Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 5 April 2015

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest ducks

Misplaced Pages:Conflict of Interest ducks I’ve nominated this essay for deletion as its content undermines consensus-building and collaborative editing, instead expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content. It openly postulates, without supporting evidence, the existence of a vast cabal of COI editors whose editing efforts should be met with resistance and rather than collaboration and consensus-building. Furthermore, it undermines several Misplaced Pages policies and widely accepted Misplaced Pages guidelines by encouraging editors to treat any explanation that an edit was justified by WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:OR, or WP:BLP with broad skepticism. I’ve included some key quotes below:

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.

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

Oftentimes the best way to identify editors with a COI is that they attempt to uphold Wikipeida’s policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing, biographies of living persons, and NPOV:

How to identify a COI duck: …the bad behavior elevates and the edit summaries that revert your edits sound more like frenzied quacking...revert,quack revert,quack not a RS,quack violates MEDRS,quack blatant BLP violation,quack...

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.

Its ok, and frequently desirable to ignore WP:CONSENSUS, as COI is so common here that the most likely explanation for the fact that other editors don’t agree with you is that they have a COI:

if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics such as tendentious editing by one or more editors working in a concerted effort, and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some or all of the same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they continue to quack away at a targeted editor like ducks chasing a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks.

Advocacies almost always involve tag teams so they can sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community. They are experts at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition. Such behavior is often driven by paid or unpaid advocacy and helps explain why edits that don't support their POV are consistently reverted and offending editors are made to feel unwelcome as collaborators. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it probably is a COI duck. quack, quack

Misplaced Pages’s dispute mediation and disciplinary processes are not to be trusted either as the Admins are easily fooled and / or are part of the conspiracy.

Tactics typically include attempts to switch blame by casting aspersions or making spurious allegations followed by initiating unwarranted WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AE, and WP:ARBCOMcases against their opposition which are usually void of diffs, and/or the piling on of diffs that do not support their argument, the latter being a tactic to inundate admins and possibly fool them into believing they truly do have a claim. There is a slim possibility they may be working in tandem with an admin who may also be an advocate of the same cause and/or also involved in paid editing, but that is the last thing we want to believe. If you suspect there is a problem, see WP:ADMINACCT.

I respectfully submit that the existence of this essay encourages disruptive editing behavior, and it should be removed. The discussion leading to its preparation doe not speak well for the authors and their supporters, and can be found at the bottom of the section here. Formerly 98 02:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• In fact, the discussion leading to this essay can be found at Sarah (SV)'s talk page here, with the original idea stemming from this recent ANI. (Although the link you provide is of interest too, in that it shows a list of bullet points exemplifying the subject of the essay in question, which happen to be edits made by Formerly98.) petrarchan47tc 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

NOTICE (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS AN UNSIGNED RESPONSE BY ESSAY AUTHOR ATSME AND NOT PART OF THE NOMINIATION)

The OP has a stated COI on his User Page. See User:Formerly 98.

COI statement

I fully support and adhere to Misplaced Pages’s conflict of interest policy. I abstain from editing articles in which I might reasonably be perceived by others to have a conflict of interest or objectivity issue if they knew my personal details. This includes both situations in which I have a financial interest and those in which I might have emotional bias, such as articles covering former employers. I hold a Ph.D. in chemistry, and have worked as a medicinal chemist at several biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. The most recent of these positions ended nearly a decade ago and all of these companies are now defunct.

In my personal life I am a strong proponent of several causes, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to reducing malaria, dengue, and other tropical diseases. I've worked as a foster parent and have a strong interest in domestic violence. I tend to stay away from these articles on Misplaced Pages, in part to avoid issues of WP:ADVOCACY.

(END OF UNSIGNED RESPONSE BY ATSME)

I will be happy to add my sig. Inclusion of the COI should have been added by the OP, and the same applies to any other participant in this survey. Thank you. Atsme☯ 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that this was a good faith error and not intended to deceive. I don't think it is necessary to change it now. I disagree with your assertiong that anything in that statement of compliance with WP:COI represents a COI with respect to the current subject matter. Formerly 98 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned Elsewhere

The essay is mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tornheim (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Also at

• Misplaced Pages Talk:WikiProject Integrity#A_new_essay_WP:COIducks_and_Notice_of_Miscellany_for_deletion
• Misplaced Pages Talk:WikiProject NPOV#A_new_essay_in_Integrity_Project.2C_WP:COIducks.2C_immediately_listed_for_deletion
• WP:FT/N#Ducking Nonsense?

Should get a nice wide consensus here then! Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

i posted notice of this here: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Note_about_essay_on_COI_that_is_up_for_deletion Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Also at

• Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Questions#Dealing_with_COI_.2F_WifiOne -David Tornheim (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#COI_Ducks_Essay -David Tornheim (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• I've also requested input from the top ten contributors to the COIN board given their historical interest and expertise in the area of COI. The only exception is Jytdog, who is listed #8 but has already commented here. Formerly 98 23:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

SURVEY

• OPPOSE KEEP - and respectfully request that this AfD be removed immediately, and that Formerly 98 be reminded that his behavior here ironically demonstrates some of the issues mentioned in the essay he just proposed for deletion. While we appreciate his knowledge, expertise and contributions to the encyclopedia, he does not hold a trump card over other editors. Perhaps he should read this essay as well as some of the related essays, beginning with WP:COI, and WP:ADVOCACY. Hopefully he won't be proposing any of them as AfD as well. Atsme☯ 04:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - it runs counter to the aims of our Project, as the nominator explains. Alternatively, rename it to WP:TINFOIL and/or WP:REDSUNDERTHEBED and leave it (with a suitable hat note) as a kind of exemplar of a bad essay and conspiracist thinking to guide editors on how not to partipate on Misplaced Pages. (Add: it is just so deliciously ironic that this essay advances the case that "ducks" can be easily identified by a self-appointed corps of COI-finders-general, and then has a lead illustration of a flock - of geese!) Alexbrn (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No, in fact that's what Domestic ducks look like. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I never! I must eat my words then. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• KEEP/OPPOSE DELETION or USERFY - Problems with COI need to be addressed. The WifiOne case discussed on Jimbo's page here languished for 3 years because not enough was done, jeopardizing the credibility of the encyclopedia from COI editing. This essay is to address such problems. Formerly98 has not been collaborative in making suggestions to improve the essay, but instead simply rejects it outright. This is not a productive approach. Formerly98 needs to make a good faith effort to address any concerns about the essay before taking such an all-or-nothing approach. The same applies to User:Alexbrn who also has shown no interest in improving the essay. Userfy is a much better remediation to concerns raised arguing for deletion. The essay is in my opinion more in the draft stage rather than publication stage, so more work is warranted before publication if that is how essays typically proceed. (I have never dealt with user essays before and I do not know the steps of the process, but I did think the publication of the essay was premature without more feedback.) However, I am again greatly troubled that those who take issue with the essay have not first made efforts to propose constructive criticism and instead bash good faith efforts to address the kind of COI we found with WifiOne. Solving the serious problems of COI is not done by sweeping the problems and all proposed solutions under the rug and allowing the status quote COI behavior to continue. I urge that everyone who says this essay should be deleted make good faith efforts to be very specific about how to improve the essay and propose real solutions. David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (revised 14:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)).
  • Yeah, because poorly-conceived essays like this really help to "address such problems" as with WifiOne. (Clue: that was actually addressed by meticulous hard work and presentation of evidence, not hand-waving about editors that seem too keen on policy). Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • There is stuff we can do about COI but this is not it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
      • As I stated above, I would like to see constructive criticism of the essay on the talk page of the article rather than this rush to Judgment. David Tornheim (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I created a COMMENT section below. Please restrict future comments to that section. Thank you. Atsme☯ 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete I look forward to the next essay collaboration by the same authors, "Problems in the Big Pharma Cheque delivery system" -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - Just noting the obvious fact that I support my own proposal. Formerly 98 09:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong delete Essay does not contain good evidence. It appears to promote the use of poor quality sources and hinders those trying to promote the use of high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What in the article gave you that idea? You provided input once during the sandbox discussion , and I modified it here . If you felt more was needed, why didn't you discuss it with us? Criticism is healthy, but unwarranted criticism is not productive. Atsme☯ 14:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• delete it lacks logic and objectivity--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, largely incoherent and actively unhelpful to anybody trying to navigate the murky waters in which the "ducks" purportedly swim. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. I think JzG says it best. This page confuses, obscures, and hinders the effective ways of determining who has a conflict of interest and making sure that Misplaced Pages pages follow Misplaced Pages policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as soapy coat. The essay is obviously written from the perspective of a group of editors who want to incorporate unverified and unreliable content into Misplaced Pages that is either pseudoscientific, promotional of alternative medicine ideas, or both. This muddies the water and opposes a number of policies and guidelines on this site and therefore should be removed and the writers trouted. jps (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy I think the essay is largely nonsense, and lists behaviour that all regular medical editors do, and most good ones in other fields. I'm not quite sure what grounds for deletion of an essay are, & this could remain in userspace. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Keep/Userfy. I think the author of this essay was premature in establishing it as an essay before getting feedback. It is too broad-brush and fails to make an effective case. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Changing to "keep" per Groupuscule. My opinion on the flaws of this essay is unchanged. However, this essay addresses genuine issues. While I understand the concerns that have been raised, I think they're overstated and also don't justify deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Just to clarify, I am a former paid editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• comment - for those saying "userfy" there already is a draft is userspace whence this came - see here (last dif blanked it - see the history and its talk page). This is really about deleting the essay. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG, who summarizes in a few words what I am about to expand further: this present essay deals incompetently with only one type of coi problem, what we have normally called Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing--as explained in that excellent long-standing essay. In contrast, this one deals with the problem in a way that does not helpfully distinguish constructive from unconstructive editing behavior--people trying to maintain a neutral POV use similar arguments, and use them much more frequently that the POV pushers do. POV pushing by a group of paid advocates for a single POV that are not obviously socks is rather rare; true believers are much more common and characteristically concentrate on nationalistic or ideological topics. The big pharma situation is a special case, and there I would rely completely on DocJames's view that this essay is not how to deal with them--dealing with them requires actually knowing the science in order to identify false arguments and misleading references. Most paid COI editing is by single paid editors who are trying to promote a company or whitewash its reputation, and are usually best distinguished by the actual content of their edits, rather than their arguments. (And even here, allowance is needed for those good-faith editors who want to write about a company and assume that the typical COI article is the model for how to do it, because that's most of what they see on Misplaced Pages.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 April 2015‎ (UTC)
• Delete and salt I work the WP:COIN board and am on the ground dealing with COI issues every day here in WP. There are behavioral signs of COI editing, but none of them are described in this essay. This essay grew out of a comment by SV here (in a section about my putative COI) recommending that we lower the bar for pursuing editors with claims of COI on the basis of WP:DUCK. This specific realization of that idea, appears to me to be is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP (see here) and is an example of why lowering the bar is a terrible idea. People fling changes of COI way too easily in content disputes. We don't need to feed that unfortunate tendency. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (owning my perception Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC))
  • Comment - If you truly believe there are behavioral signs of COI editing that were not mentioned, why didn't you propose them on the essay's TP? Your claims of a "cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP" is very disconcerting, primarily because you create the impression that you want to exclude all mention of it from WP. You need to read WP:FRINGE which states: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. The guideline does not suggest censorship of such material, rather it suggests that it must not be given undue weight about a mainstream idea. Your comment actually validated the need for this essay. Atsme☯ 14:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose deletion Given recent events in my wiki-life, I would have welcomed reading this essay a few weeks ago. The essay reflects in an articulate and informative way, the thoughts that some editors experience when confronted with multiple editors seemingly in an alliance with a POV. The essay also offers guidance on how to behave in such circumstances and relevant policies and articles. A great piece of writing for the less experienced editors.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per DrChrissy, who encountered the exact activity being defined by "COIDuck", by the same group of buddies who gather at the same articles to create faux consensus, and flock around noticeboards to silence opponents through bans, etc - many of the same editors who are offended by this essay. Advocacy editing is rampant on WP and can be proven by looking at editing and behaviour alone, which this essay attempts to address. The conversation should not be confined to "COI" editing, which requires honesty on the part of the conflicted editor or, barring that, some proof of their offline identity and employment - effectively silencing WPians from addressing this type of editing altogether. I see the majority of editors who do speak out seem to defend the subtle but pervasive pro-industry slant WP has adopted by refusing to address actual edits and behaviour, funneling all conversations to COI, whose parameters have been defined by the very editors receiving a majority of the COI complaints. I am suspicious of efforts to remove the ability to speak of this behaviour and of a reality that is ruining WPs reputation. Much of this website reads like a thinly veiled ad for the pharmaceutical industry, the GMO industry, and the official government viewpoint, etc. Our readers recognize this, and laugh at using WP as a source for much beyond celebrities' birth dates. There are few options for those wanting to bring about a NPOV after this gang has descended upon a certain article or topic area. We are outnumbered and silenced, and this AfD is an example. What would really show me that an editor is truly concerned about the Pedia would be a willingness to look at the editing we are attempting to address. I spent 4-5 hours surveying just one article revamped by the nominator of this AfD, and thus far no one seems interested in discussing it. I'll re copy this example of "COIDuck" editing below. (Copied from a conversation on my talk page, addressed to Formerly98) petrarchan47tc 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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:

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

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)

• 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)

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 indicates". 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)

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)

• Misplaced Pages essays