Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:07, 22 October 2012

This is the talk page for the Conflict of interest noticeboard. Issues related to conflict of interest should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself.

• WT:COI/N
• WT:COIN

Click here to post a question to the Conflict of interest noticeboard

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-02-11. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page was nominated for deletion on 2010-09-13. The result of the discussion was snowball keep.

COIN Cleanup

I have attempted to address as many outstanding reports as possible. I have marked several as either resolved or stale (in my opinion, the line between the two is very thin). If you get a chance, please take a look at them and make a note if you think I have closed those cases in error. If there are no objections, I will archive those reports in the next day or two as I feel that all the clutter may be discouraging people from getting involved. OlYeller21 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have archived several resolved/stale sections. OlYeller21 16:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:COI

The {{COI}} tag is nominated for deletion, see the discussion. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit notice

I find that some users often come to this noticeboard and accuse another user of having a COI but present no evidence (unless the user's name clearly indicated a conflict per WP:DUCK). Before requesting a change to the edit notice of the noticeboard, I would like to see what others think about this issue. More exactly, is it uncivil or in bad faith to accuse someone at a noticeboard like this without presenting any evidence? Outside of civility, it doubles the work done assuming the person making the report did any research into the COI. Maybe it's something we can't change or isn't worth trying to change but I'm more interested in what others think about the issue of civility at this point. OlYeller21 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not this noticeboard alone. Some users in content disputes make accusations of sockpuppetry, or whatever else will (if believed) get their opponent blocked from Misplaced Pages or at least sanctioned from editing on the topic. If you can get someone kicked out, you needn't persuade him nor risk his winning an argument. Not a new idea in the world, is it? --Raven (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I'm not naive enough to think that we live in a fair world but that doesn't mean we can't strive for a fair world in our little corner of it. OlYeller21 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the discussion merely is an accusuation of COI without evidence, consider closing the discussion by adding
{{Discussion top|1=Closed by -- ~~~~}}
to the discussion top and
{{Discussion bottom}}
to the bottom of the discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always been weary of doing a hard close like that. I'm not opposed to it though. I'll consider using that method in the future. OlYeller21 23:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to know in advance where a discussion will head. When it reaches time for a hard close, the damage already might be done. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• We absolutely need a new approach. This discussion has been going on for 22 daysand any COI evidence has long since been presented and reviewed. COIN doesn't have anything set up to close such discussions. Seems that the COIN board will continue to be used until Toresbe is driven from the project. That isn't right. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

seealso

Should the {{seealso}} tag on the top of this noticeboard be changed? For example:

See also: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Adverse effects to CT

I understand this is a collaborative project, and I understand that COI editing is discouraged, and should be taken seriously, and that the COIN is a mean to resolve issues of COI editing, and a place to discuss COI matters. Am I wrong on any of the above?

Is your advice - go ahead and file to the COIN with specific accusations? --Nenpog (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If you actually have specific accusations and a reason beyond "they disagree with me", then go ahead. Otherwise, read this page. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course I have documented reasons for specific accusations.

I thought that according to the COI guidelines, it is good to discuss the issue first, and perhaps reach an agreement, but if that is considered a vague and unsubstantiated accusation, and is ignored with extreme prejudice, than I guess that the COI guideline is incorrect.

Thank you for your advice. --Nenpog (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

According to the header of the COIN: "This page is for reporting or requesting advice regarding conflict of interest (COI) incidents."

I think that COIs may be involved in the edits of adverse effects to CT. I have opened the discussion at the COIN in order to discuss the matter but the discussion was closed. No advice was given. Please advice. --Nenpog (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is just more typical behavior from a Tendentious editor. Just as he previously declared that everybody on Talk:X-ray computed tomography was wrong while he alone was right, then did the same thing on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine, Talk:Ionizing radiation, Misplaced Pages talk:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard and User talk:Elen of the Roads, and now he is here saying that the volunteer who closed Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Adverse effects to CT was wrong and that only he, Nenpog, understands the rules under which WP:COIN operates. His previous block says it all.

I fully expect him to continue his blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING in pursuit of someone who will tell him that the consensus at Talk:X-ray computed tomography is wrong and he is right. I suspect that his next step will be User talk:Jimbo Wales.

Nenpog asked for advice, so here it is: Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I hope this helps. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice Guy Macon, however, I didn't ask for your advice, I asked for the advice of the members of the COIN. Stop tailing my posts please. --Nenpog (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The COI Adverse effects to CT discussion included advise. Also, being on the losing end of a content dispute does not mean COIs may be involved in editing an article or that the content is a COI incident. My draft close of that discussion included a comment on WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Since that was beyond the scope of the COIN notice board, I left that out in the posted close. WP:FORUMSHOPPING and Tendentious editor are issues for WP:AN. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see there any advice from the COIN. Please tell me the advice.

Being on the losing side of a content dispute doesn't mean that there isn't a COI issue involved. A few editors admitted occupational proximity to the topic of the article, and a few editors have done edits that imply that they have a COI. The purpose of the discussion was to enable these and other editors to act in good faith and admit their COI, or potential COI. --Nenpog (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been explained to Nenpog before, the mere fact that someone works for Health Canada and edits X-ray computed tomography is not evidence of a COI. The "edits that imply that they have a COI" are simply other editors disagreeing with Nenpog.

In my opinion, COIN should ask Nenpog for specific evidence of a COI violation by specific editors, and if no evidence is forthcoming, make a ruling of "No evidence of a COI". After being warned by two different administrators to stop accusing other editors of a COI without evidence, Nenpog is now making thinly-veiled accusations against "a few editors", usually accompanied by a link to an edit one of his targets has made, and still without any actual evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon doesn't know what my evidences for COI are, because I have never wrote to anyone, including him, what they were.

BTW, that person is following my contributions, and posts off topic negative comments about me after my comment in each discussion. Is there a WP:name or WP:policy regarding that? --Nenpog (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been warned by two administrators that continued accusations of COI without proof are violations of WP:NPA and will get you blocked if you keep making them.

You are the one who decided to go forum shopping with your accusations of COI. You can hardly expect that none of the editors you have accused will respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You have already been informed before (on IRC) in extreme detail that your "evidence" wasn't evidence of a COI. The COIN is closed. If you opened a COI thread without disclosing the evidence, as you put it, then that amounts to pointless disruption. When you have numerous independent editors all telling you the same thing it's time to stop badgering the issue and work on something else. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, are you a member of the COIN? --Nenpog (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "members" of any noticeboard, just regulars who comment. People might say members to refer to regulars, that is all. Personally, I don't see how it has any bearing either. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, are you able to close COIN cases with a decision of a found COI? --Nenpog (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course he can. All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing and any editor can apply Template:Discussion top and close it. And of course he would close it with "no evidence of COI" -- nobody is going to make a finding of COI without evidence.

The catch with anyone being allowed to make a determination and close the case is that if other editors disagree (zero chance of that in this case -- you yourself admitted that you have presented no evidence) or they think he is too involved (again zero chance of that in this case, IRWolfie has had no involvement) they can revert and discuss. See BRD.

Just because IRWolfie can does not imply that he will. It is perfectly reasonable for him to leave that decision to someone who regularly volunteers at COIN. Of course it is also perfectly reasonable for him to close this with a finding of "no evidence of COI". That finding is inevitable, because you presented no evidence and named no editor; it's only a question of who fills out the paperwork. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha. So, you say that I can revert Uzma Gamal's edit myself, so the discussion will continue. Interesting.

Anyway, I am interested only in the opinion of the regular volunteers of the COIN. --Nenpog (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The above bears no resemblance to what I wrote. You are not an uninvolved editor. You are the disruptive editor who's behavior we are dealing with. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, then do you say that I can ask any uninvolved editor in Misplaced Pages to review, and revert, and that editor will be able to just revert?

Anyway, I am still interested only in the opinion of the regular volunteers of the COIN. What you answer bare no NNPG:Weight. --Nenpog (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking me questions, but you say you are not interested in my answers. Play your games elsewhere. I am done with you. ---Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Long ago and before many days, at about 19:07, 30 June 2012, and in this section, I have written to you that I seek the advice of the members of the COIN, and that I am not interested in your answers. I am wondering if that message really got through. If so - Hallelujah. --Nenpog (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit removing other editor's comments

Removal of another editor's comments on WP:COIN: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=500744338 --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys instruction to perform WP:BRD: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=500660854&oldid=500645404 --Nenpog (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

BRD is about article space, not talk pages or noticeboards. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Pointer

There's a thread at WP:WQA by an editor who, in the words of the COI guideline, has "a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization" and is unhappy about having his conflict of interest/activism pointed out in a discussion about POV pushing. It's possible that people familiar with the COI guideline might like to look over the thread. (Please do not reply here; there's no value in spreading the dispute across multiple pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI+

I posted here about WP:COI+ before, but there's been a lot of development over the past months to make it a more streamlined proposal. I'd love you to take a look and leave feedback.

I intend for COI+ to seek a middle ground between the current ambiguity of WP:COI and the severity of Bright Line prohibitions on any direct editing. This is particularly important because the community has identified that there is some problem with WP:COI but also found no consensus to outright ban paid editing.

• The 2009 RfC to ban paid editing closed with no consensus.
• The 2012 RfC on COI closed with no consensus as well.
• For as many people who have supported a prohibition on direct editing there is another editor who calls COI a distraction and cites WP:NPOV as the only relevant policy.

For those reasons, I simply don't believe that Bright Line will ever gain consensus. I also happen to think it's not ideal, as it could drive paid advocates under ground, it has no requirement for disclosure, and it offers no reasonable assurance to paid advocates of a timely response to their suggested changes.

COI+ is designed to address each of those concerns:

• COI+ would appeal to paid advocates by welcoming them to the community, educating them about our mission and policies, and guiding them towards constructive interaction;
• COI+ would require disclosure--in triplicate--on user pages, relevant article talk pages, and with links to COI declarations in comment signatures
• COI+ would set a 1 month time limit on edit requests: if no editor even responded to a paid advocate's suggestions or proposed changes within a month--after going through talk pages, help boards, noticeboards, and OTRS--then a paid advocate could make a change directly, if they left clear notice on the article talk page and at the COI noticeboard.

I am drafting a Signpost op-ed introducing COI+ to run in the next month or two, with an RfC to follow. At first COI+ would merely be an aspirational, voluntary agreement. It could, however, be a bridge forward towards a more comprehensive, instructive, and hopefully effective guideline for COI editors and particularly paid advocates. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about it. Ocaasi 17:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)