Talk:Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] I

I have semiprotected this page to deal with a persistent vandal who is changing external references to point to things other than what the text implies they do. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability and citations?

Hi. This article seems to be lacking much in the way of citations from WP:RS reliable sources, and I don't see much to establish notability. Rummgaging on Google I couldn't find much to cite. Does this organization meet WP:CORP or WP:ORG? Thanks, William Pietri 01:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Iˈve removed most of the "references" as they are from the organisation´s website, which does not count as a reliable source. Rich257 19:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Multiple external citations have been added.Ghagele (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest

Please see my edit of COI notice board to reference COI report of users:

All operating to promote Glenn Hagele and CRSQA article. I have requested an administrator to comment on it but have not yet received word. Have copied information below for reference from COI post:

"Changes were made to CRSQA article to reflect a more unbiased perspective with additions to the external links as well as further information on criticism.

At approximately 12:00 AM, 21 December 2007 these changes were undone by user 99.133.177.249. Subsequent request for deletion of related article Glenn Hagele was responded to by user Ghagele approximately 14 minutes later.

Users Ghagele, 99.133.177.249 and 68.123.109.90 have all exchanged edits for both/either the CRSQA article and the Glenn Hagele article. In addition, 68.123.109.90 has edited the LASIK article in order to add reference to the CRSQA article further supporting a conflict of interest. Also important to note is that all three users (Ghagele, 99.133.177.249 and 68.123.109.90) have for the large majority only participated in edits relating to the CRSQA and all such edits have been in the pursuit of promotion and the removal of criticism.

It is strongly suggested that this is an act of vandalism promoting self and it is recommended that both IP addresses and user Ghagele be prohibited from editing both aforementioned articles. Further it is recommended that the CRSQA article be re-ammended to the recent additions.

All claims of vandalism and abuse are unfounded as I am not involved in refractive surgery in any way and am participating in cleansing this information for the end user's access to unbiased information."

Since I have not heard back from an administrator and COI post has been archived I have made the suggested revisions. --SirDecius (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Both IP addresses have been blocked by an administrator as a result of the COI notice. An administrator need not respond to this as it has already been dealt with. --SirDecius (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I have attempted to add a more unbiased and informative perspective to it and feel the litigation and widespread criticism surrounding it is important to be included. Any searches on the web or newsgroups for CRSQA or Glenn Hagele result in vast amounts of criticism directed at the CRSQA and Glenn Hagele. I believe that omitting a detailed report of this criticism is misleading, whether it be true or not. --SirDecius (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


The vandalism at the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance (USAEyes) article by SirDecius continues. I have repeatedly restored the article after the vandalism, however SirDecius returns to vandalize again.
Here are examples:
SirDecius adds a link to usaeyes.info. Let's start with the domain name itself. USAEyes is a registered trademark of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance. The organization has not authorized any other party to use its mark. The domain usaeyes.info is subject to a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy arbitration National Arbitration Forum case FA0712001118174.
SirDecius added a link to usaeyes.info as "a website created specifically to discount the claimed merits of CRSQA certification and provides criticism of the CRSQA, Hagele as well as many of the surgeons listed on the CRSQA website."
The owner of the website usaeyes.info is Brent Hanson of Seattle Washington. Mr. Hanson is currently being sued in California Superior Court, Sacramento (Case 06AS00839 Hagele v. Hanson) for defamation including defamation published at the usaeyes.info website. Mr. Hanson is also being sued for invasion of privacy for publishing my personal identity including Social Security number, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, driver's license number, etc. on other websites he owns and/or controls.
Mr. Hanson previously used the Internet to attack a surgeon in Dallas Texas, violating a court order and was sentenced to 18 months in jail for contempt. Mr. Hanson used eGold accounts, an offshore registrar, and an offshore web host in an attempt to hide his violation of the court's order.
Mr. Hanson and the usaeyes.info website are not reliable or objective sources of information.
SirDecius adds to a criticism section about the organization "publicly criticized for promoting CRSQA certification by spam as well as profiting from a certification system that bears little merit to the patient." This statement is not in any manner neutral, is unsubstantiated, is casting aspersions against an organization accredited by the Health on the Net Foundation and named as a reliable source of information in US Congressional testimony and has been cited by dozens of news articles from NPRto USNews & World Report to Oprahfor the patient advocacy it provides. I have personally testified before the FDA regarding patient safety issues. I have personally researched and responded to thousands of patient questions regarding Lasik and similar vision correction surgery.
SirDecius added that I have "been the subject of criticism and his detractors have claimed that since he is neither a medical doctor nor an ophthalmologist that he does not have the credentials to accredit doctors involved in refractive surgery." We do not accredit doctors. We certify that patient outcomes meet pre-defined standards. I facilitate the policies regarding surgeon certifications that are approved by a governing Board of Trustees with the assistance of a Quality Standards Advisory Committee that includes ophthalmologists and optometrists. This facilitating the policies is primarily statistical and does not require a doctorate. Furthermore, the statement by SirDecius is unsubstantiated.
SirDecius added "questions relating to the non-profit nature of the CRSQA have arisen since it claims to hire an 'Executive Director' (Glenn Hagele) who is paid for profit by the CRSQA to manage the 'day-to-day activities'"
This statement is not neutral and is unsubstantiated. I am a paid employee of the organization and function as Executive Director. The conditions of my employment are determined by the organization's governing Board of Trustees. It appears that SirDecius is implying that there is an impropriety in a nonprofit organization paying its employees. There is not. There are thousands of nonprofits who pay their employees.
Additionally, SirDecius removed relevant links that substantiate claims about my litigation against critics of the organization and me, specifically litigation against Brent Hanson in California and a separate litigation against Mr. Hanson's former housemate Lauranell Burch.
A review of the activities of SirDecius indicates that with one exception, this person's entire activities have revolved around vandalizing and attacking me or USAEyes. Also, the entity SirDecius suddenly appeared shortly after I brought litigation against Ms. Burch. The timing is, I believe, relevant.
I have requested that SirDecius and his relevant IP address(es) be banned from editing the USAEyes article, the article be protected in its pre-vandalism state, and very serious consideration be made to the permanent removal of edits by SirDecius.
Ghagele (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I'll be placing tags and doing some clean-up myself, as requested by two edit-warring parties. Please discuss the matter before you remove any tags or make any reversions. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind attention to this article. At the risk of COI, the requested tags were added.
Ghagele (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest Analysis, Editing History and Glenn Hagele

Let's begin with the suspect editing behaviour:

1) *99.133.177.249 (talk · contribs)'s edit history is isolated to promoting the CRSQA and/or Glenn Hagele - this user is subsequently banned for biased edits. Requests re-enstatement, it is denied.

2) *68.123.109.90 (talk · contribs)'s edit history is isolated to promoting the CRSQA and/or Glenn Hagele - this user is subsequently banned for biased edits.

3) *Ghagele (talk · contribs)'s edit history is isolated to promoting the CRSQA and/or Glenn Hagele. He is warned twice about a conflict of interest for CRSQA editing/promotion, and after these warnings, begins editing article(s) shortly after IPs are banned.

This suggests that the IP addresses are somehow affiliated with Glenn Hagele or the CRSQA. And Ghagele, by the alias itself, is probably also affiliated with Glenn Hagele or the CRSQA.

Cries of vandalism:

User Ghagele's editing history is isolated, almost entirely, to the promotion of the CRSQA. His first edit was April 2006. From this time till now, he, along with the IPs listed above, have made a total of 10 edits based on the premise of other editors vandalising this page. I am suprised that his allegations that editors are secret spies out to get him are being taken seriously as another editor has suggested that I address that suggestion. No, I have nothing to do with refractive surgery. Is it so unbelievable that someone would be trying to provide people who are actually going to get operated on their eyes with a more unbiased article that may or may not influence the direction they choose?

Criticism references:

And here is the information I found, after briefly looking, for some information on the CRSQA and Glenn Hagele, which is what I based my additions on:

1) http://usaeyes.info/ , http://www.jackholladay.com/ - Websites that provide information, links, testimonials and more claiming false advertising by Glenn Hagele and the CRSQA.

2) Lasik Fraud - Provides news articles on lawsuits surrounding the CRSQA, Glenn Hagele, and surgeons accredited by the CRSQA.

3) [Google Groups - Over 70 pages of discussions of the CRSQA and criticism towards it. Glenn Hagele is a very active member and in many threads where criticism is raised, he seems to post a pre-written reply indicating that those critical are 'vandalising' his reputation. An example. Here you can see all the posts Glenn Hagele has posted, many of them promotional.

In Conclusion:

I have noticed in some of the Google Group posts that Glenn Hagele is quite patient and seems to answer the allegations being thrown at him. I also notice that there are lots of references in newspapers to the CRSQA and Glenn Hagele, not made in a negative light. I also notice that Glenn Hagele does have a group of doctors that are affiliated with the CRSQA. I have no doubt that it is indeed a legal entity.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. - I feel it would benefit anyone reading about the CRSQA to examine the criticism surrounding it and decide for themselves.

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view - Providing a multitude of links promoting the CRSQA and providing none to the criticism does not seem neutral to me.

Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. - Ghagele's allegations of conspiracy and vandalism, and attempts to gain the identity of editors that do not agree with him are not in tune with Wikipedia standards. (He actually asked an editor how to get my real identityWikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#repeated_vandalism)

I Suggest:

1) Ghagele be prevented from editing the CRSQA article further due to an obvious COI for which he has been warned and ignored. User_talk:Ghagele

2) The article should have a link to http://usaeyes.info/ as this seems to be the most informative website listing criticisms.

3) Additional information about criticism be added, and references directed at the Glenn Hagele or CRSQA website be limited/reduced (7/8 references are to usaeyes.org or glennhagele.com, both operated by Glenn Hagele or the CRSQA).

The reason I am spending so much time and effort writing this out and researching is that I feel the current article is missleading, and does not provide a visitor with sufficient resources with which to research and determine truth themselves. I also think something as integral as your eye surgery should be handled with as much care as possible, meaning, as much information as possible. Open to criticism if I missed something or incorrectly assumed something, I will be trying to invite other editors to comment on this topic. --SirDecius (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said above but SirDecius seems to ignore, the owner of the website usaeyes.info and JackHolladay.com is Brent Hanson of Seattle Washington. Mr. Hanson is currently being sued in California Superior Court, Sacramento (Case 06AS00839 Hagele v. Hanson) for defamation including defamation published at the usaeyes.info website and repeated at the newer JackHolladay.com. Mr. Hanson is also being sued for invasion of privacy for publishing my personal identity including Social Security number, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, driver's license number, etc. on other websites he owns and/or controls.
Does SirDecius really believe that the statements about an organization from someone who is publishing the organization's Executive Director's Social Security number on websites he controls is in any way a reasonable or reliable source of information?
USAEyes is a trade mark of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance, however Mr. Hanson has elected to violate that mark with the purchase of multiple domains that are confusingly similar to the mark, including usaeyes.INFO. This issue is subject to UDRP arbitration at this time.
Jack Holladay, MD is a Houston surgeon and a member of the USAEyes Board of Trustees. By the very nature of the medical profession his name is is trade mark. Mr. Hanson has elected to violate not only Dr. Holladay's mark as a profession but also his personal name by purchasing this domain and publishing derogatory and defamatory statements at the associated website.
Mr. Hanson previously used the Internet to attack a surgeon in Dallas Texas, violating a court order and was sentenced to 18 months in jail for contempt. Mr. Hanson used eGold accounts, an offshore registrar, and an offshore web host in an attempt to hide his violation of the court's order.
The true identity of a person who continually vandalizes a Wikipedia article can be important. It can show a perceived bias, such as being a defendant in a civil lawsuit relative to the article or an associate of that defendant.
Mr. Hanson and the websites he controls are not reliable or objective sources of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.133.177.249 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you are saying what you are saying Glenn, but you have just certified with this edit that you are indeed the IP address that was banned (99.133.177.249) by posting this response without logging into your account. This means that after you were warned about editing the CRSQA article as Ghagele due to a COI you proceeded to do so without logging in. Don't you think that your allegations against another person critical of you must be taken with a grain of salt when you yourself are clearly using unsavory tactics to try to conform an article highly pertinent to your financial success in an online encyclopedia who's primary goal is 'unbiased information', despite two seperate warnings?
Further, your pending legal actions against the webmaster of a website critical of the CRSQA are not points that garner any sort of weight as it is all pending - which means you may lose. I'm still uncertain as to whether it matters even if you win here at Wikipedia. Regardless, I am not arguing the validity of USAeyes.info - however, in my brief research trying to find out additional information about yourself and the CRSQA, I found that website, and was thankful that I was given the choice of determining what I am going to believe because it was offered to me. I do not believe USAeyes.info is a spam-filled attack on you as it does provide a wealth of information including legal cases against CRSQA doctors, documents about your own legal troubles, and testimonies from numerous patients who claim you have threatened to release their personal information. Again, I am not stating this is true - however, knowing that there are people out there who believe it is is important for me.
I therefore still stand firm in what I have suggested. I think you yourself cannot deny that you have an unquestionably large conflict of interest in editing this article and if your priorities were focussed more on the quality of information available to the general public rather than the reputation of the CRSQA, I'm fairly certain you would agree that people should be permitted to determine what side of the argument they choose to believe, for themselves.
I am quite dissapointed that this is such a slow and painful process that no administrators seem to want to actually involve themselves in despite the overwhelming evidence that Mr. Hagele should NOT be editing this article due to an obvious financial conflict of interest, and that there is sufficient criticism surrounding the web to warrant at least some external links to it to be provided. --SirDecius (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shorten the article?

I propose that the article be shortened. I would keep the intro and the first three sections, and only include the references that appear in reliable sources that are needed for those paragraphs. A couple of links to the Council's web site would be kept as a source for their comments. The entire intro would be worded so as to indicate that the *Council* asserts that this is what their mission and their activities are. (There aren't any reliable sources that measure of the success of the Council in doing what is claimed). The section about criticism of the Council would be vaguely worded and the stuff about social security numbers and so forth would be omitted, as would any pointers to court cases. I would *not* link to usaeyes.info.

I'd keep a mention of the fact that Glenn Hagele has been quoted in several publications about eye safety issues. Please let me have your opinion of this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reason for this article to be shortened, except perhaps for the lengthy news section which doesn't seem that useful. The information in the article that Mr. Hagele has provided is clear and quite curt according to me. I strongly dissagree with the notion that USAeyes.info should not be included unless another more reliable source of criticism towards the CRSQA can be located. According to me, it is not an abusive website in any manner, and seems to provide real information despite it's clear bias against Mr. Hagele and the CRSQA. --SirDecius (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any future for the link to usaeyes.info, due to biography of living persons concerns, which are taken very seriously on Wikipedia. The question is if you are willing to settle for a modified article that isn't so one-sidedly in favor of the Council. If no reform can be agreed to, the article may well stay as it is, without the link to usaeyes.info. Due to COI, Glenn Hagele should not edit the article at all, and it is questionable whether you should be editing it. That pretty much guarantees we'll be stuck where we are, unless there is some compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be confused by the bloated discussion here. Your conclusions about my lack of neutrality seem to spawn from the incorrect asessment that I am somehow warring with Mr. Hagele. Even your inclusion of a reference to WP:BLP is miss-placed since this talk page concerns an association, not an individual biography. With even some genuine effort, it is blatently obvious that I am attempting to provide an unbiased perspective of this association, and every single effort I have put forward is indicative of this. Clearly, your conclusion that I have 'strong feelings' are only correct if you are meaning to provide unbiased information.
Regardless, you are not the problem. This is one of the few serious attempts I have made to create some sort of positive change here and as you can see with my research, have put forth a lot of effort in an attempt to present my perspective. I am beyond confused by the fact that despite sock puppets, despite editing despite two COI warnings that Mr. Hagele continues to edit while editors (like yourself) seem to find reasons to criticize my passion towards gearing this article towards a more balanced direction. I do hope that this is a very unique and isolated bubble where the lack of understanding surrounding this whole tiny ordeal is not a reflection of Wikipedia as a whole.
Finally, your response via the administative request I placed is erroneous - Since I have suggested the inclusion of the USAeyes.info website and provided reasoning, whereas you do not feel it should be included but have not provided sufficient reasoning (and are referencing as incorrect Wikipedia policy page) I do feel it is your responsibility to put forth more reasoning and discussion behind your opinions, not me. Perhaps if you read the above talk page more carefully you will not mistakenly suggest that I have not yet attempted to solve this 'amicably'.
And I agree that USAeyes.info may not be a correct resource to be included. But you have not made any adequate counter-suggestions, except for the non-inclusion of it.
And with that, I leave this article as it is, as have other editors. --SirDecius (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you believe it is good for a person's reputation to be accused of 'sordid, puerile and potentially illegal tactics?' This is what usaeyes.info says about Glenn Hagele *personally*. I believe those words would be a WP:BLP violation if published on Wikipedia. It is especially relevant that usaeyes.info is a self-published personal site and there are no reliable sources provided for the criticism of Hagele. Some of that site's criticism of the Council could, of course, actually be *true*, but none of the words I just quoted about Hagele are verifiable in the sense that Wikipedia needs. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the other concerns discussed above, I don't see any justification for any of the external links under "Government Testimony" and "News" to remain. Those links only serve a promotional purpose in this article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd encourage you to go ahead and remove those sections. It would be helpful to have a person who is new to the situation make some improvements to the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do that and see if I can give the whole article a review tonight or so. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate an independent and unbiased review of the article, especially in light of the vandalism receive recently. I submit that the links to FDA testimony and news articles that include reference to the organization are appropriate and they are not for promotional purposes. The FDA testimonly shows patient advocacy activities of the organization. None of the news articles are published by the organization itself, but are by respected publications ranging from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post to NPR. If anything, they promote the news media to which they are linked, not the subject of the article. ghagele —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
The news articles don't comment on the effectiveness of CRSQA in carrying out its announced mission. The articles just show that the director, Glenn Hagele, is considered interesting enough to be interviewed for the given article. The articles don't contain actual content that improves our understanding of what CRSQA does, since those reporters really aren't interviewing anyone on that topic. They are just getting an opinion from its director about current trends in refractive surgery. EdJohnston (talk) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)