +5 for multiple crimes and is now on trial for murder, the BLP1 issues do not seem ripe to re-examine. Best, Scholarlyarticles (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And the forum shopping has started. Please see User_talk:NeilN#Jimmy_Henchman_page and Talk:James_Rosemond#Massive_unexplained_revert_by_Scholarlyarticles. There is no COI issue with the active editors. --NeilN 21:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you brought the COI to my attention: *The reason why the article is receiving more attention is because it was mentioned here and here. --NeilN 05:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Hope this helps. Scholarlyarticles (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's how it's supposed to work. Someone who has a COI posts to a talk page or noticeboard and uninvolved editors take a look at the claim and edit the article according to their judgment. --NeilN 22:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no COI issue that I can see here. The initial removal of information from a biographical article from an IP claiming to represent the article subject may be subject to scrutiny due to COI concerns. However, from what I can tell the person who edited the article did so once back in January. There have been about 100 edits done since then to the page by other editors not affiliated by the subject. Since the IP editor you are concerned about has not edited since January 23, and your content dispute is with editors other than that IP, there is nothing else that is appropriate for this noticeboard.

I will reinforce what NeilN has said. You seem to grossly misconstrue the purpose of a deletion discussion. The AfD that you are referencing as an example of consensus being reached that is being violated is only a consensus for keeping the article in the encyclopedia, not a consensus for the content that is in the article. Even if there was a consensus reached, that AfD was more than a year ago, and even a recent consensus reached on an article doesn't lock the article's content in stone.

This article is a biography of a living person, and the content of such articles has the potential to harm the article subject. Therefore, negative information is given extra scrutiny and great care is taken to ensure its relevance and verifiability. That doesn't mean that biographies aren't allowed to have negative information, but concerns about that negative information need to be taken seriously.

Not that it should matter, but I saw that you had questioned whether NeilN is an administrator. Being an administrator doesn't give anyone special authority, nor does it mean that what they say is of more importance than anyone else. But if it's important to you, I'm an administrator. -- Atama頭 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I just asked because of a particular template he placed on my page. Not to challenge, just to understand a bit more about the situation. I do know that this is a biography of a living person. But the particular content in questions was discussed previously regarding BLP here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jimmy_Henchman. I'm not questioning NeilN COI but this persons 67.81.205.59 and the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=James_Rosemond&diff=prev&oldid=591975238 since Jimmy Henchman is his client. It wasn't stated on the talk page why the issue was coming up a year later. But since the last discussion the subject has been sentenced to life plus 5 and went on trial for murder so I don't see BLP1 as a particular issue especially given the multiple instances of criminal activity. I can understand someone wanting to raise the issue again. But if so shouldn't the persons lawyer do this on a talk page rather than simply blanking the page?Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP did not blank the page (why do you persist in these types of misrepresentations?). The changes were undone forty minutes later . --NeilN 23:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In my view that was a good thing. Why not leave it there (with the prompt revert) and start a discussion about the particular points that haven't been discussed from that point? I noticed editors asked the person to talk on the Jimmy Henchman page. S/he did not. Without doing so, it's hard to get a picture of what was going on. Apparently some editors took it on themselves to address the persons issues without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page. Not to put to fine a point on it but a lot of folks with a lot of expertise spent quite a bit of time on it that it took a week or two to wipe out completely. I would have commented but these changes happened quite quickly. For months before there had been vandalism from unknown ID address that were quickly fixed and I assumed this was the same thing. How could those editors have read all the underlying hundreds of articles required to make those kinds of changes? Scholarlyarticles (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"...without discussing it on the Jimmy Henchman talk page." See this? And scroll down? And down? I don't know about you, but I call that discussion. It's up to you to join in (or not) in the discussion that focused on the reliability of the sources. It also sounds as if you have some ownership issues here. Do you at least understand there's no COI problems? --NeilN 23:50, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

and we "dont leave it there" while we discuss because WP:BLP is very plain: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (emph in original). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion was that there was apparently a complaint by an agent of Jimmy Henchman of which people on the talk page were unaware. (At about the time that person, the agent, changed the page). At that point , BLP was discussed but not in the context of the claims raised by Henchman's agent. Since the complaint was not posted to the Jimmy Henchman talk page I and others didn't know about or understand why the issues were coming up again since it's been a long process with careful scrutiny from the beginning. I realize I'm somewhat new and hope my attempt to understand the process isn't offending anyone here. I know sometimes it can be hard to read tone over the Internet. Apparently, I offended NeilN when I asked a questioned that was just an attempt to clarify things, apparently in an awkward manner, so sorry for that. I'd like to explain my reasoning now that I have a better understanding of the issues and also say that I think it fair to post the original complaint of Henchman's agent on the Jimmy Henchman talk page where we can discuss it point by point.

Since I've been following this from close to the beginning, I'd like to add my 2 cents. From viewing the talk page it seems, that people are unaware that not only has Henchman been indicted for murder but is currently standing trial (in addition to his standing life sentence+5 for multiple crimes.) The fact that he is currently on trial is not there and if you look at the watchers chart there was a huge bump when he was sentenced and a lot of folks are following. The issues surrounding his involvement with PAC have been also discussed and reviewed here and since they are raised again and again in multiple sources they were decided to be appropriate for inclusion.

The various points that Henchman's agent makes (I'll refer to him as an agent because I'm not sure what is meant when s/he writes "Henchman is my client") indict the integrity and or competence of the Judge - Judge Gleeson (sp?), the reporters, his last lawyer Shargel (sp?) and other people. The complaint alleges that Judge Gleeson didn't like Shargel and that's why Henchman was convicted. He also claims that Philips was the reason for his indictment. During the trial Henchman claimed that Philips (whom, by the way, Henchman publicly threatened with physical violence by press), was in a conspiracy with Allison Gender (another reporter) and that they both were responsible for Henchman's indictment. Both journalists' reports were entered into evidence during the 2012 criminal trial.

Henchman also claimed that he was being persecuted by "Jewish prosecutor," (I have know idea why his religion seemed relevant- just quoting) by whom I assume he meant Todd Kaminsky, the US prosecutor in the case. Most of these claims were litigated during the 2012 trial and a jury unanimously found Henchman guilty and the judge sentenced him to life plus five. Henchman asked to called by the name Rosemond during the trial as has his agent here. During the criminal trial Henchman was not granted his motion as he was known by the name Henchman. As for the new claims against Judge Gleeson (who has an impeccable reputation) and Henchman's former lawyer Shargel and others that Henchman's agent makes here on Misplaced Pages, these have not been litigated in a court of law. However, these people have WP pages here and I'm sure these charges Henchman's agent makes become problematic for the BLPs of their WP pages. The BLP issues regarding Henchman have been raised repeatedly have been examined a year and a half ago and each new addition has been examined. I understand that it can be a continuing process. I'm not suggesting that something should be left unexamined since an AfD. Nevertheless WP:Hey seems to mean that although an article might have been incomplete at one point it was not by the time the AfD was closed. The sources at that point were called "rock solid" and it was determined there was no GNG or BLP1 (as per Dennis Brown's comments in that AfD). Also the VV article was discussed and resolved and the editor who found it problematic reversed herself. I'm glad to dig up this reference but frankly I was told that since the very contentious vetting a year and a half ago everyone wanted to calm things down and forget about it. It was removed from many places, people reverted themselves etc. You can imagine that given the gravity and extremity of the crimes, many people would be squeamish about getting involved. However, whether or not BLP issues validly exist on Henchman's WP as it stood on Jan 23, they clearly exist in relation to the charges of Henchman's agent.

Given the multiple criminal activities, the life sentence, the indictment and trial of Henchman, I feel that the BLP issues involved with the various people Henchman's agent indict should be the focus at this point rather than a concern that someone has found a new way of persecuting him. I hope this clarifies things. All the bestScholarlyarticles (talk) 21:57, 15 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#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)

• A[REDACTED] 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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

The Venus Project

I'm not sure if it's a good place, but I have a problem. Basically I don't understand the situation. I'd like to keep material presenting purposes of this organization sourced from its website, but some user claims that it mustn't be self-sourced and reverts me. I disagree with it, self-source in case of subject's purposes is OK. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a board for issues with conflicts of interest. For fringe theories related issues there is WP:FTN, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You can also try the reliable sources noticeboard which is where you can discuss whether or not a source is worth including in an article. Just be certain that whichever board you take this issue to, that you notify the other person involved because you're supposed to notify any person you're discussing on a noticeboard. -- Atama頭 17:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution