Misplaced Pages

• You whitewash by using overly-technical language * *,
• overuse non-neutral, non-independent government sources such as the FDA and NICE *
• to whitewash information about serious side-effects * *.
• You use packet inserts * from drug companies as a reference.
• You remove large sections of negative information citing RS problems *, and leave the reader with muddled text supposedly saying the same thing, but actually devoid of readable content, except to a scientist *.
• You removed negative info about Abilify, and the link to List of largest pharmaceutical settlements with the edit summary "Aripiprazole - not an antidepressant" *.
• You seem to be removing links to people who don't hold your views: "neither Kramer's view nor those of Breggin/Healy POV is mainstream. Undue wt to outlying viewpoints" * You admit you are wrong *, but a month later you remove them anyway with the edit summary "adjust per WP:ELPOV" *.
• You say nothing to correct Jytdog when he removes from the article any mention of "withdrawl", opting for industry speak, "Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and forgoing an introductory sentence altogether *.
• You remove* the fact that 80% of each drug passes through the body without being broken down, saying that it was not in the refs cited, yet I find in the citation: The use of antidepressants has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, says Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello. Around 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down, and so they are present in waste water.*.
• You remove the arguments of opponents, saying "This is just a letter to the editor" *.
• You removed this saying, "Fluoxetine is exceted from humans unchanged or as glucuronide" - cited ref doesn't say that, and package insert contradicts this statement". The first sentence of the cited ref says Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant and high-prescription-volume drug, is excreted unchanged or as a glucuronide from the human organism. You are corrected here *, and decide to spin it, imo, here adding this source.

• You whitewash by using overly-technical language * *,

In the first example I'm having a little trouble understanding why you think the new language is more technical or less critical than the original. In the second I replaced a straw man argument ("Lilly is proud of its accomplishments") with a meta analysis. Not sure why you would have a problem with this.

• overuse non-neutral, non-independent government sources such as the FDA and NICE *

The FDA and NICE are recognized as high quality sources by WP:MEDRS. If you don't think they are appropriate, the appropriate response is to seek consensus to modify that document. As it stands now, you're criticizing me for following established Misplaced Pages Guidelines.

• to whitewash information about serious side-effects * *.

Again, these changes were sourced to WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Do you have an alternate reliable source that states that this information is not accurate? Here again, your problem does not appear to be with me, but with WP:MEDRS

• You use packet inserts * from drug companies as a reference.

The package inserts are reviewed and approved by the FDA. In fact, the language of the FD&C act specifically states that the FDA approves labels and not drugs per se. They are essentially FDA documents.

• You remove large sections of negative information citing RS problems *, and leave the reader with muddled text supposedly saying the same thing, but actually devoid of readable content, except to a scientist *.

The information about spontaneous abortions was discussed in two different places in the article, one using high quality sources and one using low quality. I deleted the later for redundancy. The article still stated that there was a 1.7x increased risk after my edit, and it was better organized. No information about AEs was removed.

• You removed negative info about Abilify, and the link to List of largest pharmaceutical settlements with the edit summary "Aripiprazole - not an antidepressant" *.

The title of the article is "Antidepressants". The discussion of the off-label marketing of an antipsychotic drug belongs in the article on Abilify or the article on antipsychotics, but is out of place here.

• You seem to be removing links to people who don't hold your views: "neither Kramer's view nor those of Breggin/Healy POV is mainstream. Undue wt to outlying viewpoints" * You admit you are wrong *, but a month later you remove them anyway with the edit summary "adjust per WP:ELPOV" *.

Yes, I changed my mind twice. I think this shows that I do make an effort to do the right thing.

• You say nothing to correct Jytdog when he removes from the article any mention of "withdrawl", opting for industry speak, "Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and forgoing an introductory sentence altogether *.

I had no opinion on this. Lots of people did not comment on it.

• You remove* the fact that 80% of each drug passes through the body without being broken down, saying that it was not in the refs cited, yet I find in the citation: The use of antidepressants has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, says Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello. Around 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down, and so they are present in waste water.*.

Its clearly not true that one can make broad statements about every drug in an entire therapeutic class being excreted unchanged to the same extent, and the non-MEDRS compliant source used for the 80% figure doesn't even support that number. I took Prozac-specific information from the package insert, and the editor whose content I changed agreed that it was an appropriate source.

• You remove the arguments of opponents, saying "This is just a letter to the editor" *.

Please review WP:MEDRS. This was nothing more than a statement of opinion, being presented as established medical fact. Again, your problem seems to be with WP:MEDRS, which does not allow these types of statements about health-related topics to be sourced to editorials.

• You removed this saying, "Fluoxetine is exceted from humans unchanged or as glucuronide" - cited ref doesn't say that, and package insert contradicts this statement". The first sentence of the cited ref says Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant and high-prescription-volume drug, is excreted unchanged or as a glucuronide from the human organism. You are corrected here *, and decide to spin it, imo, here adding this source.

I no longer have access to the article cited here, but the package insert clearly states that " The primary route of elimination appears to be hepatic metabolism to inactive metabolites excreted by the kidney.", e.g, it is not eliminated unchanged. Note that the "spin version" that you cite says that less than 10% is eliminated unchanged. This is in agreement with my edit, and directly contradicts the sentence that I changed. I'm not sure how you came up with this as an example of a problematic edit.

• comment - the personal nature of the comments above, are a great demonstration of why this essay should not exist, but should be salted. this is exactly how accusations of COI are used inappropriately in WP - as a personalization of disputes over content. enforcement of the COI guideline needs to be done carefully, not wildly, and not carried on like this in whatever forum pops up, which just becomes harassment and campaigning. This is not what WP is about. See the Arbcom cases: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV that was about harassment, and the very controversial case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal about the intersection of paid editing and outing (and harassment more generally), and the more recent case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Add those up, and you get that campaigning with accusations of COI gets nothing done, is harmful to the encyclopedia, and can get you banned for harassment more broadly and outing more specifically. we do not want to encourage that. we have a process to deal with COI and to deal with advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC) (amend Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC))

Add those up and you get nothing. The cases you cite are completely unrelated and don't have the slightest thing to do with this essay. What they do indicate is that it is very difficult to get rid of adminitrators who misbehave, it takes an arbcom case, but that has nothing to do with this essay. The purpose of this essay is to make it easier to identify and act against COI. I happen to feel that this essay doesn't really help in dealing with that issue, but I do feel that is a genuine concern that needs to be addressed, not some kind of scumbucket activity that needs to be "salted" as you put it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

note - this conversation was picked up in the comments section below. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It took under 5 minutes to begin to find more tendentious edits by Formerly98, this time to Johnson & Johnson

• Removes "Vaginal Mesh Lawsuits" with the edit summary "1) fails WP:RS, 2) This is a $300B, 130 year old company. Including the settlement of 4 lawsuits for undisclosed terms is WP:UNDUE" on 28 January 2015. In one Google search, I find Johnson & Johnson to settle four cases over vaginal-mesh implants dated 22 January 2015

• Criticism removed for 'lack of notability'

• Removes paragraph from lead which includes a summary of criticism (once) found in the article, saying "remove WP:Peacock and unsourced material from lede". Note that WP:LEDE does not require 'sourcing' as it is expected to be found in the body.

• Adds content about company sourced almost entirely from primary sources and the FDA, or no source at all (see here.

• Removes more criticism with "2010 Hip replacement recall: Quoting the plantiff's attorneys without giving equal space to a company quote? Seriously? Deleted. WP:NPOV" - as opposed to adding Company statement. petrarchan47tc 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Petra, this is not the appropriate place for you to generate an an endless list of edits that you disagree with and demand that I defend myself against your accusations of bad faith editing. The edits can be discussed in terms of sources and content on the article talk page. The appropriate place to discuss editor behavior is ANI, but we have already done that and you were not able to get consensus for your point of view, so that conversation is over. I therefore respectfully request that you focus on the essay that we are here to discuss. I'm happy to discuss my edits to the JNJ article on the Talk page of that article. Formerly 98 02:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the perfect place to show, for example, that pro-pharma spin doctoring is taking place, and that there is a tremendous amount of energy spent defending, denying and ignoring this activity in response. It's no conspiracy theory, the evidence is clear to anyone willing to look. Special interest spin doctoring hurts the articles regardless of the impetus behind it (COI or personal passion). I wonder why no one seems willing to objectively view the actual edits, since article content is the only thing that really matters. Strange. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and sprinkle extra salt. Trout and/or block editors for supporting nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Redddbaron (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep The essay articulates a common problem. There should be more dialogue at Misplaced Pages, not less. Differences of opinion are normal and natural. Misplaced Pages should be embracing dissension. I'm sorry to be so jaundiced but this essay represents a positive, not a negative, contribution. We should be thinking of ourselves as a "slow moving" institution. Quality is associated with time in my opinion. Our articles should be the product of extended dialogue if valid disagreements persist. Misplaced Pages does not thrive on politics. Misplaced Pages thrives on freethinking individuals who bring sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• strong keep Amazing, the opposers are identifying with the COI ducks (If the shoe fits—wear it!). Further, the essay clearly says the opposite of what the OP stated, “In general, edits that are justified in terms of maintaining WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VERIFY, or WP:OR are not to be taken seriously, but are rather evidence of the COI of the other editor.” Particularly note the actual essay statement: “MEDRS is a content guideline that is highly respected by the community. Read it, learn it, know it.”--Pekay2 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like it a lot better if it said "respect and follow it" instead of stating that one should get to know it because others respect it and suggesting that edits justified by its requirements are indicative of an undisclosed COI. Formerly 98 21:18, 4 April 2015

This is nits and lice, not advancing the conversation. PS: Our comments belong in the section below.--Pekay2 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)(UTC)

I don't think its nits and lice at all. The essay repeatedly states that making edits on the basis of MEDRS, RS, OR, or BLP requirements is evidence that the editor in question has an undisclosed COI. With respect to MEDRS, it then exhorts the reader to "read it, learn it, and know it" because it is "respected by the community". This reads like political advice, and can hardly be interpreted as endorsing MEDRS given the statements that preceeded it.

The bottom line is that this essay is a rebellion against multiple Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines undertaken by other means because the authors did not feel they could successfully challenge these policies and guidelines head on. What it attempts to do instead is raise doubts about the motives of those who attempt to apply them. Formerly 98 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, the bottom line is that editors who apply WP:PAG properly have no reason to be concerned over this essay. Your recommendation to respect and follow it is a demand that goes beyond what WP expects from its editors. See WP:PAG wherein it states: Although Misplaced Pages does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Misplaced Pages policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Also see WP:FATRAT. The only rebellion I see stems from what appears to be an effort to impose certain demands on editors that our policies don't even expect. Behavior is what is actionable, and that is where the problem lies. You talk-the-talk about following guidelines, yet you ignored guidelines when you initiated this MfD when failed to discuss trying to make improvements beforehand which created a battleground situation, and you continue to do so. Issues arise when an editor tries to spin PAGs in order to gain advantage, so if you truly believe you have never done such a thing, you have nothing to be concerned about. The essay describes behavioral issues, supports civility and recommends options for remedies. Atsme☯ 13:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You obviously feel that the sourcing and no original research guidelines are being used to drive an agenda. The answer to this problem, if it exists, is not to undermine Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines that have have been established by broad community consensus, but to act within them.

• If an editor removes poorly sourced information that supports your position, find a WP:RS or WP:MEDRS supporting the information and re-add it.
• If you can't find such a source, it doesn't belong in the article. And its absence will not affect WP:NPOV for the simple reason that NPOV is defined by the prominence of POVs in reliable sources. If there is no reliable source for the information, it is not relevant to NPOV. Its really quite simple.

Formerly 98 14:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Stop assuming because it leads to faulty conclusions. The essay under the section Analyze your edits states There actually exists the possibility your edit was improper which caused the revert. Read the edit summary objectively and consider the following: which includes a list of 5 suggestions, two of which clearly state: Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false? and also Is the topic of the article about health or science which requires closer attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines? I am now beginning to wonder, did you actually read the essay? Atsme☯ 15:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. The following is highly problematic:

A few common criticisms in edit summary reverts by advocates include

• unsourced or poorly sourced, see MEDRS
• trivial mention, nobody cares
• hell no, POV
• whitewashing quackery, see Fringe/PS
• unproven, need RS
• no consensus, discuss on TP
• no OR
• not supported by source

You're directly advising editors to regard guideline-based edits as evidence of COI. If you don't understand why that is unacceptable I don't know how to begin explaining it to you.

Formerly 98 15:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not - another assumption based on what...misapprehension of the essay? It's easy enough to improve upon it. Let's not forget, you initiated this MfD without any prior discussion, and some of the things that were pointed out here are easy fixes. The essay is a step by step procedure, not based on one list. Stop cherrypicking. Atsme☯ 20:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The list is valid: My interpretation is that she is talking about WP:tendentious edits/reverts, that come rapidly to prevent well sourced material from getting in, often without any real discussion on the talk page, using what appears to be valid reasons but are used only to obstruct valid material from inclusion. I have certainly seen that. If the essay does not make it clear that it is in connection with WP:tendentious, then maybe it is worth adding that and referring to that Essay. David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - no need to make a merged version of WP:COI with WP:DUCK. Ducks are just obvious socks, so I don't see any sense with this. --TL22 (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Socks are one person acting as multiple people - can you link to the passages that led you to believe the essay is about socks? That need to be changed; unless I'm mistaken, this is not about sockpuppeting. petrarchan47tc 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete and salt. The current version appears to be rather rant like language rather than a guidance essay. The overarching problem that leads me to delete though is the premise of the article, which violates WP:COI and other polices. We make it very clear there that editors are to bring forward evidence of actual COI or suspicion of it at WP:COIN to discuss it with the community rather than engage in this behavior. If an editor suspects a COI, that is explained here where we do not use WP:ASPERSIONS about COI as a trump card in content disputes. Evidence is still required in that case though. The heart of this essay flies in the face of that, WP:AGF, and not casting aspersions. This essay could be used as an example of behavior note to follow when dealing with COI, but I'm just seeing WP:BEANS. If there isn't clear evidence of COI editors can bring to COIN, there can be the potential for WP:ADVOCACY going on, but that is found through consistent evidence of violating WP:NPOV and is further. Given that WP:ADVOCACY explains how to deal with that, I don’t see any room for this essay. I'll agree with QuackGuru, especially after looking at some of the writers' histories and supporters here that this appears to be WP:POINTY behavior and shouldn't be entertained. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The policy cited above does not take into account the recent WifiOne case described here. The policy needs to be adjusted to guide users how to properly prepare an ArbCom case or better bring a case at a lower Wiki-court so as not to put all the burden on ArbCom to adjudicate these cases. I believe discussion is currently taking place to address the new change of circumstances on the COI talk page as requested by @SlimVirgin:. David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete I asked the author, @Atsme: if s/he had ever encountered a confirmed instance of COI on Misplaced Pages before. The answer, on my Talk page, is here: . Geogene (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And? Why are you trying to make this about me? Read the KEEP arguments here if you need encounters. Also see Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks, User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery where such discussions belong, not on your TP. Atsme☯ 13:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • As one who took part in the creation of the essay, I have indeed worked on a page with a confirmed COI. The essay, however, is not about confirming an editor's offline employment status. It's about addressing certain behaviours that are skewing the articles and driving editors from the Project. petrarchan47tc 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete This seems to be a rant about something, but it's more about content disagreements than the kind of problems that come up at WP:COIN. I often work on WP:COIN problems. Most of the problems there relate to promotion of bands/DJs/indie films/companies/products, with the occasional biographical self-promotion. Nothing in the essay helps with such issues. Nice pictures, though. John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and edit mercilessly. I strongly dislike this essay in its current form, but there are several essays that I dislike more. I am happy to have a range of essays that reflect diverse opinions. Yes, this article seems to mingle advocacy, and group advocacy, with conflict of interest. However there is a germ of truth and need for a discussion and essay to identify the quacks that identify conflict of interest edits, so that those edits can be tagged or reverted. In other words, COI cases convince me that COI ducks exist, but this essay isn't yet ready to help editors detect them. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep When there are problems its best not to stick your head in the sand and pretend they dont exist, or fight against the possibility that a problem exists. Thats called denial. The essay is a start at identifying a problem that I believe exists as do a lot of editors. Its a start, and like lots of starts on Misplaced Pages could use improvement, thats what we do on Misplaced Pages. We improve whats been started by others if there is good reason to keep the information. In this case there is good reason, anything that helps identify problems, that makes WP stronger and better is needed. It is at least the opinion of a minority as the essay banner allows minority opinions, I find nothing wrong with keeping it, or a reason to delete it. Removal should hinge on a finding that is not at least a minority opinion. Efforts toward rooting out COI and other things that harm WP should be a top priority, not tossed in the trash can. AlbinoFerret 10:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep - We obviously have a COI problem here, so an essay that deals with COI ducks would be highly desirable. Any debate about specific content in this essay should be done on its talk page, not here. -A1candidate 12:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

We have numeorus essays on how to identify and handle COI. What are COI ducks? The definition is incoherent. Can you give an example of an article where this essay legitimately characterises the issues and offers a productive way forward? To my reading it offers no useful policy-based guidance at all. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Guy, here is where the essay was requested, and here is the link to the conversation where the concept originated. Note in particular:

Sarah (SV): "Jytdog, this is at least the third editor (EllenCT, David Tornheim, DePiep) for whom you and Kingofaces43 have sought topic bans or blocks, after the editor expressed concern about pro-industry COI editing. Yet I know you've been concerned about COI yourself and its impact on WP. We're already hamstrung because of OUTING. It means editors often can't produce the evidence, but if they express concern without evidence, someone will seek a block. What can be done about this?"

BoboMeowCat: "I think Sarah (SV) raises an important question here regarding COI concerns and what can be done about this. It seems one potential way to deal with this would be for ANI to differentiate between COI concerns raised as vicious allegation/personal attack vs civil reasonable COI concerns backed up by diffs. For example, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” vs someone saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”."

Sarah (SV): "We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point." petrarchan47tc 19:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't care This essay isn't especially well-developed. For example, "COI ducks will abuse PAG, particularly MEDRS and FRINGE guidelines if they believe they can gain advantage by preventing negative material from being included in the article" forgets that people with conflicts of interest abuse policies and guidelines to prevent positive material from being added, too. It sounds like the real dispute that prompted this is that someone forgot that "being an expert" (e.g., having a PhD in chemistry) isn't a COI, excalty like "being a patient who believes that the cure for cancer can be bought at a health food website" isn't a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Userfy - there are a lot of article-for-hire users nowadays and an essay about identifying their wares is potentially useful. It isn't there yet, but there's potential here. --B (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Since I edit areas of fringe science and alt med with respect to our policies, this essay says that it's very likely I'm being paid by big pharma. While that's funny, how can I collaborate with this editor, or any editor who sees his essay, when they believe pointing to policy pages is disruptive? The author can have his opinions, and even share them in his user space if he desires, but we should not allow essays in the same space as our policies and guidelines that are the very definition of poisoning the well. Collaboration is impossible if we turn our talk pages into a witch hunt for pharma shills. Ironically, this essay hurts the editors the author is trying to help; instead of learning our policies and collaborating, they are being encouraged to edit tendentiously against consensus, which will lead to nothing but sanctions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep. Remember what it says at the top of the page:

Reasons to keep:

1. Comments above which object to "incoherence" or refer to this essay as a "coatrack" — "a coatrack article is a Misplaced Pages article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects" — miss the point of an essay, in which focused discussion of one issue is completely appropriate. That these comments furthermore prove the author's point by invoking a barrage of inapplicable policies is of secondary importance.
2. The original nominator badly mischaracterizes the essay itself, which obviously argues that policies are being abused, not that they should be ignored. The text asks readers to carefully consider Misplaced Pages policies before speculating about an editor's conflict of interest, and carefully refers to "abus" and "unwarranted" use of policy to clarify that not all uses are problematic. The essay's attitude on this issue is completely unambigous.
3. Widely known existing essays such as Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering (also see: Misplaced Pages:Policy shopping and Misplaced Pages:Gaming the system) discuss the abuse of rules in a similar fashion to the essay under discussion—and indeed one of Misplaced Pages's most historically popular policies, Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules, actually epitomizes the thoughtcrime of which Atsme now stands accused.

Happy Easter, groupuscule (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• P.S., reason #4 to keep the essay: The nominator's bottom line is that the essay "encourages disruptive editing behavior". Incitement to actual disruption is the only plausible reason for deletion, since we have a strong presumption that people can express different points of views on essay pages. Anyone who has read the essay itself, in addition to the nominator's summary, can tell that it does not "encourage disruptive editing behavior"—quite plainly, it does the opposite, encouraging beducked editors to "avoid confrontation"; to "maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness"; and maybe even to "sit quietly and learn by observation". Atsme has now added the advice, "Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring" These suggestions encourage the opposite of "disruptive editing behavior". In fact they encourage cautious and respectful editing behavior (perhaps more so than do some of the essay and guideline pages concerning medical sources). groupuscule (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Problems on multiple levels, but basically gives bad advice to editors. Conflates multiple related but distinct issues (COI, advocacy, group editing, etc) in a way that will make things worse for the reader to correctly understand and act on any significant issues. Would also have the underappreciated and inflammatory effect of causing people to accuse others of COI editing for unsubstantiated reasons - this needs to be stamped out, not promoted as this essay would do. I also think the point raised above, that the author has not actually encountered any real episodes of COI editing makes this essay somewhat of a solution in search of a problem, at least as framed by the author (COI is a problem, the presentation and solutions presented are likely to cause more harm than good). A net negative for Misplaced Pages, and conflicts with existing policies and guidelines, so needs to go. Yobol (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Should there be an essay instructing editors to avoid good faith and inculcating them in a battleground approach to editting? No. Delete and salt. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete If I believed that the essay could be salvaged, I would either edit it myself or propose changes on the talk page. However, the notion that citing widely respected policies and guidelines is evidence, in any way, that an editor's conflict of interest is out of control is so wrongheaded that I see this essay as fatally flawed. I believe that every editor has a variety of conflicts of interest, and that the mark of a productive editor is the ability to consciously place the improvement and best interests of the encyclopedia above their own personal interests. We should not keep essays that are divisive and that encourage battleground behavior. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete long and rambling rant about nothing with tenuous if not nonexistent connection to policy. Also, the way that this MFD page has been organized is rather poor. KonveyorBelt 20:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as an approval, enshrinement, and adulation of blatant assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks based on editors' personal POV. Shared POV does not even slightly prove any concerted tag team editing, and favorable POV does not even slightly prove any type of favorable COI connection with the topic. The converse would also apply to the accuser, rendering their argument nonsensical. This applies both ways, which is why we don't allow it.

This essay is an exercise in extreme bad faith and should not only be deleted, but the creator sanctioned. They must stop throwing around these nonsensical accusations. NPA is a policy. Why is the creator not blocked for continual violations of this policy? We can't allow essays that seek to undermine policy in such a blatant manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as fundamentally contrary to established policies and guidelines, as inherently bad-faith, and as utterly confused as to what COI actually means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete The essay is a garbled mess from start to finish. It documents and seeks to legitimize a toxic editing approach that would casually elevate a good faith content dispute to baseless accusations of COI and willful POV disruption. It needs to be deleted lest inexperienced editors stumble on it and take its advice. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete -- in addition to the many specific concerns addressed above, the basic problem is that the essay will not enhance editors' abilities to improve the encyclopedia -- quite the contrary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

COMMENTS

• Comment - this MfD request is a knee jerk reaction by its opponents considering the request was initiated the same day the essay was added to mainspace, and without any prior discussion with its author or other editors involved in its creation. To my knowledge as creator of this essay, there has not been any GF attempts to improve the article by any of those who are now criticizing it, most of which is unwarranted blanket criticism that lacks the quality needed to delete the work of another editor. One of the first questions our deletion guidelines ask is if there were any attempts to improve the article? The answer is clearly a resounding no with regards to its opponents. I also ask that any editor who participates in this survey to please make known potential COI with any of the topics mentioned in the essay. What I'm seeing now is a beehive attack with unwarranted blanket statements of criticism, some of which are not even supported in the essay, and are clearly POV. When statements like this appear on the TP of an article that is heavily debated, it justifies the need for this essay and the clarity it brings to the issues. There is a recurring problem on WP as the essay brings to light. It did not just appear in mainspace without extensive discussion as implied in some of the comments above. In fact, the essay was born on the Talk Page of (SV) beginning here: March 30, 2015 and continued through a lengthy discussion with a break here: and continued for a few days thereafter. The content was also open to discussion while in my sandbox prior to coming to mainspace User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery. Coretheapple, you were actually pinged during the discussions here . The broad brush approach you mentioned here is actually more descriptive of the beehive approach we are experiencing here now. Atsme☯ 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that there is nothing about the article that is salvagable, as it consists mainly of encouraging violations of WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS, along with encouraging editors to treat edits that are explained in terms of compliance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines with skepticism. The central thrust of the essay is at loggerheads with the Pillars of Misplaced Pages. Formerly 98 16:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That discussion had pretty well petered out by the time I read it, and was well into tl;dr status. I think that you need to focus it better. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No. The discussion on the essay was continuing yesterday before this AfD and continues today, taking place on the talk page of the essay, on the talk page of the sandbox of it and on SlimVirgin's talk page--it probably would be better to consolidate those discussions. I don't understand the tl;dr issue. The essay is pretty short compared to many of the Misplaced Pages policies and Guidelines and other essays I have read. As for discussion about the essay, it is indeed long but a very productive discussion--that does not suggest that it is petered out, but instead that more work is to be done to find solutions to the COI problems this essay is here to address. Brainstorming is still going on and that is a healthy response to COI problems. However, I do agree the first two paragraphs of the essay need work and I expressed that on one of the talk pages.David Tornheim (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Core, your input would be greatly appreciated at the essay's TP. I am happy to discuss improvements with you and any other editor who is demonstrating GF. While the essay may not be FA material, it does cover several of the points at issue, many of which have been mentioned in other essays and guidelines such as WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX. There are numerous diffs to demonstrate the problems that keep occurring for the same reasons, but I am loath to include even half of them as they would fill a page. Some of the issues can be seen at SV's TP as I explained above, others at Petra's, and another example is here . In fact, Jytdog's comment in this survey is a behavioral issue resulting in his advocacy I just issued a warning over at SV's TP and his own TP as it casts aspersions against me with diffs that do not support his argument, and provides misinformation to seek advantage in this survey. The game play couldn't be more obvious. Atsme☯ 16:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

as i asked you at SV's page, please point out anything specific there, that is not accurate, and i'll be be happy to strike it. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do not mention or discuss a fellow Wikipedian without a ping - herewith a ping for @User:SlimVirgin. Thanks for your attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing, Jytdog. Read my comments at Sarah (SV)...T-H-E . W-H-O-L-E . T-H-I-N-G. Atsme☯ 21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

responded there, as did you. i just replied to you here above, since you commented here. best we keep it in one place. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• DrChrissy, about your !vote above. This essay is meant to describe how to identify an editor with a conflict of interest, and what to do when you identify one. Per the many "delete" votes above, the essay is not about that. It does describe the frustration of having policy cited against you when you are not getting consensus for changes you want to make, and I think that is what you reacted to. For examples of the kinds of problems the essay was supposed to help address (namely, paid editing), please see Conflict-of-interest editing on Misplaced Pages. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (struck Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC))
• @Jytdog Less than a week ago you were warned at an ANI I raised about your incivility toward me. Why have you now singled me out with the comment above that bellitles me and suggests I do not know what I am doing. You are being uncivil to me again and I am requesting that you strike your comment above and post an apology here.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took that as uncivil of me. It wasn't intended that way nor was it on the surface, but I am sorry you took it that way. I will strike it. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It damn well was "on the surface". Why did you post the message to me (given the recent ANI I raised against you) ,and only me, and not the other several editors supporting this essay? By the way, I do not take "I'm sorry you took that as uncivil of me" as a sincere apology - I am asking for you to take responsibility of your behaviour and your edits, not apologise for the way I interpreted them. To other editors - apologies this is being discussed here, but Jtydog has asked me not to contact them on their Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

cursing! my goodness. your comment didn't seem to deal with COI at all. I am sorry that i somehow missed that it did. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Other editors supporting the essay also did not comment on the COI aspect either. Why did you not send them the same or similar message?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This is getting off topic and I respectfully request that you both take this conversation to one or both of your user pages. Formerly 98 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow...that was a sudden closure!__DrChrissy (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

While I understand your frustration, DrChrissy, the OP did the right thing by hatting it. We need to stay focused on the essay. Also, I would very much appreciate it if you would initiate a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks that we can expound upon (without naming names) in an effort to help remedy some of the problems editors encounter based on your experiences. Thank you, kindly. Atsme☯ 13:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure can. Can I clarify, I can use diffs to illustrate behaviour, but not mention names? Is that correct?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I recommend against it because it's always best to avoid potential misunderstandings that could lead to allegations of WP:PA which states: ...discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). An essay would not be the appropriate forum. Atsme☯ 15:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This essay and several of the threads of discussion relate to use and misuse of WP:MEDRS. Looking back at an edit history of an article, I was amazed to see the following edit summary of an editor who I have had suspicions about WP:COI and WP:TAGTEAM. The edit summary was "paraphrase the review article if we're going to have this at all, but doesn't WP:MEDRS indicate we shouldn't be using animal evidence to implicate health effects in humans at all". If WP:MEDRS can be (mis)interpreted in this way, it seriously needs looking at. This essay is correct to be drawing attention to it.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh? Why? It is normal to be extremely cautious about extending animal models to potential use in humans. Animal models are pre-clinical, there are two or three tiers of human trials to go through before safety and efficacy is established. This is absolutely standard: animal physiology is different from human, after all. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps more importantly, the appropriate response would be to raise that discussion at the MEDRS page rather than to assume that the editor who left that comment has a COI. Formerly 98 17:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@JzG I appreciate what you are saying. The circumstances of the edit summary was that a study on animals had indicated that problems ocurred in lab mice if a certain food was eaten. To the best of my knowledge, no clinical trials using humans has been attempted, however, there was a quote from a secondary source that there might be a connection. My concern with the edit summary was really motivated by the words in bold - "we shouldn't be using animal evidence to implicate health effects in humans at all__DrChrissy (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98 I think you might be slightly missing my point. This essay is about the behaviour of some editors towards other editors. By leaving such an imposing edit summary, other editors are confused into thinking there is a grand WP policy about not using animal studies as evidence in their edits. Not only is this not a policy, but it does not argue that animal studies should not be used "at all". This discussion is relevant to the essay because the essay also identifes the (attempted) misuse of MEDRS.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And this is a perfect example of why this essay is so pernicious. By its precepts this very good edit by Zad68 means he is now on the receiving end of "suspicions about WP:COI and WP:TAGTEAM" by DrChrissy. If this kind of thing takes hold, then truly the lunatics will be running the asylum. DrChrissy—have you ever even so much as read WP:COI? (Add: and, for anybody not aware, in Zad68 we're talking about one of the community's most esteemed contributors, not some newbie.) Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt that some people misapply MEDRS, and in fact I have alway argued in favor of using animal data to support toxicology conclusion (its where most of our carcinogenity and repro tox data comes from), provided it is a secondary source and that it is not used to contradict high quality human data. What the current essay does is to attribute any such misunderstanding or misuse of the rules to COI. That's reaching way too far.

I routinely run into editors who add material to articles based on what I believe to be an extreme interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source. I could readily assume that they are simply acting dishonestly and drag them into ANI for advocacy. But doing so is unpleasant and unnecessary. I try to reason with them, and if that doesn't work, an RFC will bring in a broader range of editors to offer opinions. I have never considered writing an essay that suggests that anyone who cites "The Death to Capitalism Blog" is acting dishonestly, is deliberately trying to manipulate the encyclopedia. and should not be dealt with in as collaborative fashion as possible. It is very frustrating to deal with people who disagree with you, and even those whose opinions seem incomprehensible. But it is not reasonable to assume they are acting in bad faith simply because they disagree with you.

There are exceptions. I recently reported a suspected COI case when an editor on a major pharmaceutical company article was adding a lot of fluff and peacock language and had a username that was based on the company's former name. I deleted the offensive edits, and reported the situation to an admin. The case was then taken up to COIN. It doesn't seem complicated and doesn't seem to require assuming bad faith in every content dispute. Formerly 98 18:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• above, i wrote a comment, and Coretheapple replied. I am copying the two comments here, and then replying, to avoid cluttering up the survey section.

comment - the personal nature of the comments above, are a great demonstration of why this essay should not exist, but should be salted. this is exactly how accusations of COI are used inappropriately in WP - as a personalization of disputes over content. enforcement of the COI guideline needs to be done carefully, not wildly, and not carried on like this in whatever forum pops up, which just becomes harassment and campaigning. This is not what WP is about. See the Arbcom cases: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV that was about harassment, and the very controversial case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal about the intersection of paid editing and outing (and harassment more generally), and the more recent case Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Add those up, and you get that campaigning with accusations of COI gets nothing done, is harmful to the encyclopedia, and can get you banned for harassment more broadly and outing more specifically. we do not want to encourage that. we have a process to deal with COI and to deal with advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Add those up and you get nothing. The cases you cite are completely unrelated and don't have the slightest thing to do with this essay. What they do indicate is that it is very difficult to get rid of adminitrators who misbehave, it takes an arbcom case, but that has nothing to do with this essay. The purpose of this essay is to make it easier to identify and act against COI. I happen to feel that this essay doesn't really help in dealing with that issue, but I do feel that is a genuine issue that needs to be confronted, not some kind of scumbucket activity that needs to be "salted" as you put it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so replying. Core, I think you maybe skipped over the first sentence (which was too condensed, I think) so I am going to expand on that, to help make sense of how i got to the Arbcom thing. please bear with me. please. The Arbcom related stuff, is about what is likely to happen if people read this essay and follow it. It is about consequences of this essay.

The way this essay is written, it is something to be used to argue against the application of policy in content disputes. It actually says nothing about how to tell specifically when an editor may be editing under a COI. It doesn't even give concrete signs of Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing. It is just about what it is like to fail to gain consensus for your view, when several other editors cite policy against you and don't agree with you. Think about that. If you are in that situation, most of the time you are wrong. And people who are in that situation, are often new or inexperienced editors who are upset. This essay offers itself as a claim you can make against those other editors - namely "COI duck!" It invites its use, as a way to personalize disputes, and encourages and further confuses editors to act badly.

Besides not giving any guidance about what a "COI duck" actually quacks like, there are two other fatal flaws with it.

• Really importantly, at no point does it advise the user that he or she may be wrong on the content issue and/or on their assumption that the other editor may have a COI. Yikes! With anything involved with COI, it is really important to know, and act as if, the the COI is only a possibility unless the other editor actually discloses something. And if you look at all of the good essays about content disputes, they all call for self-reflection and the possibility that you, not the other editor, are wrong.
• Possibly more importantly, at no point does it advise the editor to take the issue to the community at COIN or ANI. It leaves editors who read and swallow it, perfectly set up to convince themselves that the other editors are conflicted and corrupt, and that they are alone. The rest of the way down that road, (where you are already convinced that you were right and good and the other editors were wrong and corrupt) is either giving up in despair, or taking up the sword and harassing those editors as actually being conflicted. None of that is good for the one who takes this to heart, and neither is good for the community.

Now we are at the place where Arbcom comes in. But what i just wrote above, are where I think editors who read this and believe it, are likely to end up - harassing other editors with claims of COI.

• The first Arbcom case i cited, is a) what it is like to be harassed and b) clarity that harassment is bannable
• The second Arbcom case i cited, is even more on point. Like I said, very controversial and a lot of people have been bitterly disappointed with it. But what happened there (as best I can tell, and only with regard to WBB) was that WBB was really convinced that another editor was a paid advocate, and went after that editor, all over the place (respecting OUTING for the most part) and finally emailing confidential OUTING stuff to Jimbo and Arbcom. Arbcom found some of it compelling, but some of it wrong (!) and ended up banning WBB for violating NPA and harassment. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Will_Beback:_conduct_issues. (I may have some of that wrong, and i recognize i might make some people angry for getting that wrong. I wasn't around then, and apologize if i am misinterpreting something. I do understand that this is very sensitive) My point in bringing this in - is that even in this case - pursuing somebody with claims of COI on that basis (and where i think a good chunk of the community believed WBB to correct) - does not lead to a good end. WBB didn't get what he wanted, and he got site banned, and the whole community was incredibly roiled. Not good for anybody. Remember -- there is no consensus in WP that paid editing is against any policy. And Abcom has said clearly that they do not make policy - they only enforce it. I don't like that paid editing is not against policy but that is what it is. You have to deal with reality if you want to get anything done.
• The third Arbcom case is Wifione, where the community finally got it right on how to deal with paid editing. The model is established. You can only nail a paid editor, by identifying a long-term pattern of edits that violate NPOV. yes that is messy, and yes it is hard to gather that evidence, but that is what it takes in the WP that actually exists. And "COI duck" does not help people get there, at all. Instead, it leads editors who buy into it, down a path that harms the community and themselves - it leads them in the wrong direction, on several levels.

there you go. Way too long, but i really wanted to explain. sorry for the length. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC) (striking first case, per Core's comments below. he is correct that this did not ban an editor for harrassing. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC))

2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.

The RfC in question went nowhere. However, the issue itself has not gone away, and note this passage from the finding quoted above: Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed. That's what this essay is seeking to do. I don't think it does so effectively, and I think the essay creator is well advised to go back and do this again more deliberately. But I don't think deleting and salting and then scorching the earth with a flame-thrower and neutron bomb is the answer. As for QuackGuru's comment below, I think his implication is unwarranted and certainly I'm anything but pro-quackery. In fact I first found myself interested in this whole topic area when I encountered paid advocates from a nutritional supplements company. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you for correcting me on the Cla case - not relevant and i have struck it. sorry about that. I think you are dismissing the Wifione case too quickly... we nailed a long term editor about whom there was significant unease in the community for a long time. we have a model now.' That is huge in my view.

but turning to what you see as important.... the thing you cite from the 2nd case, - behavior - is what matters. I agree 100%. (and it is exactly what finally happened in the third case. it is so strange to me that you don't see that The third flows beautifully from the 2nd, in terms of the deep logic of what the community actually has consensus for.)

finally. and i have to thank you talking simply and directly with me - I do agree that an essay on identifying typical behaviors of conflicted editors could be quite valuable. Could be. A good essay on identifying conflicted editors would offer very clear points on what COI editing often looks like, and have tons of caution about not being too certain, (especially early on), not personalizing, not using it emotionally, focusing on the behavior and not the person, doing careful work of building up a record of diffs and especially, taking it to the community and not harassing. Build in protections against abusing it. That essay could be valuable. But this essay (besides being conceptually all murky) links "duck" to a COI in a (pardon me) in a loosey-goosey, unreflective fashion. DUCK is most often used about socks, (someone commented on that above) and SPI is one of the most controlled environments here. linking "duck" to COI and inviting any editor to deploy it, is a nightmare waiting to happen, to me anyway. Thank you again. i mean that. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks I appreciate your comments and your more conciliatory tone. I will look again at that case. A problem with these arbcom cases is that they emerge from emotional and vicious disputes, but tend to sound clinical to the point of being disembodied. Often it's hard to discern exactly who did what to whom. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• The alleged assay seems to be more like a how to guide for pro-quackery editing. It is not about identifying COI editors at all. If you review some of the editors who want to keep this junk you will find a lot of interesting edits. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ermmmmm....it is an essay, not a biomedical technique, and why would you call it "alleged"...it exists! It seems rather a broadbrush to say that editors supporting this essay are involved in "interesting" edits, a term which is clearly being used in a derogatory way. Perhaps you would like to identify the editors? This appears to be further uncivil behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at QuackGuru's editing history, I suspect that while I haven't edited much in those areas that I would tend to be on his side most of the time. What both sides in this discussion tend to forget is that COI is a real or at least a potential issue on both sides of the various science/pseudoscience debates. It's a serious mistake to conclude that this essay, or something like it, would necessarily benefit the "quackery" position. If it did I would not support it. In fact, I don't support this essay in its current permutation; I think that it needs work. Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

DrChrissy, has anyone ever told you recently you added a source that fails MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Coretheapple, this alleged essay contradicts MEDRS and other rules. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest a re-title of the essay, "COI Duckery, or How to Deny Consensus And Refuse to Admit You're Wrong". And that's the problem, stated as succinctly as I've managed so far. Geogene (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Made some major modifications to the essay based on some of the feedback

You might want to read it again. I did not consider that several of the editors who are participating here have COI statements on their User Pages. The essay was not intended to target GF editors so I made some modifications, and apologize for not seeing it in the beginning. That is why discussion and collaboration is so important. The beehive behavior and attacks have been very disconcerting. Atsme☯ 01:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You could of kept the page if it were a humour page. As it stands, it is a joke. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Glad I could make you laugh. Laughter is the best medicine. Hope saying that doesn't get me blocked as a promoter of CAM. Atsme☯ 02:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are a promoter of CAM? Why not be a promoter of following NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a promoter of CAM or anything else for that matter. I was making a joke - laughter is the best medicine. Ha, ha, ha?? I thought someone who calls himself the guru of quacks would understand the humor. I do follow NPOV. Atsme☯ 02:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• Delete or move to userspace. I take COI issues pretty seriously. Which is why I think this essay should be deleted: it is so aggressively wrong-headed that it is actually harmful to any serious attempt to deal with COI editing. There is no useful guidance or insight contained in the essay, only lazy conspiracism. Insofar as I can follow the essay, its thesis seems to be that if one is opposed by n editors (where n>1) then the only likely explanation is that they all have undisclosed conflicts of interest. To call this unhelpful would be an understatement. I don't see a salvageable core idea here, which is why I advocate deletion rather than a comprehensive rewrite. Moving the essay to userspace would be acceptable, I guess, since we allow much wider latitude there. MastCell  05:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)