Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 85

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electronic cigarette

In March 2015, Kim became President of DADAFO, as KIm discloses here. (My attention was called to COI issues when I read Zad's remark here) On the relevant articles, Kim has edited as follows:

  • So what is DADAFO?
  • You can read Kim's description here.
  • here is their website in Danish,
  • Here is their website through google translate.
  • there is not a lot on English on them, but from (badly done google-translated) stuff like this on their site, they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. I believe he has a COI due to his position as president of an advocacy organization.
  • I brought this up at Kim's Talk page here and suggested that he not edit the articles directly anymore. He replied here, and as I was not satisfied with his answer, I told him I would post here.
  • I was involved in the e-cig articles in the past (I haven't edited them for a long time other than to pop in on RfCs), so I will recuse myself from doing any thing more than posting this. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC) (note - fixed link above, under "stuff like this")
Query to User:Jytdog: What particular item on the DADAFO site are you referring to with the comment "stuff like this"? This refers me to our frontpage, and not to a particular article. If you are in doubt on any Danish item, i will be helpfull in translating it :) --Kim D. Petersen 00:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I fixed it. it was the link to the google-translate version of the Jeg kan ikke lide e-cigaretter article. Please let us know if my description of DADAFO's advocacy positions is not accurate. I looked at several things on the website and my summary above is based on all that, not just the one page.Jytdog (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The article that you are referring to is filed under "articles/media/foreign media" - it does not represent our stance (albeit that we agree with a lot of it), and is presented as an opinion article. The original version of that article (in english) can be found here[1] --Kim D. Petersen 00:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
bunch of diffs with unclear relationship to COI issues - maybe express DADAFO advocacy positions but that was not made clear Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, did you delete a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? Where was your comment on the talk page to support deleting so many sources according to WP:PAG? IMO no reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) .What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? User:KimDabelsteinPetersen, do you think your reverts improved the page? What was the bat signal thing about? QuackGuru (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
No i did not "delete a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS" first of all because MEDRS does not have any policy on what sources can or cannot be removed, that would be WP:WEIGHT - all of the above reverts were during an RFC, and all of them include a note on why the reverts were done, and since this was during an RFC - there was a lot of discussion on whether or not it was appropriate. Including in fact on the AN/I thread about you here[2] (including in the other comments there)
If i'm not mistaken those are the same diffs as you used on ANI then - aren't they? --Kim D. Petersen 00:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If i'm not mistaken, the postion that DADAFO has on e-cigarettes, mirror Public Health Englands positions[3]. With regards to regulations, we as an organization have been advocation for regulations since 2013, not against. We have advocated against the current proposal for legislation because it is draconian - not because of it being regulation in and of itself. --Kim D. Petersen 00:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that DADAFO was opposed to all regulation. What I said was "they seem to have a very clear stance advocating that e-cigs are very safe for vapers and people nearby, that they are a great harm reduction tool, and that they should not be regulated beyond making sure that e-liquid and equipment are well-made and contain and do what they say they will do. Those are all strong and clear positions. Those are also contested positions. Kim has been advocating strongly for those positions in the e-cig article. " Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well then you are wrong. We are not taking any stance on whether vaping is safe (no one knows that), in fact i stated in national TV that (from memory) "you are putting something down your lungs that does not naturally belong there, is that healthy? Common sense tells us: It is not. But what we can say is that it is less dangerous than smoking, which will kill you" Which reflects DADAFO's stance rather clearly. E-cigs are a product to stop smoking! It is not a health remedy, and we would strongly caution any user who isn't already smoking, from using them. --Kim D. Petersen 00:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I provided my understanding of DADAFO's positions. So that this is properly teed up and others can better think through the COI issues here, please provide clear statements on DADAFO's stances on the following issues:
  • safety of inhaled vapor to vapers
  • safety of exhaled vapor to bystanders
  • role of e-cigs in helping people quit smoking
  • risk of e-cigs in promoting nicotine addiction
  • whether e-cigs and liquid should be regulated like medical devices/drugs
Others may have other questions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Safer than smoking. Unsafe for non-smokers.
  • We are currently in the stages of creating a test on this with The Danish Technological Institute. Since Burstyn et al. and german research indicate that the emissions fall within the envelope for safe working environment. So currently we are taking the stance that it lies well within the Threshold limit values for a safe work environment. Note that Public Health England states the same on page 14[4]:

Electronic cigarettes do not produce smoke so the well-documented effects of passive exposure of others to cigarette smoke[9, 10] are clearly not relevant. Exposure of nonsmokers to electronic cigarette vapour poses a concern, though laboratory work suggests that electronic cigarette use in an enclosed space exposes others to nicotine at levels about one tenth generated by a cigarette, but little else[78]. The health risks of passive exposure to electronic cigarette vapour are therefore likely to be extremely low.

  • Electronic cigarettes should be considered when NRT's fail to work.
  • This question is only relevant if you are adressing non-smokers - and we strongly discourage non-smokers to use e-cigs. (and fortunately research and surveys shows that they do not - we follow the British The Smokers Toolkit[5] developments on this, and have adviced our government that they should start up a similar program here in Denmark)
  • This is an irrelevant question since the EU has deemed that they are consumer products via the Tobacco products directive (TPD). EU Directive 2014/40/EU, article 20[6]. It is not something that an EU member state has influence on.
I welcome all questions. --Kim D. Petersen 01:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I will let others take it from here. I appreciate your graciousness in cooperating with this being aired. Jytdog (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I will let others weigh in in an official manner. It appears that these organizations are pushing to allow e-cigs in the work environment. I would have concerns from a public health perspective that the re exposure of those who have previously quit smoking to nicotine may increase their risk of resuming smoking.[7]
This ref says "Using an e-cigarette in indoor environments may involuntarily expose nonusers to nicotine but not to toxic tobacco-specific combustion products. More research is needed to evaluate health consequences of secondhand exposure to nicotine, especially among vulnerable populations, including children, pregnant women, and people with cardiovascular conditions" [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: That is an incorrect assessment. In Denmark vaping in the workplace is already legal, thus we do not "push to allow it". I mentioned TLVs because they are an objective measure of exposure, which already is incorporated in law here in Denmark and the EU. If e-cigs have a TLV higher than legal, then it should be banned in the working area - which is why were working with Teknologisk Institut to measure it in a climate-chamber under real workconditions, and for 8 cumulative hours (5 vapers within a limited space (30m²), vaping for 8 cumulative hours (typical workday in Denmark), with constant airmeasurements, and with equipment that verifies that they are using their normal "vaping patterns". Air samples will be tested by the Fraunhofer institute (best in Europe for these kinds of measurements), and will hopefully be part of the scientific literature once finished), to figure out where the emissions lie in relation to TLV's, and the indoor climate recommendations (significantly lower than TLV). DADAFO is evidence, not advocacy, driven. --Kim D. Petersen 12:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is a COI. From the material above Kim has a clear COI in respect of e-cigs (no matter what DADAFO's precise positions are). Frankly, I'm amazed there's even any push-back on this. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, clear COI Working for an NGO involving e-cigs is a definite COI on e-cig articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The problem here is not whether there is a COI, i'm aware that there is one, which is why i have a statement on my user front[9], just as policy advices, but to what extent the COI limits my editing. --Kim D. Petersen 12:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Nb: with regards to COI, shouldn't editors who are involved with the article be disclosing that information when commenting here?

That is a good clarification, Kim. Thanks for making it. For others, I had requested that Kim refrain from directly editing articles related to electronic cigarettes and instead limit himself to talk page discussion; he did not find that reasonable. That is the question here. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Want to add here, that Europe has indeed passed special regulation for tobacco-based products that includes e-cigs, known as the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD). What that means exactly is being fought over both at the EU level and at the member state level. (See Legal_status_of_electronic_cigarettes#Europe. Totally Wicked challenged recent EU decisions on the application of TPD to e-cigs and that case will be worked out in court starting this year; and Denmark recently floated regulations to implement TPD that were vehemently opposed by many vapers (see here for some discussion of that.). So some more questions for KimDabelsteinPetersen:
  • Has DADAFO been advocating on the EU level on how TPD should apply to e-cigs and is it participating in the court challenge in any way?
  • Did DADAFO take a stance on the recent Danish proposal to implement TPD?
  • Is DADAFO advocating for specific provisions in the Danish implementation of TPD?
I am asking these questions again because these are cases where public opinion matters, and therefore what Wikipedia says matters, so folks can think through whether it makes sense for you to directly edit the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here are my responses to your questions - which all seem to be policy issues:
  • DADAFO was indirectly involved in the TPD discussions [sending briefings to local MEP's as well as the Danish government]
  • DADAFO was invited by the Danish government to partake in the hearing process on the new law. (our hearing response can be found here).
  • DADAFO strongly supported the age-restrictions, warning measurements (toxic, keep away from children, do not use if pregnant etc). We adviced that e-liquid with nicotine should not be sold over the counter at supermarkets and other such non-specialized retailers, since these aren't capable of educating new users or giving sufficient warnings. Objected to the cost of putting a product on the market, as well as pointed out that the economic calculations significantly underestimated the market. Pointed out that while the law required emission and liquid testing, there was no description on what such testing should include, as well as how it should be done [this is what we're involved in the CEN standardization process figuring out]. As well as numerous other issues. [it should be noted that DADAFO roughly a month before the law-proposal mentioned was floated, proposed a similar but less draconian implementation of the TPD to the Danish lawmakers (found here)]
As i already stated: The place that i won't edit is within the policy aspects (particular the Danish ones) of electronic cigarettes, since this is the primary aspect of DADAFO's work.
Within the health region we're taking a pure evidence based approach. I was instrumental in making sure that DADAFO used Wikipedia WP:MEDRS reviews in our approach to health aspects, and not make the same mistake as other NGO's, by using individual studies as basis, but instead use what reviews state. --Kim D. Petersen 17:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is clearly a COI in relation to electronic cigarettes. The guideline says of campaigning:

"Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest. Similarly, editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest."

The guideline strongly discourages COI editing ("COI editing is strongly discouraged"), and I hope Kim will respect that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course i will (and have) respect(ed) that. I will never on Wikipedia rely on my personal opinion on issues, no matter if i have a COI or not. Our pillars are inviolable. This issue is about how restrictive WP:COI should be interpreted. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
KimDabelsteinPetersen, SlimVirgin is an administrator who works on COI issues, generally at the guideline level, and as far as I know has not been involved in the e-cig article. Joseph2302 works on COI issues a lot on the ground (you see him posting everywhere on this board) and as far as I know he has also not edited e-cigs. Both of them are advising you not to edit the articles directly going forward. I work this board a lot too, and I am advising you the same. ( I understand that you may see me as biased, which is I brought this here) Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog i do not see you as biased. As i've said before: DADAFO's interests lie in the political aspects of electronic cigarettes in Denmark and the EU, as well as on the European standard for electronic cigarettes - and thus i have a clear and present COI for these particular area. As for electronic cigarettes in general - we do not promote their usage, nor in any other way have advocacy issues. Thus i will (as i've already explained on my talk page) refrain from editing these particular areas. But a complete editban for the whole topic area is not in line with our COI guidelines - since my position does not involve taking a stance on these. I have no predetermined biases towards whether electronic cigarettes are healthy or not, that is for the medical and scientific literature to determine. Nor do i have predetermined views on any other aspect of the topic area. --Kim D. Petersen 18:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, as the COI guideline explains, COI has nothing to do with bias or lack thereof. It has to do with external roles and relationships. See WP:EXTERNALREL, WP:COIBIAS and WP:COI#What is wrong with conflict of interest?. That you have a conflict in a contentious area means you should not edit articles in that area, and should probably also avoid RfCs and similar, or else make your COI known in those discussions. If you had only made a few edits to those articles, it would matter less, but you've been focusing on them for a while, so it's a problem. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Correct, but it does have something to do with vested interest. And i have no vested interests in other subtopics of electronic cigarettes outside of Danish and EU policy on the area. My COI is less than for instance health professionals, or researchers within this topic area, and editors from those areas are not considered as having COI. What you essentially translate COI into is: If you have an interest or knowledge within an area, you should not edit it. Which is contrary to Wikipedia's pillars. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a large academic literature on COI, and our guideline follows it. It doesn't mean that if you know or believe something about an area, you have a COI. Please read the guideline, starting from WP:COI#What is conflict of interest?. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah, i have read it, just as i've read our policies in general (why do you think i disclosed my position?). And nothing in COI states that i should not edit or contribute as long as i'm careful and stick to a strict adherence to our policies (here i would presume WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are the main aspects). I've disclosed my COI long before this thread, and i've stayed away from problem areas, and i've also mainly contributed to the talk-pages. If you can find any edits or comments that are problematic, then i'd like to hear it - especially since i follow WP policies to the letter. If there are any particular behavioral issues then i would also like to hear them. I'm not involved in any sort of WP:ADVOCACY (or in "getting the word out") --Kim D. Petersen 19:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
KimDabelsteinPetersen, you made edits to the Safety of electronic cigarettes. I provided some diffs on your talk page. See User_talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Archive_2015#Query.
The RfC resulted in keeping the sources. See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_3#RFC: Are medical statements such as those from the World Lung Foundation reliable for medical content?.
See here on your talk page. You had a discussion with User:Bishonen. QuackGuru (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
QG as usual you are only telling half of the story. I did not "edit", i reverted back to the last consensus version before the RfC, while the RfC was running, and because the RfC was running. The problem there was that you wanted to pre-empt the RfC. And that you keep repeating this particular instance, in various forums, is rather more of an indication of problems with your editing patterns than mine - sorry. --Kim D. Petersen 22:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


I have to say, as someone with a "former" COI here, when I worked for Cancer Research UK, I don't find Kim's fairly few edits to the article - a tiny fraction of the torrent - really part of the undoubted problem on that page. Mostly he edits the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
If you look at his contribs, he edits several articles about electronic cigarettes. Sarah (SV) (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I have in fact only edited the main article since my appointment. And my contributions have been very limited even there. --Kim D. Petersen 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And I also watch some of the other articles. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no COI: Whether a person has a COI or not ultimately rests on the nature of their relationship with the subject at hand. The revelant guideline at WP:COI states: "An article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse." In other words, if Kim were to edit DADAFO articles, that would be a COI because he is directly related to the organization. Electronic cigarette seems to be a much broader topic, and though it might be closely related to the DADAFO, I do not consider Kim to have a direct relationship with this topic area. On the other hand, he definitely has a COI when it comes to the DADAFO organization itself. Just like how alt. med practitioners (probably) do not have a COI for alt med. articles, but only for their own organizations. -A1candidate 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
A1candidate, i disagree, i most certainly have a strong COI when it comes to Danish and EU politics with regards to electronic cigarettes, since that is the area that DADAFO is a part of. We have a direct impact on Danish politics on this area, and are part of the political process in implementing the TPD (EU tobacco directive) in Denmark. --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • COI exists. The DADAFO pretty clearly appears to be an advocacy group on e-cigs in general based on the above. Because of that broad involvement in the topic (regardless of the group's actual stances or country of political involement), that would mean Kim should not be editing articles related to e-cigs. Per our standard approach to COI editors, they should only make edit requests. If advocacy-like behavior does become apparent and a problem on talk pages, that's a topic for a different venue (not commenting on if it is currently a problem). However, they should take precautionary measures in talk conversations to not appear like an advocate since this COI could create that appearance. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Do please explain how DADAFO is an advocacy group on e-cigs in general. We are involved in the political process as a consumer protection organization - not as a promoter, advertiser or advocate on anything other than how to implement e-cigs in Danish legislature (and general consumer rights within the market). That such organizations such us DADAFO exists is perhaps a Danish thing, but we are the consumer arm within the market. You may liken us to a Labour union, which within the workspace represents the workers.
Thus within political aspects of e-cigs, particularly for Denmark and the EU, i have a strong COI. --Kim D. Petersen 23:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Your group's website supports e-cigarettes. An editor working for tobacco-industry lobbyists would be expected not to edit articles about smoking. It wouldn't matter that she had been tasked to lobby just one government. Sarah (SV) (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Bingo with Sarah here. My "in general" comment was with respect to the fact that the group closely works with the topic of e-cigs, regardless of the actual stance they take (pro, anti, in between measured response, etc.). Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
We work within the topic of electronic cigarette legislature and no other aspect or topic of e-cigs. --Kim D. Petersen 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thats a strange stance, since there is definite difference between producers and consumers. Producers are economically dependent on a product. And we aren't lobbyists either. We are not economically dependent on anything. Consumer rights != Industry lobbying. --Kim D. Petersen 00:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, it's common for advocates to lobby in the name of consumer rights. The tobacco, pharmaceutical, alcohol and junk-food industries are known for it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Sarah. That would be Astroturfing. And i hope that you aren't implying anything with that? --Kim D. Petersen 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, I'm not implying astroturfing in the sense that something's fake. It's just that buyer and seller desires cohere in cases like this, and when the product is one that buyers are addicted to, advancing their rights isn't obviously in their interests.

Then there are the interests of the non-consumer or former consumer. Buyers want to use the product with minimal restrictions, even if it negatively affects people who are not addicted or are fighting the addiction, which may include the buyers' future selves. It is all very difficult ethically. I think getting involved in those articles with a COI just makes things too fraught. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all Sarah, with regards to addiction: The EU TPD (tobacco products directive) from 2014 makes sure that nicotine containing e-cig products for the forseeable future will be available to customers - so that is not a factor in consumer protection at all. In fact customer protection within the EU now, is to make sure that the products are as safe as can be for the consumers. It seems to me that you are entering more into a personal or US centric view here. Your second point is (just as the former really) a political one, and e-cig policy (as here vape bans) is one of the areas that i've said several times that i have a strong COI towards. But the electronic cigarette topical area is much more than policy issues. --Kim D. Petersen 08:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, I think you misunderstood my post. Also, I don't know what the US-centric view is, and I'm not from the US. The point I was making is that representing the rights of addicted people to obtain more of the substance they're addicted to, especially in a way that affects other people (including former addicts), is ethically very challenging. For example, the needs of consumer X in 2015 when he is addicted ("please let me vape at work") may change in 2016 when he has quit ("please don't let people vape at work").
You're arguably adding to that ethical burden by editing Wikipedia in a way that suits your position, but without alerting readers that the article is being edited by someone with an external interest. Readers expect WP articles to be written independently of external interests. Just as you feel a responsibility toward consumer protection in your area, we have a responsibility toward our consumers to keep COI editing out of those articles. You have that same responsibility as a Wikipedian. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but i have not ever removed or argued against any material concerning second-hand vaping as far as i know. The only way that we can add or remove material concerning such an issue is if the general WP:WEIGHT in the literature indicates that it should be or not be there. I object very strongly to the claim that i'm "arguably ... editing... in a way that suits [my] position". (first of all because i doubt that you understand my position - since you seem to assert that i would want vaping in the workspace at all costs - definitely: No. This issue of workspace vaping, should depend entirely on evidential material not someones opinions (except for the employer in case he wants to ban it locally - which is always his right no matter the legal state)) --Kim D. Petersen 17:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC) [ie. whether you can vape in the workspace, is determined by local laws (which is evidence driven) or by the employer - it cannot and never will be the employee's decision! --Kim D. Petersen 17:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)]
Sorry, that misses the points I was making, but I don't know how to rephrase them. I don't want to delve into workplace vaping, but it seems self-evident that if someone is trying to stop smoking or vaping, being surrounded by it at work would not be helpful, in terms of exposure to nicotine, the rituals, smells, normalization of it, etc. It would be like forcing recovering alcoholics to work in bars. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah You may think that it is "self-evident" - but reality doesn't really adhere to what is "self-evident" or not. It is correct for cigarette-smoke (from personal experience), but it doesn't seem to work the same way with electronic cigarettes/vapor. Theoretically because E-cigs vapor doesn't have the MAOIs that lit cigarettes contain. But i'd love to see a scientific study on this particular issue - which so far has been overlooked in the literature. Addiction is a difficult animal, no two addiction patterns are alike - otherwise the world would be rid of cigarettes for good by now, and have no need for products such as NRTs or e-cigs. As a rule one should never rely on what is "self-evident" :) --Kim D. Petersen 22:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Let's make one thing clear here. COI discourages coi editing but Nowhere does it state one is not allowed to edit an article nor does it forbid commenting on article's talk pages (and that would include RFCs which are decided by argument, not vote). There are clear restrictions on how to edit and so far, no one here has even tried to show how Kim's editing style is against policy. If you keep on behaving like this, you'll be left with less to none COI disclosure by editors (which there are already plenty of on WP). Enjoy.--TMCk (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Generally we don't allow anything but extremely minor and uncontroversial edits on the article from a COI editor. That's been the practice for at least the past few years. The talk page is generally open for them, but we also acknowledge that COI editors whether paid or just coming from more of an advocate position can tend to swamp out other volunteer and generally less engaged editors at the page. While not discussed too often, that can lead to the COI editor getting less attention on the talk page or weight in determining consensus if that becomes an issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I assume that this originates in the rather defunct system in the US, where one cannot differentiate between grassroots, astroturfs, advisors, consultants and experts. It seems to be a general creep within the WP system that subject matter experts are discouraged from contributing. --Kim D. Petersen 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a "general creep" but seemingly only a general creep for certain types of subject matter experts. I'm pretty sure that there are double standards going on here. Anyhow, I have seen quite a bit of KDP's editing and in my experience they are one of the most policy-focused, neutral editors that I have collaborated with. Of course they have a COI. But eliminating them from the subject area will be a net loss to the project just as eliminating a medical doctor or public health official would be.Levelledout (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43. Re. the first part of your comment: If true, this practice was/is against policy. Actually true is the latter of your post: They get more restricted and/or more harsh measures can be taken, if it becomes a problem that is. We do not restrict further than laid out in policy; that would be a punitive preemptive measure.--TMCk (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@TMCk The COI guideline is clear that editors with a COI should not directly edit articles. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The basic fact here Jytdog is that i do not have a stake in or stands to benefit from any other area within electronic cigarettes, than the ones that i've mentioned. My intention here, as with any other area of Wikipedia that i've edited, is to make Wikipedia better, and to provide the best overview of the topic that fits the weight of the literature... I am and have always been a wikipedia editor first and foremost - ironically wiki has a more profound influence on what i do in my role at DADAFO, than it could conceivably ever have the other way around. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I do appreciate that you have talked here. One of the things about COI, is that folks who have one, often think they are doing just fine. Others can see the problem, and truly clueful editors listen to them and do what they should do. So while i understand the position you are taking, I don't agree and nor do most folks talking here that work regularly on COI issues. You will do as you will. If you decide to ignore us and continue to edit directly, I will likely bring an ANI case against you, combining your COI with your role at DADAFO, with diffs showing a pattern of POV editing that reflects the advocacy agenda of DADAFO, and will seek to have the community impose a topic ban. That is what the community does, when editors don't do on their own, what they should do. Administrators may of course decide to take action directly. We'll see what happens. That's all I have to say. I thank you again for talking; others of course may have a desire to talk further with you. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
These "diffs showing a pattern of POV editing". Can you show them please? --Kim D. Petersen 07:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Why would I build a case before you have demonstrated that you will not abide by the COI guideline? Like everybody here I am busy and do not have time to waste; every editor with a clear COI whom I have advised of the COI guideline, has agreed to follow it or has not cared about Wikipedia to the point where they were indeffed for other reasons. With regard to your editing, it would be very surprising (but not impossible of course) to find that you have edited the article in a way that is actually opposed to DADAFO's interests or aims; I don't reckon that building the case will be hard, should I need to go there. Jytdog (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with TMCk, the way that Jytdog is going about this is the wrong way. To try and get someone to stop editing by saying that an ANI case will be brought against them and that there will be evidence based purely on assumptions is not right. Surely what should be being said is that POV editing is against the rules and KDP should be particularly careful with regards to this and WP:COI in general in order to avoid sanctions that may be imposed if there is evidence.Levelledout (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all, I no where made that definitive of a statement. You are misreading what i wrote. I am also sorry that you do not understand COI. It is one of the rare issues in Wikipedia that is about contributor, not content. Please do read the guideline again, with that in mind. When editors have a COI we advise them of what the guideline says. If editors abide by that, generally there are no problems. If editors choose to ignore the advice, they very likely will end up in hot water one way or another, but most often with regard to NPOV. That is what COI is all about - its tendency to drive editing that is biased in favor of the conflicted editor's external interests. Like I said, if Kim decides to keep directly editing and I bring a case, I will be very surprised to find any edits or discussion by him that are actually opposed to the stances that DADAFO advocates - for instance, I would be very surprised if -- if I go looking - that I will find Kim has made edits explaining the possibility of risks of exhaled vapor to other people, or supported content about that on the Talk page - I expect I will find the opposite - him downplaying the possibility of risks to others in his edits and advocating against discussion of that on the Talk page. And i would be very surprised if he has supported content about efforts to regulate e-cigs as medical devices - I expect to find advocacy for minimal regulation. That is how COI works. In any case, he has been advised, and he will do, what he will do. As will I, and as will others in the community. the e-cig articles are contentious enough without conflicted editors advocating. I would not be surprised if any admins overwatching the general sanctions take action to restrict him to the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The assumption of bad faith is strong with this one.... --Kim D. Petersen 13:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
you are missing of the point. You have a COI - everybody including you agrees on that. You are not taking the next step and working with the community to manage it. That is too bad. And the sniping is not helping you. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't think i missed that particular point. You made some very definite statements that assumes bad faith, and you advocated for preemptive measurements without actually looking at my contribution history. You also incidentally assumed that specific views that you appear to have are equivalent to the weight of the literature. It is one thing to warn against, and quite another to assume what will happen. --Kim D. Petersen 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Quite: people with COIs engaging in conflicted editing are almost never acting in bad faith. They edit in good faith but are oblivious to the damage they are doing. That is why our guidelines are against people with COIs editing in topics for which they have a conflict. Alexbrn (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not particularly disagree with your sentiment Alexbrn, what i object against is the assumption of bad faith before the fact. Editors with strong views, generally have this problem - it is not limited to people with COI.--Kim D. Petersen 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, please actually read the COI guideline, and perhaps the books used as references. COI creates a tendency towards bias. Acknowledging that is not assuming bad faith. You really are missing the point. But as I said, you will do what you will do. good luck ( i mean that) Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you did quite a bit more than "acknowledge" here. You made specific accusations/predictions without knowledge... you went above and beyond. Despite your insistance on being unbiased, you turned out to be biased - which was actually rather sad to see. --Kim D. Petersen 14:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems this is a case of COIN fulfilling its purpose (I wish more people would do this rather than sniping / casting aspersions about potential COI at articles). The community here has determined there is a COI and general consensus is that the editor should not edit in this topic. Unless someone who hasn't commented here wants to formally close this RfC style, there doesn't seem to be much more to be said here. Either Kim heeds the decision from COIN, or the consensus is cited at ANI in the form of a previous warning if the question of a topic ban comes up. I'd prefer the former, but given the way Kim is behaving above with regards on how to move forward, the latter might need to be pursued if issues keep coming up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You removed a 2014 systematic review that said no conclusions can be drawn on the safety of ECs because of poor studies (in part caused by COI). [12] In the same diff you removed a quote from the World Lung Foundation that many e-cigarettes "contain toxins, contaminants and carcinogens that conflict with the industry’s portrayal of its products as purer, healthier alternatives." You removed this another three times, along with a statement from the UK's National Health Service and something about reports to the FDA, and you added the POV tag. [13][14][15]
On the talk page you argued that position statements from the World Medical Association and World Lung Foundation are either tertiary or primary sources, [16][17] and that we should use only secondary sources, though MEDRS allows these kinds of position statements. Another problem with COI editing can be the time other editors have to spend on talk dealing with the issues. I'm sorry, Kim, but this seems like a very clear case overall. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I mistyped the ping, so repinging KimDabelsteinPetersen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
First of all Sarah, this was before my appointment - but i will respond to it anyways :)
Re: Your first item: First of all this was not about the usability of the source in general - but about where it was used. The source is of course reliable, and was already in use on Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes. The discussion (which was long, and which resulted in an RfC) was about whether the safety article should use the tertiary position statements or purely rely on WP:MEDRS reviews. I have never argued against using that source, but merely against the placement. If that is POV - then we have serious problems on all of Wikipedia's articles. Just because a source is reliable doesn't mean that it has to be used.. Correct?
As a note: The Pisinger review as far as i can tell was an unintended removal, that originated from a revert of a mass-insert of material that was under active discussion on the talk page. I would not (and didn't at the time either) object to the Pisinger source. I in fact know Dr. Pisinger (Danish researcher) quite well, and she is one of the researchers that DADAFO is working with on our workspace emission analysis.
The second issue - the reverts back to pre-RfC while the RfC is running - should be self-explanatory. The POV tag was iirc in fact consensus at the time - fortunately it was resolved later. POV goes both ways Sarah, and mostly the issues were based on WP:WEIGHT.
The third item is really the same (just the talk-page equivalent), and was resolved by an RfC[18]. Are you saying that editors cannot disagree on what level of reliability (primary, secondary, tertiary) that is appropriate for particular subtopics? In my understanding (as well as other editors understanding) there was a general consensus at the time to only use secondary WP:MEDRS review articles - which is the highest standard that is possible within the medical field. Unfortunately we chose to lower our sourcing standards with that RfC. Are you saying that this is a COI problem? That we should use the best medical articles available? --Kim D. Petersen 17:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, the arguments miss the point. (Also, that this was just before your appointment probably isn't relevant, because you must have been involved with this group before the appointment.) Imagine an editor who removes from Fruitarianism MEDRS sources that state its health risks, keeps reverting, and ties editors up on talk with arguments about source quality, POV tags, not adding things during RfCs, and so on. Others try to persuade that person that they're editing against policy and consensus. So far, so normal.
Then imagine we learn that the editor is president of the World Fruitarian Association. It changes everything, because it means we know this situation will continue. This person will not be persuaded, because he has a strong external interest and a tendency to bias inherent in that position. We also know from scholarly studies that people with COI underestimate their own bias and wrongly believe they can act neutrally, so what the COI editor sees is not what others see. The question then becomes how much volunteer time should be spent dealing with the conflicted person, and whether it's fair to expect people to do that. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sarah actually the appointment time does have COI influence, i candidated for a board position, got it, and was afterwards appointed chairman/president. I'm also member of the Kræftens Bekæmpelse (the Danish Cancer institute), as are roughly a half a million other Danes. ~10% of all Danes) So that would by your assertion mean that i have another COI there? Perhaps even oppositely directed? How many of our current editors are members of the American Heart Association? Or similar grouping?
You would have a point Sarah, if the removal of the Pisinger source (the only MEDRS review being talked about) had been deliberate, or if i had argued against the Pisinger source. The question on whether a source is more appropriate in one subtopic article or in another - is not a removal. If i had removed the position statements from the Positions of medical organizations regarding electronic cigarettes (where the source is obviously spot on), then it would be different. I'm btw. curious as to why you would think that i'd have an interest in removing such a source. Just curious.
You would also have a point about the RfC based reverts, if i A) Had been the only editor with this view B) That i reverted against the status quo C) If i was trying to pre-empt the RfC D) Wasn't part of the discussion. - unfortunately none of these is correct. The trouble with the e-cig articles is not removals (of which there are very few), but the piling up of additions to the brink of overflowing.
I do see your point - but i find that the specifics are cherry-picked without considering the context. --Kim D. Petersen 18:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, I believe uninvolved editors would see a problem with your edits, and the COI means the situation won't change, so the best thing would be for you to withdraw voluntarily. Re: membership of a large group, that rarely means there's a COI. If the group is a small one and is campaigning for something the editor is writing about on WP, it would be a COI, as would holding a position in a similar group of any size. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So I.e. members of ISIS wouldn't be considered to have a COI on certain articles?--TMCk (talk) 19:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a quite serious meant comparison Sarah opened the door to argue for!--TMCk (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarah again you are misinterpret our purpose: DADAFO doesn't advocate for electronic cigarettes. We advocate for legislation that secures the highest safety for an already existing (unregulated) product on the market, and which in Denmark is used by 4.8% of the population. We have tried to wake up politicians to implement legislation for years, instead of the current "Wild-West market". That is also why i agree that i shouldn't touch articles or content that addresses this particular issue (politics of electronic cigarettes), because i have serious COI there. --Kim D. Petersen 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Mispinged again: KimDabelsteinPetersen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but a number of reviews were deleted and there never was any consensus to use only secondary WP:MEDRS review articles. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes&oldid=658964452#Discussion_on_positions. Before the RfC User:Yobol wrote "Again, you all are making up your own rules and "consensus" again. The only point I have ever made is that material about health needs to be sourced to MEDRS compliant sources. Statements by major medical organizations meet MEDRS."[19] QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
QG: Relying on your own assertions in a diff, is not really an argument is it. Yobol also disagreed, but lots of other editors agreed with me. Thus there was the RfC - and now a new consensus on sourcing. Just as WP should work. --Kim D. Petersen 18:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kim, I am familiar with your firm stances from my brief time at the e-cig article, but just know that you have changed no one's mind here. You have been advised to not directly edit articles related to e-cigs and you are aware of what may happen should you choose to do so. There is nothing more to do here that I can see. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting. QuackGuru (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Global Football Family (Football Agency) and Tom Davies (footballer, born 1993)

Resolved
 – Both articles now deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Username clearly shows COI to GFF. Tom Davies is a client of them (his article did mention the agency, but I deleted it as not relevant). Their response to my COI concerns was for them to basically tell me to fix the article immediately here. GFF is almost certainly going to get deleted (an agency with 4 clients isn't notable), but the player is notable per WP:NFOOTY. More eyes appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

John Lamb Lash

Resolved
 – article has been deleted Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Victor666vv has claimed to be John Lamb Lash's official biographer here, and is trying to claim ownership of the article. They have not made any other edits.
Previously, Victor Vallant and 88.13.49.1 have added large amounts of the same unsourced content, see [20] and [21]. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

we have to get them to pick a single account, too... Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

National Institute of Technology, Puducherry

Resolved
 – redirected Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

SPA editing National Institute of Technology, Puducherry, username implies affiliation to them. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the username is OK, yes? some specific person who works there. That should be OK. I have left them some info about COI - let's hope they talk. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog: They appear to have changed their username to User:Vkumar1216 now, although it was acceptable beforehand. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
there was no content there. redirected this to National Institute of Technology. Hopefully that will hold. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr‎

Resolved
 – article deleted Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr‎ created by Savoy209 , obvious COI from the name. The article is promotional, the person seems not notable, and I tried cleaning it up, but they keep trying to readd the same content, clearly ignoring the advice of other users at Talk:Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr‎. I've put it up for AfD, since an A7 was declined on the claim of some notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Jenner & Block

Editor has been on a commercial article creation/editing spree, and has not responded to COI notice on his userpage. Jenner & Block was recently expanded approximately fourfold after the COI notice was posted. — Brianhe (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Added Mile 2, since Brianhe appears to have previously asked them about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the recently added content is identical to that deleted by Moonriddengirl as copyvio or overly promotional, including these passages:
  • "Jenner & Block has also established itself in recording significant victories before the Supreme Court regarding free speech..."
  • "Jenner & Block was one of the first national law firms to establish a Washington D.C. practice specifically focused on appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court...
  • "the 20 most elite law firms"
At least part of the old promo content was added by another SPA, JBUpdate (blocked in January 2015), in a series of edits including this. — Brianhe (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me respond here:

1.) I did not respond to your post because it did not ask for a response and instead included informational links to policies. 2.) I have no conflicts on this or any article I have edited or created. I expanded the Jenner & Block article because it was in almost stub-like condition. My 10,595 bytes addition, which includes references, is a three-fold, not a four-fold, expansion of an article on one of the larger and older law firms in the country. The article is still a limited one given a history of over 100 years, very prominent cases, very prominent attorneys, etc. The entire article is, even with my modest additions, a mere nine paragraphs. 3.) No information added is identical to anything or at all promotional. The small two paragraphs of awards and recognitions the firm has received all seemed notable to me, there is no copyright violation at all and the two small paragraphs on this include nine secondary source references from prominent media. It mentions the exact name of the award (which is what you are presenting as promotional language). "The 20 most elite law firms" is the exact name of The American Lawyer annual award. Original source here: [22]. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

For the record, your addition seems to be 7,462 bytes, making the total 10,595 bytes. That does seem to be about four-fold. It does seem promotional to me, reading like a resume. SageRad (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The article was 3,133 bytes before my edits. I took the entire page up to 10,609, so it's less than four-fold, slightly above three-fold. But the entire article is still only nine paragraphs in total and they are all very straightforward ones: intro (one paragraph), history summary (two paragraphs), prominent cases (three paragraphs), honors and awards (two paragraphs) and location of their offices (one paragraph). MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • MiamiDolphins3 I have noticed your editing too. It looks a lot like you have a conflict of interest, for the reasons provided above and others. No one has asked you this directly yet, so I will. Two questions - please reply to both, simply and clearly:
    • 1) Do you have any relationship with the subjects of anything you have edited about, directly or through an intermediary? (employee, contractor, employee or contractor of an agency that has a relationship with them, etc)
    • 2) Are you being paid (or do you expect to be paid) for any of your editing?

Disclosure is a good thing, not a bad thing. If either is answer is "yes" you will have to do some things differently going forward, however. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not know or have any relationship with any subjects and am not interested in/don't do paid editing. Also to respond more thoroughly to Brianhe points above, I've looked back on the page's deletions that he references[23], which I had not done previously, and none of them have been reinstated by me. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify by responding with "yes"/"no" answers as well?--Elvey(t•c) 23:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. Thought I had answered that clearly: No and no. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

MiamiDolphins3 are you hearing the feedback, that we all find your edits to be promotional? I know you said above that you think they are not. I'm not asking about what you think - I'm asking if you are hearing the feedback. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I've tried not to respond defensively and have taken it constructively. I may also try to participate in this and other boards a bit more frequently going forward. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
what would be super-helpful is if you went back over your own work and made them more neutral. are you up for that? Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I could suggest some things. 1) Go back over Touch Surgery and remove primary sources (the corporation itself) and questionable sources like news-medical.net. 2) Ditto primary sources on Ryze Trampoline Parks. 3) WP:OR in Jenner & Block, specifically, using wikisource of the trial verdict or whatever 4) Ditto primary sources on Mile2 — Brianhe (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Good suggestions and I will get them done. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian

The user joined the discussion at Talk:Ronn Torossian 10 days after RonnToro (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet account of the article subject, was blocked. That edit includes a list of links that is almost identical to this edit by the blocked user (except the links are mostly broken as they appear to have been copy-pasted off the page).

Another thing that stuck out is how the user repeats Torossian's incorrect insistence that "no published writer has said that Torossian is an activist on Right Wing Israel affairs" - it's established that there were such sources, but it was a question of whether the coverage in this article was WP:UNDUE.

The user doesn't return to the talk page until the day after Torossian's main IP address is blocked, again repeating Torossian's disingenuous claim that he is no longer known for his pro-Israel advocacy (which ignores a quite a bit of coverage in the mid-'00s), and reads essentially as a press release that inflates his importance in the PR industry.

WP:PE does allow for good-faith paid editing and the user has denied association with Torossian/5W PR here and here, and the user page description says "amateur editor", which is fair enough (although the user doesn't have a "long history of edits on this site" as claimed). But the contributions to the talk page are almost entirely rehashed from previous arguments made by Torossian's many sockpuppets (although more coherent and less hostile).

I've assumed good faith in my initial interactions with the user, but I find it hard to ignore the near-identical arguments, dates of the edits, and that the user hasn't apparently bothered to visit the links he copy/pasted despite claiming to be "curious", FWIW, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cada mori/Archive appears to show that the account is connected to another paid-editor account. I wouldn't act on any of these red flags individually, but it's too much of a coincidence for me. Mosmof (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've said before I feel like you're on a withchunt simply because someone disagreed with you. I guess this can be expected after the sockpuppet investigation. As I've stated before I have no relationship with Mr. Torossian or his PR firm. Burden of proof is on you. Cada mori (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You're not the first editor to disagree with me, yet I haven't brought anyone else to WP:COIN. And you'll have to forgive me for taking your denial with a grain of salt, because this wouldn't be the first time you failed to disclose a connection to an article's subject. I'm happy to offer additional evidence if other editors ask. Mosmof (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, burden of proof is on you as I said. This is bordering on harassment though. Cada mori (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, nice try baiting me with those elance jobs. I am no longer doing paid editing so please stop. As a matter of fact I'd love to see this "proof" you have of me being associated with Mr. Torossian. Cada mori (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What do you mean by "baiting me with those elance jobs"? I'm aware of your Elance account but I haven't made any attempt to contact you. Mosmof (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You know what I'm talking about. Cada mori (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, actually. Feel free to contact an admin per WP:OWH if you still think I have anything to do with it. Mosmof (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I refer administrators and editors participating in this discussion to the recent decision by ARBCOM to impose a company ban on any users who are employed - either on salary or contract - by Ronn Torossian or his company, 5WPR. So, if participants are convinced that Cada mori is indeed an editor in the pay of Torossian, it means his account should be immediately banned.

As Mosmof has noted, there is compelling evidence that Cada mori is indeed a commercial editor paid by Torossian to whitewash his article. Revealing that evidence here would necessarily mean "outting" Cada mori, something that the Wikipedia community, including myself, considers to be unethical. I therefore invite any administrators interested in the evidence to contact me by Wikipedia mail, and I will gladly provide links to the job order by Torossian to Cada mori. Thank you, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Later: I apparently misunderstood the status of the company ban on Torossian. The issue has not yet been resolved. When the discussion is concluded, I will post the result here. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused. --Ravpapa (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Cada mori thanks for replying here and stating that you have no relationship with Torossian or 5W. Ravpapa and Mosmof in the absence of any on-Wiki disclosure of a COI from Cada mori, your only option, if you are interested in pursuing this, is to gather diffs showing that Cada mori is consistently violating NPOV and bring a case to ANI to seek a topic ban from the article on that basis. It would be a mistake in my view to discuss COI in that NPOV case as you have no on-wiki evidence of an external relationship. If your concerns are serious I urge you to pursue that course of action; I also urge you to avoid bringing up the issue of COI again. You have raised it, and it has been addressed. We have limited tools to deal with COI per se in WP; we have tools to deal with POV-pushing. Jytdog (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Cada mori Even before issues of COI are even broached it may be of benefit if you can explain why you have any interest in Torossian at all. This is in the light of WP:TALK#USE which states: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity to others and reach consensus." Your user page presents "Welcome to my page. I am an amateur Wikipedia editor who specializes in Mexican History and Rap music" and that you are a native speaker of English and an intermediate speaker of Spanish.
You have been greatly involved in two long TP threads: Talk:Ronn Torossian#Relevance as a commentator and Talk:Ronn Torossian#Politics section removal. Why? What is your connection? What is your background of knowledge/developed understanding related to this topic? GregKaye 07:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No longer interested in pursuing - Cada Mori appears to have stopped editing/commenting on articles, and the on-Wiki evidence was largely circumstantial/collection of red flags rather than any major infraction. I think the account (or any possible sockpuppet) is worth keeping an eye on, but I don't see the need for any immediate action. Mosmof (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Malcolm L. McCallum

Resolved
 – New editor with lots to learn. No apparent COI. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


User account inserts remarkably promotional material into articles about a particular group of herpetologists centered Malcolm L. McCallum ([24], [25], ("obliterated their arguments") [26]. Also, communicates with an article subject by text message [27]). IP inserts material from a brand-new (days old) study by McCallum into the Malcolm McCallum, Holocene extinction, Biodiversity, and Extinction articles. Warned by template on the IP's talkpage, left personalized on Herpetology2's talk page, editing continues. Geogene (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

First, to address Geogene's edits. Geogene deleted virtually the entire account for Malcolm L. McCallum. Virtually every citation was recused as insignficant. For example, Discover Magazine had a web exclusive listing his paper among the top 10 on amphibian declines. Geogene deleted this because it was "just a web exclusive" and "not a big deal." Last I checked, web-based readings are read more than hard copy, furhter, its a legitimate citation by Discover magazine. I see no point to the "web exclusive" drive. Geogenethen proceeded to post that the page should not be edited due to a conflict of interest (possible COI that is). This, and all the herpetologists' acconts that I put together were edited by a series of Wikipedia administrators. I did not know they were until I questioned and discovered that case. I am not suggesting that Geogene was deliberately vandalizing the page. I think it was completely in good faith. However, when you have to ask what "Altmetrics" are, you clearly have no business editing the page. Then, you do not take the time to look it up, but just delete it, when there is a link directly to the sight, well, what can I say. After he got done "editing" thsi account, it basically said the guy is a herpetologist and showed up in Texarkana at some point. As for the promotional issues, stating that a paper is ranked in the top 1-2% with a link to the reporting page is not promotional, it is stating a matter of fact that relays the importance of the work and therefore relates to the importance of the individual. This is neither unusual nor unheard of on Wikipedia and virtually all biographies from Kings to prophets have similar kinds of citations. The recent manuscript which was added this weekend in of a topical nature that has international repercussions. Members of the National Academy of Sciene have declared it is of great importance, and further, it went from published on Friday to the number 4 paper published by Biodiversity and Conservation and ranks among the top 1% of over 3M papers according to Altmetrics in only a weekend. The substance could be construed as recentism, except in that policy it specifically states that recentism is ok if the topical nature is likely to be important in 10 years. Similar papers by Pimm, E.O. Wilson and others are still important decades later. I have noted after skimming some of geogene's edits on other pages that he often does a very good job, it just happens that the edits here are over-the-top, in my opinion, especially considering the previous administrators who worked with me on all of these pages. i can't remember their names, but a cursory examiniation of previous editors by administrators should reveal them fairly quickly. There were things I originally wrote that were removed due to inflationary languages. If that phrase geogene refers to was still there, it either got missed, or accidentally restored by me or someone else during revisions to correct problems identified months ago.

As for a COI, I was open from day one that I had contacted some of these people when I first started, not knowing the problems with this. In fact, I obtained many pictures from the foci of these articles from the people who I profiled and posted them with permission to the wiki. Although I know of them, I would not consider me to KNOW them. In fact, I have met 1-2 of them at a herpetology function several years ago. But this would be kin to meeting a movie star or television anchor. Just meeting someone or corresponding once on an email hardly constitutes a COI based on anything I am reading. I started with these herpetologists who are associated with Herpetological Conservation and Biology (Journal). I intend to move on to the many prominent herpetologists at SSAR and HL. however, I have not had time to do that of late. Just like everyone else, I have a day job! My goal is to complete profiles for all the primary editors of the primary herpetology journals, then work my way out from there. This will take years, if not decades and I will likely never complete it! But so what!? Its kind of fun!  :) As per his suggestion my efforts surround only a few related herpetologists, Collins has little relation to the others, and he only lists two of the several I have done. Further, adding relevant info to non-herpetologist pages above should be incontestable, as the content is nothing but informative at any level. For example, if Pimm says 1000 times and mccallum says a different figure, both views are equally legit considering they are published in credible scientific journals .

Creating a nice profile with some nice pictures taht explains who the person is, where they came from, and what their primary contributions to this area of science are should be central to the mission of Wikipedia. That is all this is about. When you chop out every word except for the person is a herpetologist who worked in Texarkana, when the individual's work has had signficant impact, you are deflating status which is precisely equally damaging as inflationary language. I hope this is clear, it got kind of long because I want to make sure I cover the territory, accusations, and also the rationale of what transpired. Herpetology2 (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Herpetology2 thanks for being gracious in this discussion - that is really helpful. First thing, just to clarify parties here - Geogene listed you and an IP address. Did you edit from the IP too (not a big deal, just trying to figure out who is involved here). This is going to be a dialogue, so i look forward to your reply so we can move on to other stuff. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't remember if I was logged in or not. But, I did add info about the paper. A LOT of people in the conservation community are talking about it. I figured I'ld add it in. However, it does not bother me to wait a while on that. I did add it to some other webpages as well, where it was directly relevant. Pages on extinction and the sixth mass extinction specifically. May have been others, but I don't recall now! A few days go by and I can't remember anymore! :) Herpetology2 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The paper first appears in Wikipedia with this edit [28], timestamped 06:41 UTC 27 May 2015. The paper is dated 27 May 2015 [29]. I believe that Springer Verlag is on Berlin time, so doesn't that mean that this appeared on WP basically simultaneously with release? Enough time to even read it? Geogene (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It's true that I didn't know what altmetrics.com does. It seems to be a kind of search engine ranks the significance of scientists by counting the number of times a paper is mentioned on the Internet, including the "socially-curated literature" (whatever that is) [30]. Geogene (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
please excuse my baited verbage above. I should have been more polite. Herpetology2 (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altmetrics Herpetology2 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
http://www.altmetric.com/details/4059569#score

This particular thing is promoted by Springer and some other journal companies because it is the best indicator of how frequently a paper will be cited in the future.. There is a very decent correlation between discussion of the paper, its newsworthiness, and its future importance/citation rating. Some people prefer Altmetrics to Impact ratings, others use them in consort, and still others suggest they are useless BS. I think the last group is losing ground to the vast majority that use them in consort with citation ratings. Have a nice day!Herpetology2 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Herpetology2 I have looked at your work. You seem to know a lot about the field and as I mentioned, are enthusiastic. But to be frank your Wikipedia editing is really bad. Have a look at the first two paragraphs here: Malcolm_L._McCallum#Education.2C_research.2C_teaching_and_service. Almost everything there is either unsourced or the sources are fake. And there is a tendency to promotionalism. I don't see COI but I do see problems getting settled as a WP editor. That's my take. Geogene do you see what i mean? If you agree, I'd suggest we close this thread and ask Herpetology2 to slow down on creating articles and find a mentor... Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I find this reasonable. Geogene (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Geogene. Herpetology2, will you agree to slow down on creating articles and work on bringing the articles you already created up to snuff? We can help you find a mentor. I hope you are open to this. I think you could become a really valuable member of the community but you need some training/experience.... please let me know. thx. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with that, however, as I said before, these have been repeatedly dragged through by administrators who WERE helping me with the thing. Further, there is not a FAKE citation in any account. It would help if people did not delete citations willy nilly as now I have to go back to the thing and REINSERT citations people have previously deleted as unnecessary. There was a large section deleted by Geogene that was done as suggestive of name dropping. No, it is not name dropping. Name dropping is done to assess importance to non-important persons. However, in academia, especially in the sciences, academic geneologies provide a reader with an understanding of the academic background of the individual because scientific philosophies follow these lines. This is all public information published in secondary sources. Also, there seems to be some confusion in Wikipedia regarding what is a primary and a secondary source. Per definition, and I have taught this at the college level now for close to 20 years, a primary source is the lab book. A scientific article is a secondary source. This is not debatable, its a fact that can be supported by a multitude of sources, including Wikipedia itself. Primary literature and primary sources are not the same thing. Primary literature is the peer reviewed literature such as scientific journals. Primary sources are the actual sources of data whether they be excel spreadsheets, notebooks, or diaries. Herpetology2 (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have "interacted" with Herpetology2 before and find their understanding of what constitutes appropriate sourcing on WP seriously lacking. I have told them before that their use of "academic geneology" is not warranted and violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Seems like they persist. Most articles that they have created are borderline notable at best (McCallum's being one of them), using references that not always support the statements made and include huge bibliographies (we usually list the three most important ones in bios of academics). They also frequently include OR (like assertions about mean numbers of publications/citations of people at a certain stage of their career; never seen that except in Herpetology2's articles). Herpetology2 is passionate about their field, but their enthusiasm seems to carry them away a bit too much and I have given up on trying to educate them. Hence I'm not watchlisting this, so ping me if needed. --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Herpetology2 I am closing this case, and will pick up the discussion at your Talk page, but will close with this remark. You have gotten feedback here from three different editors, that your skill at writing Wikipedia articles is sorely lacking. No one is questioning anything about your real world knowledge or attainments. Editing Wikipedia is not like other kinds of writing. There is a lot to learn. You really have two choices. You can continue to keep your eyes and ears closed and be defensive -- and end up having a really miserable (and probably very short) time here, or you can relax, acknowledge that you are new to WP and have a lot to learn, and have a long, productive, and happy time here. No one knows your real world identity, so you have nothing to lose listening and learning. Please check your ego. It is a hard thing for accomplished academics to do, but it is necessary. Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've been aware of Herpetology2's contributions for a while, and think that his or her pattern of editing shows at the very least a disproportionate view of the importance of various herpetologists (and perhaps incomplete understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR), even those that have done very notable research. User has interviewed subjects, and been present (or at least their camera was present) in the photographing of several individuals mentioned, (see last three entries at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 February 6), and even created an article about a non-notable children's book by one of the subjects. Re: the comment above about meeting subjects to "kin to meeting a movie star or news anchor", one can have a disproportionate view of the relative importance of a movie star's actions, and not everything they do warrants encyclopedic inclusion. The user is certainly enthusiastic and very familiar with the implications of certain publications (see discussion at Talk:Malcolm_L._McCallum#30_January_2015), The user has declared a PhD and been rather defensive at the removal of some material. Note: being an expert in a field which is certainly not inherently bad-- we need experts, so long as their contributions are measured and appropriate to the betterment of an encyclopedia, more so than the posterity of any person-- but may disproportionately influence one's writing and usage of sources. And even if the user is completely unconnected to the individuals, their pattern of editing suggests an effort to inflate articles with every conceivable element, that even if verifiable, conflicts with WP:NPOV: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis added). An article (or statement within) can be true, even verifiable and still biased or full of undue coverage: articles should not be predominantly sourced by articles written by the subject (which even if a review article or text book, no matter the focus, is a primary source with regards to the author). Articles should be measured and balanced, not a trophy room of accomplishments and a cherry-picking of papers (and yes, many academic Wiki articles are biased this way: one-sided with a disproportionately long "Selected works" section (approaching CVs in some cases), but that doesn't mean we should perpetuate such articles). Scraping the bottom of the barrel for unreliable sources like Ratemyprofessor.com to further pad articles is certainly undue. Regardless of whether an actual COI exists, and at the risk of repeating my earlier comments on your talk page, I have some recommendations that would help ensure content complies with WP:BLP and other policies, and reduce the appearance of biased editing, which can still occur in the absence of a COI (note however I am not a wiki mentor or ambassador, nor wish to be one at this time):

  • No matter how much personal knowledge you have of an issue, and regardless of your opinion, search for reliable, third-party sources that clearly and directly validate the content you wish to add. No press releases, mailing lists, or websites that merely state existence without context. Note that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.
  • Minimize the usage of sources written by the subjects, and/or pair them as much as possible with high-quality secondary sources that clearly explain the context of the research. Any given study may be groundbreaking or mundane or flat-out discredited by a follow-up study, and it is only from sources secondary to the research that we gain context.
  • Minimize the use of analytics, (altmetrics, H-index, etc) which can run close to WP:SYN, and do not use those alone to assert the importance of any study or person.
  • As a teacher and academic, you may be used to performing novel research, and/or encouraging students to analyze, synthesize, and critique information to reach novel conclusions (e.g. an essay, review article, or research paper). Unfortunately, that is explicitly what Wikipedia is not per WP:OR: until such ideas become published in reliable sources, they cannot be included in Wikipedia.
  • Per WP:DUE, WP:ONUS and WP:BLPSTYLE, strive to allocate coverage of facts roughly in proportion to their coverage in reliable third-party sources. We care more about fairly representing how a subject is actually known to the world at large (as portrayed in reliable, third-party sources) more than how you or I feel which of their accomplishments deserves mention. If no or few reliable sources mention a given fact or study, it should perhaps not be included.
  • Assume good faith, and accept that Wikipedia is built on consensus and give-and-take. If others remove your content, or have a different view of appropriate level of detail, then we discuss them on relevant talk pages.
  • Before adding new content (e.g. a recent study), consider mentioning it on the article's talk page first. This will allow other editors to discuss the relevance and due weight.
  • Lastly, I know it can seem like there are an awful lot of policies and guidelines (and there are), but really, the most important and relevant information is covered in only four: the Core Content Policies (Verifiability, Neutrality and No original research) and the Biographies of living people policy.
All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Note, I wasn't aware of the resolved status of this noticeboard (or perhaps it was added during my composition), and I'm glad to see it was resolved amicably, but my advice still stands. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
it was very kind of you to take the time to write that. hopefully it will be heard! Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sensis

User page and their talkpage say they are "Social Brand Manager at Sensis in Australia"- currently their article is part of the Telstra article. The user is trying to delete the disambiguation page Sensis, in order to replace it with an article for their company (the Sensis in the Telstra article), see [31] and the fact they've put the Sensis disambiguation page up for AfD, even though I told them I opposed this. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joseph,

As I stated on my talk page, I'm incredibly sorry I've misunderstood some guidelines. My request for deletion on the disambiguation was in order to understand whether it should be done or not, but I realise now this was an incorrect procedure.

Please do delete my deletion request for the Sensis disambiguation page and please also advise the best way to go forward. I will be unable to make any changes until I am at work tomorrow - I'm on my phone at the moment.

CS at Sensis (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

ADDgrammar

corporations
CEOs
baseball players
other people
books

ADDgrammar is a now blocked sock, part of a sockfarm possibly linked by technical evidence to a PR firm. Articles created/greatly expanded by this account, most from a November 2014 spree, are a fairly lengthy slime trail of corporate articles, CEOs and the like. Links above are just a sample. Brianhe (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Also maybe worth noting for future cases, operator of this account flatly denied COI [32] — Brianhe (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
If you think that's fun, you should check out the contributions of the rest of the accounts listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Factsonlyplease39. I honestly can't face going through them all right now, but this person or group of persons has probably created literally hundereds of potentially spammy articles. Enjoy! I'm going to get myself some paracetamol... Yunshui 雲水 14:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a perfect illustration of why we need integrity reform on Wikipedia now. — Brianhe (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
holy cow that is a lot of work for us. thanks so much for digging all that up, brianhe! Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've gutted quite a few of the CEOs, put a couple of others up for AfD, and a few up for speedy as just spam.
@Jytdog: You do realise there's about 20 of these editors, and this is one editor's contributions? It's going to be a long cleanup. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
yep. i wonder if it might not be worth posting at ANI to see if we can get some kind of mega rollback done. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I did consider mass-deleting all of their page creations, but I think some of them might actually be valid articles on notable people - we may want to keep them, which means checking them all by hand, so to speak... Yunshui 雲水 15:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of the CEO articles look like they're just about notable, but full of puff. The baseballers all pass WP:NBASEBALL as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
inquired here. This is days and days of work and i don't want to use my WP time cleaning up a pile of dogshit this big, if i don't have to. 15:52, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The personas created for the socks are unusual, not the mysterious redlinks we usually get. They were crafted almost with loving care. One of them described him/herself as a "retired astronomist" which should have been a tipoff to somebody paying attention. Common threads amongst the 10 or so personas that I looked at are female, dog lover, has children. Is this an indication of a new psychological ploy to avoid scrutiny by other editors? — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Did some forensics on the personas, see User:Brianhe/Factsonly personas. — Brianhe (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

These were added to Plus size model by confirmed socks:

Probably more to come. — Brianhe (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeez. There are also likely to be widespread copyvio problems. See for example here. More will need checking. SmartSE (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

even if there were COI, !voting in an AfD is not barred to people with a COI. Closing, with a trout to Waters.Justin Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Conflict of interest problem with a Wikipedia administrator and RationalWiki board member proposing a deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies There is a conflict of issue problem with administrator David Gerard being so influential in the proposed deletion of an article on a non-profit organization that expresses a view that is contrary to the views of a non-profit organization where he hold a board position. David Gerard is a trustee of RationalWiki, a wiki dedicated to debunking pseudoscience, and the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies is dedicated to publishing many transhumanist ideas considered pseudoscience by RationalWiki. If you visit the RationalWiki page on transhumanism[33] you will see that the majority of the page is dedicated to criticizing the ideas the IEET promotes, and David Gerard is a contributor on that page. The IEET is a transhumanist organization and used to title its academic journal the Journal of Transhumanism. This type of conflict of interest is similar to Wikipedia's prohibition against staff members of a political candidate editing articles on their opposition. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Campaigning.2C political. What we have here is a staff / board member of one policy non-profit promoting the deletion of its opposing non-profit. This is clearly a conflict of interest. The original lack of notability templates, were added by David Gerard, and he has been consistently promoting this article's deletion. [34]. Additionally, he has been using Wikipedia:Wikilawyering to make the claim that the article's references only cite the spokesperson' for the IEET and not the IEET itself and "notability is not inherited," so the content of the reference must be on the IEET itself and not the spokespersons. It is true that "notability is not inherited" but a spokesperson of an organization is the voice and face of the organization. The organization cannot talk, it's scholars talk for it. The spokesperson is the agent of the organization, so when the references mention the scholar is a member of the IEET this is not a passive mention of the IEET, it is intended convey the message that the scholar is the voice of the IEET. Considering the amount of advocacy occurring on Wikipedia and David Gerard's administrative position on Wikipedia and board membership on RationalWiki, I suggest he no longer participate in the proposed deletion of the IEET article. On a personal note, I respect that he uses his real name and I wish other administrators would do the same. I don't mean any criticism against him as an administrator. I suspect that if more administrators and editors used their real name we would see more COI challenges. Even U.S. Supreme Court justices recuse themselves from hearing cases when they have a personal association to it. It's the method of best practices in order to avoid criticism from others and the possibility that our human emotions will get in the way. Waters.Justin (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I can only say: um, what.
I did not propose the deletion, as you can see at the nomination; I commented that I had gone through the references and none of them were good, hence I considered that as it stood the article warranted deletion. This claim of Waters.Justin's is visibly false.
I do have considerable knowledge of fringe and skeptical topics. This is orthogonal to Wikipedia notability; some are, some aren't. There are organisations I consider reprehensible (IEET isn't one, I have no reason to think they aren't perfectly decent people, even if utterly un-noteworthy) who nevertheless fully warrant a Wikipedia article. I try to make my edits in this area according to the Wikipedia way of doing things.
I note also the past discussion with Justin at Talk:Institute for Ethics and_Emerging_Technologies#Notability_2, in which I noted that the article was seriously lacking in notability, and that this should be remedied; Randykitty concurred, and we tried to patiently explain the rules to Justin.
The AFD in question now looks like it's getting brigaded by transhumanists: non-policy-based arguments from infrequent editors. This sort of canvassing is probably inappropriate to Wikipedia.
- David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
formatted properly. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Waters.Justin, sjeez, please read up on what a conflict of interest actually is. This is not one. None of the arguments in the AfD that gets you so riled up is about the ideas that the IEET espouses. It is about, as one of the SPA IEET supporters creeping out of the woodwork expressed it, the fact that "nobody ever wrote about IEET". WP includes articles on pseudoscience (like astrology), as long as it is notable as shown by coverage in reliable sources. Spending your time finding such sources is more useful than attacking people participating in the AfD (Gerard is not even the nom). --Randykitty (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Even if David Gerard has a COI, a COI is no bar to !voting in an AfD. I am closing this as an advocacy driven non-issue and a trout goes to Waters.Justin for bringing this. I am going to follow up with Waters.Justin and David Gerard on matters not raised here. Am archiving this instead of just marking it resolved as misfired cases like this tend to spin into dramafests. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

30+ articles written by Worthywords requiring cleanup

This editor discloses on their user page that they were paid to write every article above Herakut other than Citizens Rights Watch. Of the articles I've reviewed I've found numerous problems including notability, verification, blp, original research and subtle promotion. These diffs show some of the content I have removed: [36] [37] [38] [39]. The Media Coach section of Alan Stevens (media consultant) was the most concerning as it was completely WP:FAKE and promotional, yet to the reader, apparently reliably sourced. Of other articles that I've glanced at these problems don't appear to unique and I need help to review the others, checking that content is well-sourced and verifiable. I raised my concerns with the user yesterday but although they edited today adding more content to article space, they haven't as yet responded. SmartSE (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

There were also meatpuppetry links to this user in this SPI last September after which Worthwords changed username from Georgiasouthernlynn. SmartSE (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

OY, there is a load of work. Thanks for bringing it! Jytdog (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
listed them; went through them to tag for COI and tag the talk page with COI edit notice and connected contributor. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Jytdog: and @Joseph2302: for your help. Still some way to go and no communication from Worthywords. SmartSE (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
you are welcome! yes ongoing problems seem likely. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
They've been online to make a couple of edits today, but have declined to comment. If they continue with these disruptive edits and terrible articles, I'm tempted to take the issue to ANI. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

So lots of these articles have now been deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah we're getting there but I just found another completely non-notable article that I've sent to AFD and others that are notable need depuffing still. SmartSE (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I've found more with this tool which they didn't create themselves. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
just adding a comment here as we are not done cleaning up this mess and i don't want this to get archived. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

James V. Toner and its draft

SashaRearick created James V. Toner multiple times, and also Draft:James V. Toner- lots of the content is unsourced original research suggesting a possible COI. Then, RandyPelkey created James V. Toner, and then this implies some off-wiki co-ordination between the 2 users- I've asked both about COI, and asked RandyPelkey about paid editing (since to me that comment implies he might have been hired by SashaRearick), with no response. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Joseph, relax. Nobody here is getting paid. I went onto Yahoo Answers and asked if anyone was interested in assisting me in writing and formatting the article (as my time is limited) and Mr. "RandyPelkey" responded saying that he'd be glad to do so. I don't understand how you interpreted Mr.RandyPeleky's comment about assisting me as being "hired" to do so, and there is no sufficient evidence supporting such a plain remark. Now I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but you're no "Wikihero". You value reporting others over helping them, which is undoubtedly cancerous to the Wiki community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SashaRearick (talk • contribs)

Hello, Joseph2302. It seems Sasha has hit the nail right on the head. Both of us happen to be new here, so I strongly believe you are doing more to create a conflict rather than solving it. I'm reillustrating the draft, and it will be posted with proper referencing and without bias/opinion. Thanks, RP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyPelkey (talk • contribs) 12:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this board is to determine whether a conflict of interest exists, therefore I'm perfectly entitled to ask, especially as neither of you bothered to answer of my talkpage- I'm not trying to be a "Wikihero", I'm just confused by the interactions with you two. Also, I tried to help you, I stopped the article being deleted the first time by moving it to draft, and I've evaluated all the sources for you, and given advice on how to improve it. Oh and by the way, James V. Toner cannot be created for a month, as an admin salted it, so that gives you a month to actually find some decent references, although as I've said before a 16-yr old who hopes to compete in big events in 2018-2022 is almost certainly not notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems that they tried to recreate the non-notable article at James Toner as well, I've asked for this to be protected. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There's an interesting quote in that comment you mentioned, Joseph, where RandyPelkey says "I will be able to incorporate knowledge of my own regarding the subject matter, and include references to my previous editorials on him which cannot be found online". I'm going to assume good faith that RP's work on the subject was as a journalist, so there is not a true conflict of interest issue. However, if he's using first-hand knowledge, then there could be issues related to WP:No original research. Material in an article needs to be verifiable to published reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • SashaRearick you haven't addressed the main point of this board, and it appears that no one has directly asked you. What is your relationship with James V. Toner? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • C.Fred, that is correct. I have no personal relationship with the subject, but I have illustrated and read a significant amount of unbiased articles regarding his life and career in the Cape Cod Times, Falmouth Enterprise, Bridgton Newspaper, and a couple others to which I cannot recall off the top of my head. I do not believe this is a true conflict of interest issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandyPelkey (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Probably doesn't matter anyway, Draft:James V. Toner got deleted as spam, James V. Toner is salted for a month, and James Toner is indefinitely protected (as it's supposed to be a redirect to a different page). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
According to LinkedIn, Sasha Rearick is "Head Men's Coach at US Ski Team". That doesn't mean there is a pecuniary COI here, perhaps just subject matter knowledge and familiarity with the subject. But still, the onus is on them to disclose or deny it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds about right, I thought Sacha was either family, close friend or professional coach of James Toner. Assuming this is true, I also don't believe RandyPelkey's answer- especially as I cannot find a thread about it on Yahoo Answers, which is were the non-COI Sacha allegedly posted for help. Therefore I return to my previous theory, undisclosed COI and undisclosed paid editor. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeffrey Lewis (nonproliferation expert)

Greetings. I have created a biographical article regarding a well-known nonproliferation researcher and academic that I know in real life, Jeffrey Lewis. Per ethical requirements and the COI policy I am self-declaring that this is a Conflict of Interest and have disclosed that on the talk page as well (see here). I believe that the article meets academic and general notability, that all non-trivial comments are sourced, and that it's neutral. However, others' input and review are welcome. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for disclosing and for posting here. As an editor with a COI you should have going through WP:AFC instead of creating this article directly. Lots of problems with it (sourcing, embedded links, unsourced content)... would you consent to moving this to your userspace or to draft space until it is ready for showtime?Jytdog (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I've moved it to Draft:Jeffrey Lewis (nonproliferation expert)- as an AFC reviewer, I think this submission stands little chance of being kept long-term. Needs a proper AFC review and continued work on it, to show they're actually notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a small field, and most of the active participants don't reach public view all that often in general. I think there are three to five Wikipedians active enough in arms control to understand who the major players are; the field is clearly important enough to be covered, so in my opinion are the major players. Two of the online journals he is a commentator at were already notable enough to have articles (neither of which I had edited).
I started here because it's easy, but intend to create articles for another whole pile of the lead academics/researchers/policy experts. I've been around plenty long enough to understand what is required to fairly and neutrally cover a topic area one is somewhat involved in. There are only a handful of us working on articles on say nuclear weapons technology and history, too, and one of the other main editors is an involved source himself. I'm disclosing out of an abundance of caution, but the topic area is seriously lacking depth of coverage on Wikipedia now, and I intend to fix that. This is probably as close to a COI that I would have with a particular topic or subject in the field, but we need sufficiently clued in experts to know what to write about and create the articles.
I would like to request that you comment on the talk page about the specifics of your sourcing, embedded links, and unsourced content concerns. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I also added refs for 8 NY Times and Washington Post stories that quoted him as an expert on the nuclear programs in China, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, etc. (and could keep going, he's widely interviewed and quoted as a source for media stories). Hopefully addressing notability in terms everyone should agree to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert WP:EXPERTs are appreciated in WP very much (if you are not familiar with essay, please read it) but you definitely have a COI for this article and the ones you want to create. COI says: "You should not ... edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends..... You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics." You need to take that seriously. Would you please:
a) acknowledge that you have a COI on this topic and the ones you intend to write about as you discuss above;
b) use the AfC process going forward; and
c) agree that if any of these articles are created through AfC, that you will not directly edit them after they enter WP space?
thanks very much. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't have a COI on the whole topic area; I am an expert (as defined in the essay) in the whole topic area. I only know a few of the people well enough to meet the COI criteria (Jeff Lewis most prominently, hence the disclosure). Experts are not and never have been declared auto-COI across the whole topic area(s) they edit in; COI is much more specific and close-in.
AfC is for dealing with people who are problem creators or who don't know how to edit well enough to create safe articles. It's not for every expert editing in their field of expertise, and never has been. I started here with the one article which I have a genuine, disclose-first COI on, but the rest I forsee creating would not meet the COI definition. I know how to create safe articles and have been doing so for 10+years.
I understand caution, and I posted here because I do have a COI as defined in policy and any rational normal definition in real life. The policy urges that so others can see that I'm not actually creating a problem, be it a bad BLP, a vanity page, a badly written page, something which truly isn't notable, etc. The policy recommends a lot of stand-off with COI topics, but does not require it. It recommends because it's aimed at less experienced editors who are less familiar with WP culture and standards, neutral point of view, etc. I've been around nearly forever, have over 16k edits, am an administrator, and have created hundreds of mainspace articles over the years. If there are quality problems with the article I listen and encourage others to point them out for me to correct or to correct them themselves. If notability was not clear enough to start with I listen and work on that. If there's a genuine dispute I stand back and find other uninvolved editors.
People need to be informed and aware that I do have the COI on that particular article (done). Someone needs to review it and keep an eye on it (in progress). I do not need to crawl into a hole trembling in fear of COI or bad editing; I am safe from that, am looking to improve the project and its coverage of this rather important topic writ large (we have had a war over it, and could have another one if the Iran negotiations go badly). If you want to look over my shoulder on the topic area in general that's encouraged and appreciated. If I go off the reservation feel free to call it out. But it desperately needs work. Unless AfC has picked up a lot in the last year I do not believe it would be capable enough to address the gaps. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying George. This board is not about judging your competence, so please leave that out of it. This board is about COI. You clearly have a COI for Jeffrey Lewis. Who else do you personal or professional relationships with (both positive and negative) and plan to write about? Thanks. (by the way, describing a discussion about your COI and managing it as asking you to "crawl into a hole trembling in fear of COI" is just a really bad reflection on you. Please also leave the drama out of this. Thanks.) Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Georgewilliamherbert will you please respond here to the substance? Would be good to wrap this thread up. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Execulink Telecom

Execulink Telecom was created by IP 209.213.231.168- I accepted it at AfC after a thorough copyedit to make the language more neutral. Now User:Kchalmers (username recently changed from User:Execulink) is editing the page- the edits have been fine for now, but I'd like more eyes on the page, as they clearly have a COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I've approached Kchalmers. Hopefully she will respond well and we can resolve this smoothly. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Smith (fashion designer)

Resolved
 – Conflicted editor seems to understands the issues. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that Markrfountain87, a new single-purpose account, has been making a series of recent edits to Paul Smith (fashion designer). I have no interest in outing anyone on Wikipedia, however in this instance the user used his own name as his username, and that name online reveals that he is "Digital Content Editor at Paul Smith". I do not believe he should be editing the article, at least not directly. Perfume.asia (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for posting here. You didn't notify him, and you must do that. I've provided the notice for you, and reached out to him. The article needs review. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I talked with him at his talk page and I think he gets it and understands how to do things going forward. Marking this resolved. I have it on my watchlist in case issues arise in the future. Jytdog (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul Joseph Rovelli

This editor has not declared a conflict of interest but I think it's very obvious they have a connection to the subject (if they're not Rovelli himself) -- they've added very promotional-sounding info and possibly original research that only Rovelli or his close friend would know, see here for example, and see the end result (the current article) mostly written by Hermes101.

I've taken the article to AfD but I'd appreciate having some more neutral eyeballs on the situation. (The article has been edited by a few non-SPA accounts but it's been typo-fixing and the like and they haven't participated in the talk page discussion.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

good nom, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the SPAs have gone quiet so this is pretty uneventful. I expected some resistance. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
SPA popped up at AfD here. At least a very strong advocate. I approached them but no response yet. Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
article deleted through AfD but editor remains nonresponsive Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Balochistan

No COI, it's just a content dispute. There is no evidence that either party works for Pakistan or Indian army, and even if they did, that wouldn't necessarily be a COI. Go back to the article talkpages. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Is it conflict of interest for member of Pakistani army to delete information on human rights atrocities by pak army from articles 78.146.43.52 (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So anybody trying to remove wrong info/info that does not fit the scope of the article/ info that has been discussed at the respective talk page and then removed, even though the info was reverted back pending further discussion is a member of Pakistan Army??? Great! Moreover, conversely, anybody who tried to add info to pages related to Pakistani Military must then also be a member of Pakistan Army? Similarly, anybody who remove info regarding the revelations by the Indian Prime Minister on

and Mukti Bahini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) should also be a member of Indian Armed Forces or have had volunteered for Mukti Bahini in the past? I guess not. —TripWire talk 11:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Janette Kerr

This says that Lucasta10 is from Janette Kerr's Gallery, and username suggests JanetteKerr= Janette Kerr. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User:JanetteKerr very freely admits to being Janette Kerr. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've reached out to both of them on JanetteKerr's Talk page, here. Hopefully they will start talking with us. Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to declare COI for talk page discussion?

Resolved
 – question answered Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have declared my COI on my user page. I have NEVER made any edits to the British National Party wiki page, but I hold various positions within the organization. On the Talk page, I have an editor/admin (I don't know what rights he has) who keeps threatened to have me banned for not "Formally declaring COI". Do I need to declare anything anywhere to participate on the articles TALK page? Am I banned from talking about anything on the talk page because of COI? Chrisdbarnett (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisdbarnett: WP:COI strongly recommends that you shouldn't directly edit, but recommends you instead suggest edits at the talkpage- therefore what you're doing seems to be correct to me. I'll tag the talkpage with a COI notice, but you are definitely allowed to participate in talkpage discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! You see I couldn't work out whether I'm supposed to tag the talk page with a COI notice or not. Thanks. Chrisdbarnett (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Chris, I've always very strongly advised editors with a COI much weaker than yours: fully disclose your COI on the talk page before even beginning to take part in the discussion. Than, having done so, please do participate fully, just like the rest of us! How else are we going to reach a consensus about ways to improve the article? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesse Young (politician)

Resolved
 – seems settled for now. bears watching. Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Rep. Jesse L. Young has obvious COI from the username, given them COI notice. Both them and the IP are adding a mixture of sourced and unsourced, non-NPOV content- I think I reverted back to the best sourced content. Needs more eyes on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Rep. Jesse L. Young" should be blocked ASAP as an account possibly impersonating a public figure....reported at UAA. Geogene (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So "Rep. Jesse L. Young" has been blocked, but IP 174.21.234.50 is adding basically the same information, only with (predominantly primary) sources, see [40]. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I stubified this and have it on my watchlist. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
It appears they've halted their disruptive editing after the block and warnings. Let's hope it remains that way! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Cricketers

Resolved
 – editor appears to understand that linkspamming was not OK. No further activity from them. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

First raised at the Help Desk: user has been spamming articles about cricketer with details of their management company which just so happens to be the company the user works for. --ukexpat (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 69 of their 70 edits have been to add the name of the same management company to articles about Indian cricketers- a quick Google search shows that someone with their name works for the company. I've warned them about COI and linkspamming, and also warned cricket people at WT:CRICKET. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I reached out to this editor as well and they emailed me. Seems that they understood what they did was not OK, and seems to have gone away. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Kansas Christian College (Overland Park)

Hello! I acknowledged that I worked for a college that was changing its name, and I made edits to the page not knowing that I was creating a conflict of interest. I was just doing my job. I have cited sources and used references, and the editor cleaned up the contents. Can we please remove the warning that it was written with a conflict of interest? Thank you! 2602:306:CECB:1FF0:9DA:31B7:AD3F:4390 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because you've been editing it, therefore the COI applies. As do all the other tags. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessarily negative, it's just an alert. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_85&oldid=1149826785"