Jjacksoneverst

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi JJ. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia. You have been asking folks to add content to the Brian Boxer Wachler article and seem to have a connection with him, but you have made no disclosure of the connection. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Thewikischolar. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

Disclosure is the most important, and first, step. While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some connection with Wachler? You can answer how ever you wish (giving personally identifying information or not), but if there is a connection, with please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. You can reply here - I am watching this page. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

copied here, from comment left on my Talk page, to keep thread together Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jytdog, thank you for your comment. There has been alot of chatter about this page and the situation with it. I just recently became aware of it and have seen the doctor a number of times on TV and respect the man and his work. I have no connection to Dr. Wachler. I stand up for what I feel it right (sometimes to a fault), but at least I can put my head on my pillow and sleep at night. I reviewed the dialogue on the discussion. Overall the doctor is a notable person who has changed the field of ophthalmology in several ways due to his inventions and medical publications. The original page also has some material that should be deleted as it is not per Wiki guidelines. However one does not "throw the baby out with the bath water". The page is locked and I am unable to add several important publications. That is the reason I reached out to people who seem to have ability to post in the interest of representing fairness and the truth. Thank you. JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Please tell me where you experienced the "chatter" you mention. This is important, so I look forward to your reply on that. Thanks. (please do reply here) Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A friend told me today about it and I looked it up on Wiki. Here are three publications that are notable for how they changed the field of ophthalmology, keratoconus in particular. I posted the number of other pubmed articles that have cited each of these articles:

Chan CCK, Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. Effect of inferior segment Intacs with and without corneal collagen crosslinking with riboflavin (C3-R) on keratoconus. J Cataract Refract Surg 2007;33:75-80. (21 pubmed citations)

Boxer Wachler BS, Christie JP, Chandra NS, Korn T, Nepomuceno R. Intacs for keratoconus. Ophthalmology 2003;1031-40. (19 pubmed citations)

Sharma M, Boxer Wachler BS. Comparison of single-segment and double segment Intacs for keratoconus and post-LASIK ectasia. Am J Ophthalmology 2006;141:891-5. (14 pubmed citations)

As I said earlier, one does not "throw the baby out with the bath water". JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Friends talking to each other is not "a lot of chatter". I said that the answer is important. Please explain where you experienced "a lot of chatter" . Please also let me know why you think those three papers in particular are important. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The chatter is the deletion discussion with the comments - at least that's what I call chatter. And my friend told me about it. What are your thoughts on the three publications? JJJjacksoneverst (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your answers are opaque. I am not willing to work with you. I doubt others will want to work with you either. Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I have answered your questions and been transparent. You are the one who is opaque by refusing to comment on the three of the doctor's peer-reviewed publications that have been cited multiple times by other peer-reviewed publications. By your refusal to comment on these publications shows me and the Wiki community that you are not objective and fair towards Dr. Wachler, but you are showing with crystal clear clarity that you are biased against the doctor. JJJjacksoneverst (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

copied here, from comment left on my Talk page, to keep thread together Jytdog (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your refusal to comment on three of Dr. Wachler's peer-reviewed publications that have been cited by other peer-reviewed publications shows your lack of being objective about him in the deletion page discussion and clearly demonstrates that you are bias towards him. I have read the above crticism about you from others and your lack of being objective. Biased editing is a pattern with you.

If you remove what I wrote from your talk page, then it shows with even MORE certainly that you are bias towards Dr. Wachler and have an agenda. JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are facts.

1) There has been a boatload of conflicted, promotional editing on that article.

2) In response to the AfD, new/dormant accounts whose operator(s) do not show an understanding for how Wikipedia works (or any actual interest in how WIkipedia works or its mission) have showed up to try to keep the article and restore it to its prior state. None of these accounts has actually grounded their actions or arguments on Wikipedia's mission nor on the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines or even asked about the mission, policies, or guidelines; Wikipedia is not important to them. Wachler is important to them.

3) You just showed up in Wikipedia and are behaving in a way similar to the other new accounts

4) COI inquiries like the one I have made with you are common.

5) In life, but especially in this situation, transparency is the way to gain trust. Lack of transparency destroys trust.

6) Your response about "chatter" is opaque; you didn't answer the question about the the three sources and instead responded with a question back to me.

7) Quite often, editors who don't actually care about Wikipedia and its mission turn to personal attacks when they cannot get what they want. This is exactly what you have done.

8) All your behavior thus far shows that you are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote Wachler.

If you would like to respond with clear answers I would be happy to continue talking but I don't have time for dodgey conversations. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog,

1) I explained the "chatter" is all the discussion on the deletion page of Wiki. If that isn't "chatter", then I don't know what is. My friend mentioned that "chatter" to me. I got involved because I am an advocate for fairness. You clearly did not like my answer about all of this. Perhaps you were hoping for another answer to aid in your biased position against the doctor. Now you are trying to lump me with others accused of of sock puppets and meat puppets. That is clear. I repeat - you did NOT like my answer. Now you attack me. Hmmm....

2) You still have not commented on the three peer-reviewed articles. Why not? You are quick to comment on everything else though...Hmmm....

3) I read through your talk page. You have a pattern of being criticized for being biased as an editor. Hmmm.....

4) You deleted my comments on your talk page. Further evidence of your bias. Hmmm.....

If there is such thing as a "super editor", I hope this person gets wind of you and reels you in.

JJ Jjacksoneverst (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick note on Wikipedia logistics. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting - when you reply to someone, you put a colon ":" in front of your comment, and the WP software converts that into an indent; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons "::" which the WP software converts into two intents, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages. That is how we know who said what. Will reply on the substance in a second...Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not matter of like/not like, it is a matter of your not being transparent. If you would like to give a reasonable answer about chatter, or answer my original question about why you think the three sources are important (which I asked for in order to help you) I'll be happy to continue discussing. You have no idea how Wikipedia works, but you are being combative. This is unwise. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, but a privilege. It is freely offered to all, but editors who violate the policies and guidelines, and refuse to learn about them, lose editing privileges. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to note that what you wrote was "There has been alot of chatter about this page and the situation with it." I do not find your explanation that by "chatter about this page and the situation with it" you meant only the deletion discussion, to be credible. You are clearly very familiar with Wachler's research and inventions, and your explanation that you only know about him from TV is also not credible. We already know that two employees of the institute where he works have been editing the page; there is a long, long history of people trying to promote Wachler here in WP. You can give me an explanation that makes sense and makes clear your relationship with the subject of the article, or not. If you continue to blow smoke, that cloud stands only over you. As I said above, conflicted editors have a place in Wikipedia, but only if they are transparent and follow our policies and guidelines. Some people think obscuring their relationship is somehow better for them here in WP. It is not better for them. But you will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jjacksoneverst, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jjacksoneverst! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

• It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

• Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)