Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 17 April 2015

To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.

"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." – WP:COI. Here is a list of participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid editors. The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be definitive and not speculative, and WP:OUTING, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS are enforced here as everywhere. This list is not here to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation in WP:COI that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." Again, this list is not here to promote personal attacks or harassment, but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants. Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure: BlackCab: disclosure is here CorporateM: disclosure is here Frieda Beamy TParis: disclosure is here and here

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 18 days

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Garber, Megan (July 15, 2014). "Okay, Who Edited the 'Choco Taco' Misplaced Pages Page From Congress?". The Atlantic.

Archives

Threads older than 18 days may be archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Search above, or see also the merged page's 2006 archive.

This page has archives. Sections older than 18 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Sources on conflict of interest

• Davis, Michael and Stark, Andrew (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
• Krimsky, Sheldon. "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'", in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, University of Toronto Press, 2006.
• Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
• Stark, Andrew. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.

Template:Connected contributor

Please see discussion at WT:COIN about whether it's appropriate to use Template:Connected contributor on an article talk page in a specific situation. Link to discussion. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI)

How to handle conflicts of interest

SlimVirgin started a discussion at ANI about How to deal appropriately with COI concerns?.

The guideline has a section on that: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest

Slimvirgin mentioned some parts that she objects to. This is the place to discuss changes to this guideline...

Pinging editors who have weighed in there: Geogene, Petrarchan47, BoboMeowCat, Smallbones, Coretheapple, Gandydancer, John Carter, Alexbrn, Formerly 98 Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said there, and have said to you before, the part I object to was added by you in July, namely:

If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline."

I recall that you and Kingofaces tried to have EllenCT topic-banned in part because she had raised COI concerns about Kingofaces somewhere other than on his talk page. Regardless of any particular case, it's sometimes important not to interact directly with an editor, especially if that person is being aggressive. We've had cases of stalking and threats, in particular in relation to Gamergate, where it's important to raise issues in a group setting to minimize the personal interaction. I also think the part about "discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI" is too much to ask (and too wordy) and should be simplified. Sarah (SV) 01:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Might "clearly demonstrates" be replaced with "credible possibility" or something like it? The evidence might be behavioral. Geogene (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Geogene If you have not read WP:COI and also WP:ADVOCACY, please do read them. COI is about an outside interest (generally financial, but not always) that conflicts with the mission of WP. What kind of "behavioral" evidence do you reckon could distinguish COI from Advocacy? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The likelihood of there being a pecuniary interest in the subject. Somebody promotes a band, new book, etc.--behavioral evidence of COI. Somebody promotes a bunch of books by the same publisher--COI. Somebody promotes a viewpoint on a social issue--Advocacy. Geogene (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Another possibility of a case of unpaid COI and possible ADVOCACY might be in cases of a cult-like nature, particularly if there have been multiple reliable sources which indicate that a given group might have an extreme level of devotion to their beliefs, possibly even to the level of fanaticism. Granted, this is one of the concerns which prompted me to start User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, to deal with people whose devotion to a given belief of probably generally a broadly scientific, religious, philosophical, or historical nature, which has been recognized by IRS as having a truly fanatical level of support and advocacy of their position. I would also include anyone who has gone on record in some way in terms of advocating a belief or rejecting one, because in that case their COI of interest might not be on of money, but of personal reputation. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a good start of an answer. In my work at COIN, I use those kind of behavioral cues. Say someone is spamming books into articles as redundant references, next to existing ones, all by the same publisher. What I will do, is go to their Talk page, welcome them ( i an often first at the scene), post a COI notice and ask them, simply and directly, if they work for the publisher. Something like this, just happened tonight - look at the recent edits to AquaBounty Technologies, look at the Talk page of the user I reverted, and see what happened there. For the bad way this unfolds, look at the recent history of Bernie Finn, go to the Talk page of the reverted editor, and see what happened) But we need stronger language to deal with people who use COI irresponsibly. These guidelines need to be very clear so that even the ... dimmest among us, know what to do. The EllenCTs in Misplaced Pages cannot read this and find justification for their behavior in it - they need to find this guidance, telling them not to do what they are doing. Do you see my point? So ~if~ we are going to vague-ify the language for what justifies a concern for COI, it needs to come with clear clues to keep people in the ballpark. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I strongly agree that this needs to warn against COI-battlefielding in a clear way, which isn't contradictory to my also supporting SlimVirgin's revision. I don't have a proposed wording at the moment. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

John Carter we do have to keep COI and advocacy distinct; this guideline is for COI, and so is COIN. Atama, an admin who used to work here a lot, was very good at parsing them. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to simplify that to:

If you believe that an editor may have a conflict of interest, consider raising it directly with that editor first. You can do that on the talk page of the article (or wherever the issue has arisen), or on the user's talk page. If the apparent COI editing continues, open a section on WP:COIN, following the instructions there.

"Consider raising with directly with that editor first" means no one is forced into a direct interaction. And "if you believe that an editor may have a conflict of interest" is more to the point than "if an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates ...," which usually doesn't happen. Sarah (SV) 01:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't understand SV. How do you "raise it directly with that editor first" with directly interacting? i really don't understand, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My suggested wording means that an editor suspecting COI doesn't have to go to that person's user talk page. Sarah (SV) 02:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't undertsand the difference. In either case, you are "directly interacting" with the person. What is the difference? (real question) And article talk pages are for dealing with content not contributors which is what both TPG guideline and NPA policy emphasize. Article talk pages are for content; user Talk pages and notice boards are for dealing with behavior. Why do you want to open the door to people personalizing content disputes on article Talk pages? (also a real question) Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin would you please answer these questions? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Support the revision. Sometimes direct confrontation only makes thing worse; belief is a more reasonable criterion than truth. (The matter will ultimately be determined by a neutral party at the Board). (Add by edit required disclosure: I have never been paid to edit Misplaced Pages.)Geogene (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not support. Since SlimVirgin brought up the EllenCT matter yet again, let me link to it. I'd like to call your attention to the number of times that EllenCT "raised concerns about COI" on an article talk page. There are five diffs alone at the start of the posting, and about six more later, and that is only some of them (really -- I will bring more if you don't believe me). If you look at those difs, EllenCT was not raising the concern in any kind of civil, clear way in order to "address a concern", but rather was using COI as a cudgel. This is exactly the kind of behavior that the guidance here should make very clear, is not OK - and is indeed sanctionable. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If the section is being read as "the only place you can first raise a possible COI is on the editor's talk page," then we have to change it to Sara's version. I don't think we can be so rule-bound as to ban or block people for where the say something on-Wiki. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones two things:

1) the point of the current language in this section is to guide people to dealing with behavioral concerns about COI in an appropriate and civil way. That's the goal. Article Talk pages are for discussing content. Of course this guideline wouldn't be used to whack someone on the head for asking, respectfully, one time, about whether another editor has a COI. ( I have actually never seen it done by the way. Every time I have seen it - and I could provide you lots of diffs - it is done in an ugly way in a dispute over content.) But we want to guide people away from personalizing content disputes on article Talk pages. And where things get really ugly, is when people never kick it over to a board but keep on pursuing it, in inappropriate venues. It should be COIN, but I don't care if is ANI. But this guideline needs to a) guide people to not personalize content disputes, and have them think before they "go there" on a COI accusation...b) guide them to bringing the concern to the community; and c) definitely guide them away from harassing other editors over it.

2) the other thing SV's edit changes, is cutting out the beginning: "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use,".... with "If you believe that an editor may have a conflict of interest, " The bar is too high there, I think. But SV's version is too low. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The high bar, which you added, is being used as a weapon. The result is that people don't want to report COI. This is why situations like the one Newsweek recently wrote about continue for so long. Sarah (SV) 04:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You can keep saying "people are scared" and I will keep saying "show some evidence of that" or even bring a reasonable argument. Repeating something does not make it so. And while it is another rhetorical tool to turn the "weapon" back on me, enforcing community 'policy on NPA is not using policy or a guideline as weapon. I reject that. And you continue to condone the behavior! Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

From personal experience, I can vouch for the fact that if one does raise COI concerns with either editors who deny the existence of any COI, honestly or dishonestly, you will have, in raising the question of COI, put them at the top of their hate list and you may face lengthy hounding, possibly to the point of years of it, from those editors because you dared to question their brilliance. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that example John. I was not aware of the reverse problem.... but now that you say that it is not surprising. But that is not a problem with COIN itself, but with individual editor behavior. Maybe we need some content about what to do, if someone brings a COIN case against you, and warn against retaliation/hounding in response to cases brought at COIN (with no further hounding on the issue). Hm. What I have experienced and seen others subjected to is the opposite - hounding across WP with accusations of COI. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• It seems to me we keep having exactly the same discussion over and over again, with the same people pushing for the same wording to be included. (See Archive 18 for direct evidence of this). I realise that there is the theory that consensus can change; however, I find it somewhat disingenuous that the previous request for inclusion of the same wording into the policy isn't being referenced in this new request to do it. Frankly, in almost every case where I have seen someone accusing another editor of COI on an article talk page, it is being done to deliberately undermine the editor and to change the discussion from the content to the contributor, to distract from the fundamental purpose of the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Risker, there was consensus for the edit I suggested, but I recall no consensus for the change that Jytdog made in July. Editors who supported, in order: myself, Coretheapple, Johnuniq, Elvey. Editors opposed: you and Jytdog. There's nothing disingenuous about raising it again. The point is that we can't try to force editors to raise their concerns directly with the COI editor. See the discussion on Jimbo's talk page for how the current approach to COI is disastrous in every regard. We have to make it less intimidating for editors to raise these concerns, and this is one tiny step. Sarah (SV) 04:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• ON the use of COI accusations on article Talk pages, I agree with you. Which is rare for us on COI-related issues. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can you point to the consensus for your change in July? Sarah (SV) 04:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

sure. it is still there. i didn't edit war over it. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to it, please? Sarah (SV) 05:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

i mean, the current language is there, in the guideline. a bunch of us were working things out, this is where it ended up. it is not all mine. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please link to the discussion that led you to add those words to the guideline? I have looked and can't find it, so I would appreciate your help. Sarah (SV) 05:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

bizarre that you cannot find it, there was a whole section: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_18#Amendment_proposal_for_.22How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest.22. Things were also worked out in edit notes. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

actual current language and alternate proposal

If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline. If the editor does not change his or her behavior to comply with this guideline and/or the Terms of use, create a posting on WP:COIN, following the instructions there. Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, and the article itself may be tagged with {{COI}} . COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.
If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith. Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines, and whether the issue may be advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.

I'd like to call people's attention, again to what the current language actually says. (there are following sections on OUTING, Harassment, and SPA that i have not quoted here).

Please note that there is a 1st paragraph about what to do if there is a very clear COI, and a 2nd paragraph about what to do if you think there ~might~ be a COI. Now, I agree that the 2nd paragraph needs some work. I would support adding to the separate paragraph the same language already in the first paragraph, so that it reads:

If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith. Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines, and whether the issue may be advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI. After you have considered those options, if you still believe there is a strong likelihood of COI, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline. If the editor does not agree that he or she has a COI, you can create a posting on WP:COIN, following the instructions there.

I would agree to that. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It's too wordy and needs to be simplified. I suggest that we return to the pre-July version or the version I suggested above. The latter had consensus in September and appears to have consensus now. Please say what you feel is wrong with it. Sarah (SV) 01:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

too quick to call consensus, SV. I did say what I object to in your proposal. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't keep doing this. Just say what your objection is. Sarah (SV) 01:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

doing what? we have about several conversations going on here, and i have directly asked you some questions that you are not responding to. one of them, is in part of my response to your proposal, just below your quote box. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd support this version. The main thing to stress is that if someone truly suspects a COI, it needs to be aired out at COIN in a civil manner. Going to the editor's talk page first should be the norm, but the stronger part of this guideline should be going to COIN to figure out if there is truly evidence for a COI. It should be insinuated from the current version, but this definitely helps clarify it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The language of the add-on is unclear. What does it mean: "After you have considered those options"? Why "if you still believe"? Your belief cannot be a reason for elevating the case. You have to have valid reasons. Three of them are listed. A valid reason is the one which indicated an abuse. Please remember, COI in not evil per se, but because is may lead to abuse. I believe we have forums for all kind of abuse. COIN is a place to deal with an editor where several abuses combine in a nasty way. Any POV-pusher may be accused of COI and just as well may respond with WP:BOOMERANG, thus littering the COIN with irrelevant cases. The order of actions (first talk, then complain) cannot be mandated. If a person behaves rudely and abusively, I doubt it is useful to talk to them in a personal place. If a person is nice or seems to be genuinely confused, you may want to handle the matter delicately first. And so on. In other words, in this place WP:AGF+WP:COMMONSENSE must work, rather than an extra bureaucracy. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you for weighing in! very open to other ideas if you want to propose anything. (the "add on" is to actually suggest what to do if you don't have real proof (the scenario in the first paragraph), have considered those options, but still think there is some COI. the 2nd paragraph doesn't say "do X and Y to get your concerns addressed". it's a bit of a hole. I agree that it would be useful to provide something to validate a belief - like behavioral cues (such as adding badly sourced promotional content to an article and removing negative, well-sourced content). I would be happy to add something like that to the 2nd paragraph. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand you desire to cover all bases, but IMO if the only argument is your "gut feeling", then the only policy advice possible is "follow your gut feeling". A policy may be written only for well-defined scenarios. Otherwise it is a can of worms. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

i appreciate your added content above the possibility that somebody is abrasive; i hear that. So... you would leave the current content about "how to handle a concern" in the COI guideline as is? (i note there is a proposal above, to simplify it a lot. based on what you have written you may like that one more.) Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I dont' want to jump in with any advise without carefully reading both the policy and the talk pages, that's why I'm only jumping in with some criticism. Let me think for a while. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

re: might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions - pardon my stupidity. Either paid editin is a COI or its is not. If it is a COI then why put it in a separate clause? If it is not (i.e., one wants to split hairs between "paid editing" and "paid advocacy"), then why bundle them together without explanation? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

re: "has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use" - A piece of legalese, which I happen to understand (possibly incorrectly) only because I've been lurking around. AFAIU, the "as per" part is related to WP:OUTING, i.e., you cannot prove that you know about person's paid editing from "real life". If I am correct, then you may only refer to the statements of this account. But then it does not matter whether this account disclosed their paid editing "per Terms of Use" or "per slip of tongue". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

In addition, the highly compound sentence looks ambiguous to me: is it "discloses information (that clearly demonstrates COI or has made one edit per ToU) " or "(discloses information that clearly demonstrates COI) or (has made one edit per term ToU)"? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

some of what we wrestle with every day with regard to COI, is that all editors are anonymous. (i am going to link to some things as i go here, so you know i am talking actual things that happen...) sometimes an editor write things that are dead giveaways for COI; but sometimes when they do that, they are lying. sometimes the username is dead giveaway (note the source added there, and the user name), but sometimes what seems a dead giveaway turns out not to be... although my jury is still out on that. LOTS of times it really hard to sort out advocacy from COI (especially on FRINGE medicine and business based on them)... my point being, that while sometimes you are blessed with a very clear case of COI, most times it is ambiguous until you draw them out..... Most times. The anonymity - our ability to actually go check on anybody - is a real issue. and one that we must respect. (no verifiable sources, here!) That is what the second paragraph is for (and needed for, in my view) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I was pinged on this a few days ago and just attempted to wade through all this discussion and bring myself up to date. I favor a return to the pre-July version suggested by SlimVirgin. I see no need for editors to go to a user talk page before coming to COI/N or another pertinent location if they feel there is a COI issue taking place. That being said, editors need to be cautious in alleging COI. It concerns me that editors are getting bogged down in that, and as a result there is drama that is unnecessary. Also I want to examine John Carter's essay referenced above. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the version above as well. The main thing I want to see is the latter part saying that if you suspect COI, COIN is the place to go. No casting aspersions about COI, but just go to COIN and present the evidence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Other issues

I encourage folks to read the diffs above in the ANI (here) linked above for a real world example, and then read the whole current section of the COI guideline under discussion. We need to keep a non-toxic editing environment. Where there are concerns about COI, they need to be handled by the community in a clear process - not by vigilantes hounding people. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) (added link to ANI posting since this was separated by a break and much text from earlier post Jytdog (talk))

But your aggressive approach to people with COI concerns does create a toxic editing environment, one where people are scared of raising COI. Think about the silliness of that. We are volunteers. We have nothing. But we are sometimes scared (of other editors) when we want to point out that billion-dollar industries are slanting articles that readers believe are written independently. Sarah (SV) 02:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hounding other editors across Misplaced Pages Talk pages is aggressive behavior. Again, please read the diffs of what EllenCT actually did. She did not act at all like a scared bunny. Posting at COIN in a calm and civil manner - what is threatening about that? You are not dealing with reality on either side of this. Really - read what she wrote. it is just raw personal attack, based on nothing, pounded and pounded and pounded that completely violates AGF and the HARASS. She "knows" he is a paid editor. It is terrible. Corrosive. Don't cloak personal attack with some kind of self-righteous cloak of fighting corporate corruption. That is what McCarthy did. That is what David Tornheim is doing. My calling toxic behavior is not toxicity and I reject that 100%. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jytog: Misplaced Pages is open to all kinds of exploitation and crankery, and people find ways to be objectionable all the time. Others have to be realistic and accept the limitations of the open-editing model. If someone is repeatedly posting unhelpful stuff, that needs to be addressed, however, preventing people from raising possible COI problems would not help the project. I have missed almost all the drama in the recent cases that you have been involved in at ANI, but your enthusiasm for pursuing opponents at ANI is exactly what a person with a conflict of interest would do—that is what is giving life to their claims. People without a COI normally can understand why their opponents are raising the point (perhaps it's ignorance or a tactic), and can react with occasional denials that don't feed drama. Have a look at Talk:Ayurveda to see how good editors are being stymied by proponents of quackery—I mention that to show that you are not alone, and Misplaced Pages does have problems. My suggestion would be to stick to discussing text and sources, and disregard claims of a COI except with a once-per-week short and simple statement rejecting the claims. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding the context here, Johnuniq. Most of the time when people fling bullshit COI accusations at me, I shrug it off and say "discuss content not contributors". What is happening now, is that David Tornheim is hounding me across Misplaced Pages, canvassing, campaigning, you name it, waking up old battles - calling people who hounded me in the past to come back and start again. It is ugly, McCarthy era stuff. Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand the context from ANI. Tweaking a guideline will do nothing to address your concern of hounding. A fact of life is that there would need to be a period of at least a few days where you are not the focus of an ANI thread before the issue of hounding would be likely to get consideration—as it is now, wounded souls from other conflicts, and passers-by, will probably derail the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not calling for tweaking any guideline. I think the guideline is fine, as is. And I am very unhappy to be so caught up at ANI right now. I have had to deal with two somewhat crazy people, and there is David. That's it. This too will pass and I will be able to go back to editing. In peace, I hope. Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

No comment on a specific event, but I reiterate that I'm absolutely opposed to weaponized COI accusations (the primary hallmark is it being used repeatedly). But I think if more people were more comfortable taking their legitimate concerns to COIN (1) more people would use the right outlet (2) the larger community would be less tolerant of the warriors. I doubt that (3) we'd have less COI but that would also help solve this issue if it were possible. Geogene (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

what is scary about bringing a case to COIN? That is a real question. Please look at the current COIN page, and at the archives. What do you see there that is scary for posters? Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to go there. I know of one issue at the moment that I could raise, but I'm choosing not to, because I can predict that there would be an aggressive response (including from you), and I couldn't prove the point without outing. Gandydancer has suggested putting together a group of editors knowledgeable about COI to help people make these cases. Petra suggested creating a new "COI-like editing" category, so we could say of someone that the editing looks too much like COI to be ignored. I think these ideas need to be explored, because the current situation is making fools of us. Sarah (SV) 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I have no idea why you are trying to steer things away from bringing problems to the community, instead of personalizing them and carrying them around with you. That is the whole heart of the Misplaced Pages DR process. These boards exist to brings things out into daylight, into the community. Saying that any board is scary is just bizarre. How does DR work in your universe? I don't understand. And if you don't have a case to make on COIN being scary then I don't know why you are weighing in on that. I really don't. Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be more clear, SV. Exactly what "current situation" is making fools of us? Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin would you please answer these questions? (how does DR work in your Misplaced Pages? and What "current situation?") Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to pull back here. This is the long answer that I mentioned at ANI. SlimVirgin you said something really important just above. " I know of one issue at the moment that I could raise, but I'm choosing not to, because I can predict that there would be an aggressive response (including from you), and I couldn't prove the point without outing" I will ignore the middle part, and want to focus on the beginning and the end. The real tension here is between what is just a hunch in WP, but what you feel you can prove if you could only violate OUTING.

First of all, you should know that there has been an intense RfC at WT:HARASSMENT about exceptions to OUTING for paid editing. You might want to check in on that. We have been trying to work out a way to be able to submit off-wiki links in order to deal with paid editing. This is high level stuff, involving Arbcom and the WMF Board. You should check it out. There is the division in the community that you would expect there, that we saw in the multiple proposals to ban paid editing. (I started out supporting the proposal, but i realized that the hole that was proposed was too big, and too easily abused. But I still want to work toward something there.)

Second, you may well be surprised that I agree with you, in part here. But I frame it differently. I accept the very hard edge that OUTING provides. You cannot OUT someone, period. Getting hung up on that, is just banging your head against a wall.

I have been thinking a lot about advocacy, and the way that advocates fuck up wikipedia. There used to be an NPOVN board (there is still is, but it is dead as a doornail). It is really hard to deal with advocacy in WP. And what I hear in what you are saying, is a concern with consistent POV editing - with advocacy. That is the on-wikipedia result of a COI, right? If you cannot prove a COI, you are left with advocacy. So the thing I have been thinking about, is how can I bring a workable, concise-enough case at ANI, about advocacy. That is really hard. I have thought about whether people could bring such a case against me, too. And I will use me as an example, rather than the folks I have in mind. Someone would have show a consistent refusal on my part to use what are actually reliable sources. (they could not bring bad sources like naturalnews or the like, and get any where. they would have to bring actual reliable sources that i actually rejected, with diffs). They would have to show that when I use reliable sources, I skew the content based on them, to show one particular POV, both in what I write, and in what I revert. Those are the two main things, right? Content and sources. And there would have to be a significant number of diffs - a very clear pattern - to show that this was not just a mistake (we all make mistakes). Do you see what I mean? It is a hard thing to do. It would take a lot of time and work. I think it is do-able. and you would have to leave COI the hell out of it, as it would indeed cause all hell to break loose. But a very solid NPOV case, is something that even people like Risker would respect --everybody cares about NPOV. Everybody. Does that make sense?

And that is why, by the way, the second paragraph in the current Guidance about "what to do" exists. It asks editors to think about whether it is an advocacy/NPOV issue if they cannot actually prove COI. So there you go. That is my long answer. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. In theory, you could get yourself in trouble for outing, just like you could at SPI or elsewhere. Not likely for someone experienced enough to use the board. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have had at least two newbies to COIN violate OUTING at COIN. I removed their posting, got it oversighted, and talked with them about what they did wrong, and had them repost it. All calmly, no drama. Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know where it comes from but it's a view I often hear in this context, that COIN is a dangerous place. I think it's a step in the right direction to change the wording to not imply that you need to have proof or certainty before bringing something there. Anyway I see some matters at COIN that are there based on reasonable suspicion based on behavioral evidence, and not open admission, and that seems reasonable. Or at least consistent with how, say, sockpuppets are often detected. Geogene (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

yep! but i totally don't get the "dangerous place" thing. I am really curious about where that is coming from! i don't think anybody who has brought a case that i have worked on (who was reasonable!) found it to be intimidating. if you could figure out where you have heard that i would appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm also not seeing this COIN can be scary type idea. If an apparent COI isn't clear, it's exactly the place for someone to ask, "Hey, I'm not sure if editor X has a COI. Here's are the edits that make me question if there's a COI . . ." The worst that can happen there if the editor brings it forward in a civil manner is that the community says there isn't a COI and everyone continues on. If the editor has been hounding the person being accused of COI or otherwise acting uncivilly, then the community might make note of that, but that's ultimately a matter for ANI. In my relatively short time here compared to other editors, COIN seems to work pretty smoothly with relatively little drama. If someone is really fearing retribution at COIN (though that feels like WP:BEANS to me at this point), that's all the more reason for them to keep their nose clean at the articles in question and when posting the COIN notice. If they're approaching it all civilly, there's nothing to fear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Like most things in life, I think there is a balance to be struck here. We don't want paid editors running amock or to have the encyclopedia's goals subverted by those whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy and righting great wrongs. On the other hand, I think we all agree with the idea that we want to maintain a warm, collegial, and welcoming atmosphere and that diversity of opinion is one of Misplaced Pages's strengths. No one should have to put up with constant aspersions and insinuations because a vocal minority disagrees with their point of view.

Sarah, what originally motivated me to join Misplaced Pages was coming across the Levofloxacin article and finding a 120,000 byte article that contained every case report in the literature of anything bad that had ever happened to anyone while taking the drug, and scores of others that were taken from blogs and other unreliable sources. Throughout the article these adverse effects were described as "severe", "life-threatening", and "permanent" though in most cases the underlying source described them as mild and temporary. The drug definitely has some issues but these were overstated to such an extent that I suspect that 5% of patients reading the article stopped taking their prescriptions. This is serious because the main use of Levofloxacin is for community acquired pneumonia. Many studies have shown the importance of rapid and effective treatment in preventing mortality. I believe there is quite literally a body count associated with the unbalanced state this article was in for several years. But I was harrassed and called a shill every step of the way in rewriting it.

While this work was in progress, I found myself in an content dispute with you, which included notes left on my user page threatening me with blocks, accuastions of bad faith editing, and even following me to other articles to revert my "biased" edits. I threw in the towel and began editing under shifting IP addresses for most of a year to make it difficult for you to track me.

I know you are a good and well intentioned person and do not intend to have this type of impact, so I'm taking this occassion to let you know. These attacks are corrosive, unproductive, and do more harm than good. I hope you'll be able to read this in the spirit in which I offer it, which is simply intended to create some understanding of the impact of excessive viligence in pursuing "COI". Sometimes it really is just a difference of opinion. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC). Striking with apologies - see below

This isn't the place to discuss particular examples, but if I said I was thinking of blocking, it wasn't a content dispute, so what you say makes no sense to me. Please let me have some links on my talk page. The only editor I can see from the history of Levofloxacin (which I haven't edited) that I discussed COI with was User:Alfred Bertheim, and here is the discussion (it was in relation to another article and there is no mention of blocking). Sarah (SV) 03:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You have brought up specific examples yourself, SlimVigin (eg EllenCT above). How is this different? bring them, Formerly, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Slim, I apologize for the inaccurate remark above. I've reviewed the records of the interaction and there was no threat to block. I do believe that the early and unsupported raising of the issue of COI played a major role in this perception that I was being subjected to a campaign of harassement. I did not raise this issue to "call you out", but to try to make clear how corrosive and negative these types of comments are, and did so only because my many past efforts to explain this do not seem to have resonated with those editors who seem to me fairly quick to raise such questions during a content dispute. But all this being said, I stand corrected and apologize. Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for striking. I've reviewed my edits, and not only was there no threat to block, there were no allegations of bad faith, and absolutely nothing that could be described as harassment. Our interaction was relatively brief and as I recall confined to Pharmaceutical industry (DRN, article talk, user talk). I've asked you to make that clear, but you've declined, so I'm posting it here myself. Sarah (SV) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WIfone case

It is a bad problem that warrants systemic change that it's extremely, extremely difficult to deal with an FCOI of a skilled dishonest editor. Case in point: Wifione. We need to restore the flexibility that provides multiple ways for it to be dealt with. Flexibility that would mean Wifione wouldn't be as bad if it happened now.--Elvey 12:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Great example. Arbcom case is Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione for anybody not familiar with it. Elvey the issues here are really difficult and have convulsed the community several times. If you are not familiar with the explosion of proposals to ban paid editing following the Wiki-PR scandal, you can find them in the "further reading" section of Conflict-of-interest editing on Misplaced Pages article, where I put them, And see also the RfC referenced above. The tension is between WP:OUTING, which is a passionately held fundamental principle of WP, and passionately held concerns about violations of NPOV (a passionately held fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages) caused by COI/paid editing. So far the community has found no way to take a more aggressive stance on paid editing that doesn't run into problems with OUTING. Nothing in the discussion above threads the needle either. It is hard. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

and very importantly - if you read the arbom decision, what brought Wifone down was not paid editing, but a strong pattern of violating NPOV. In their "principles" section, they wrote that arbcom has no jurisdiction over enforcing the ToU - that is a very serious thing with regard to this discussion. It will take community consensus to make it part of their mandate. I will quote that here:

"The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy."

And paid editing was not mentioned in their findings of fact. It was NPOV that got him. With regard to NPOV, see my remarks above. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree re: flexibility. The issues aren't difficult. Misplaced Pages chooses to make them so, in part because paid editors have always been part of the discussion about how to handle COI, so our thinking about it is bogged down. It was obvious for a long time that Wifione had a COI, but it was the usual AGF problem. Had it not been for Vejvančický it might still be going on.

We should make it easier to topic ban editors at an early stage when editors in good standing believe there is a COI. I'm not talking about the small fry who create articles about themselves, but about editors acting on behalf of significant financial interests. Perhaps we need to rethink the term "topic ban" to make it less of a stigma. Sarah (SV) 16:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

the fly in that ointment, is demonstrating that anyone is "acting on behalf of significant financial interests". Without violating OUTING, what that comes down to is on-wiki evidence of a significant pattern of violating NPOV, per my note above. Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

NO, Jytdog. What's very important was the horrendous, embarrassingly ridiculous time - multiple YEARS - and and horrendous, embarrassingly ridiculous amount of effort it took to get the issue to be properly addressed. In hindsight, it looks to me like there was plenty of evidence if more folks had just looked a little harder at the evidence that had been presented many years ago, like in Aug 2010. What brought Wifone down is probably not to be seen online, but rather is in the evidence that, it's indicated, was submitted privately - probably evidence of paid advocacy editing that OUTING kept under wraps that was even stronger than the behavioral evidence. It was strong enough that it led in 2009 to both an RFM (not accepted - See User_talk:Makrandjoshi.) and an SPI (closed as possible then but in 2015 as likely). What seems very important is understanding and addressing why Wifione was so effective so long in bullying many people into giving up on challenging his bad behavior. e.g. odd reason for a delete instead of a move, but done / upheld!--Elvey 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, strongly agree - it's "because paid editors have always been part of the discussion about how to handle COI, so our thinking about it is bogged down". A while ago, I suggested discussions only open to those willing to state they've disclosed any paid editing as a solution to that. Perhaps in such discussions there would be more traction for ideas like making "topic ban" less of a stigma, User:SlimVirgin.--Elvey 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Elvey I agree with you that better action taken earlier could have made a big difference. The first COIN case especially was not followed through on well. But you both are missing my points. first, arbcom has made it clear that they are not "going there" on ToU violations on the community provides consensus for them to do so. second, to get community consensus for that, or any stronger action on ToU enforcement or stronger COI management, we have to deal with OUTING, and the very strong concern that a significant chunk of the community has for that, and the anonymity of editors, and this whole place being about content and behavior - a whole nexus of things deep in the guts of this place. That is not going away, and all the Reichstag-climbing and outrage in the world is not going to change that. And while I reckon that some opposition to stronger COI procedures/policies comes from undisclosed paid editors, tarring all those who have strong concern to preserve OUTING, as all being paid editors, is going to make any proposal even more of a lead balloon, and really discredits whatever you propose.

any proposal to use off-wiki evidence is going to have to be strictly limited .... i do urge you to read the RfC i linked to above. i have floated a balloon there.. would be interested in your thoughts on that. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

We can bypass OUTING concerns by making it easier to deal with COI (not only paid editing) using WP:DUCK. If, in addition, we reduce the stigma of topic bans, we'd be closer to finding a solution. The stigma is diminishing as more editors are subjected to them, so perhaps this is a moot point, but I still think a different term would sting less; e.g. a no-fault "topic advisory" where the community asks editors to steer clear of a certain topic for 12 months. Regular editors would edit elsewhere after some grumbling. The serious COI-ers would leave. Problem solved. Sarah (SV) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Per the discussion with Geogene above, we use behavior stuff quite a bit at COIN now - there are behaviors that make a COI pretty clear (often the account is SPA and their edits blatantly violate NPOV and other policies and guidelines). That will get you some distance. At end of the day it takes actual policy violations to get people indeffed - see this recent case I brought to ANI. Outside blatant policy violations like that, you are going to need a long term pattern of violating NPOV, as I keep saying, and like what finally brought wifone down. But I have no idea what you are talking about with "the stigma of topic bans". If someone wants to edit a topic and gets topic banned, it sucks to be them. But sometimes that has to happen. Nothing to do with "stigma". Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, when you were accused of COI you voluntarily asked for an off-Wiki check that cleared your name. How does such a check work and how could it show that an editor was not being paid for their edits? Gandydancer (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If you mean, "the last time the hounding became overwhelming", I can answer you. I get accused of COI all the time. In any case:

Via email with an oversighter, I disclosed my real life identity and what i do for a living, my life story, and my work history, and we had some discussion about that. The oversighter with whom I emailed evaluated all that and found no COI for anything related to ag biotech. I did not mention editing for pay, as I have never done that. I was not asked if I edit for pay and we did not discuss that. In case I have never said it before (it is hard to believe I haven't with all the hammering I have gotten): i have never been paid, or received any consideration of any kind, for anything I do in Misplaced Pages, nor have I expected to, nor do I expect to, nor have I ever agreed to. I edit here purely as a volunteer; it has never been, and is not, part of my day job nor any paid work nor any volunteer work i do outside of my day job. I have tried to make that as broad and clear as possible - I am not a paid editor. I have no COI for ag biotech. The story of how i got interested in ag biotech was on an older version of my user page which you can see here that is the real story. no money in it. Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I just copied the second paragraph to my user page, to make it easy for folks to find in the future. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Gandydancer / Jytdog : Link? Is the oversighter someone you're willing to name/authorize to verify the public part of the story you post above? ("Via email with an oversighter, I disclosed my real life identity...") so that your story can be verified? Also, I don't see a claim that the oversighter was able to verify the key parts of the story. What makes me skeptical as that I see you grosslysubstantially misrepresenting what ARBCOM said. --Elvey 01:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

there has been a link to the COIN discussion at the bottom of my user page ever since it happened. How do you think I am grossly misrepresenting what arbom said? please explain. you really must, since you are getting all suspicious over it. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC) (edited)

Verified that you contacted oversighter Someguy1221. He doesn't say so but it can be assumed that he verified the identity that you privately claimed. Thanks. Helpful. But you're still misrepresenting what ARBCOM said when you say "arbcom has no jurisdiction over enforcing the ToU." - three + reasons: firstly, that's an overreach AND secondly, ARBCOM was nuts to even say "The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing;" half a dozen respected veteran editors said as much to ARBCOM here and ARBCOM agreed...? - I'm confused; this doesn't LOOK stricken to me and you quote it, but thirdly, this says it was stricken and User:Smallbones gave seven reasons why it was wrong. WT??? @L235: should I ask for a formal clarification? DONE. ISTM this should definitely be stricken! --Elvey 02:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for explaining. OK, so I am actually comfortable with what I wrote. First, please look again at Smallbones request - first, i weighed in on that and supported it to be stricken; and second, it failed with 6 opposed to striking, 4 favoring, and 2 abstaining. Second. please see this post by Doc James, who has been working very hard on paid editing issues and has been talking to Jimbo, WMF, and arbcom. He says the same thing - that arbcom will not touch this. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, so my third reason was not valid; sorry for what the incorrect official statements on what was stricken from the arbcom case led me to say about you, incorrectly, Jytdog. (That doesn't change my view that you're misrepresenting what ARBCOM said when you say "arbcom has no jurisdiction over enforcing the ToU." for the other reasons; they said far less than that.) --Elvey 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your note! this is getting pretty fine on the arbcom thing. bottom line is that I believe that this arbcom (future ones, might take different stances) has made it clear that they are not going to act or consider ToU violations or paid editing, until the community provides consensus for them to do so. that is the message they are giving, both in the wifione case and elsewhere. i am comfortable saying that. if you have some diff that contradicts that, I am all ears. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, re: your post above about NPOV, it's a mistake to focus on that, because it might take months or years to become familiar enough with a complex topic to determine what's missing and what has been slanted.

An editor who does little but edit in the interests of a particular industry has an apparent COI by definition. As the guideline says, this can be as damaging as an actual COI, and should be resolved wherever possible. It's particularly damaging when it's a powerful company and the public interest is at stake. We should be able to suggest that that person take time off from the topic, without it being a big deal or something requiring months of volunteer time to propose. I'd encourage you to read some of the academic literature on how damaging actual and apparent COI is. Sarah (SV) 21:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Focusing on NPOV is the only way (in my opinion) that you are going to get community consensus to do more about COI/paid editing. Everybody agrees on preserving NPOV.

I deal with and manage other people's COI every day as part of my RW work. i know about it, I think about it, I live it.

Here is what WP:APPARENTCOI actually says (with emphasis added): "An apparent conflict of interest arises when P does not have a conflict of interest, but someone would be justified in thinking P does. Michael Davis writes that apparent conflicts can be as objectionable as potential or actual conflicts, because they cause suspicion, and should therefore be resolved wherever possible. What "resolved" means there, if you read Davis, is that the apparent conflict is investigated, and if no conflict is found, the decision is made clear, so that people are not anxious and do not suspect the person anymore. So your reading of Davis is wrong. You would cost Misplaced Pages to lose (possibly) good editors because of something that is not true.

Finally, I am being hounded, and you are supporting it, and definitely are not trying to stop it. You have been the subject of hounding and Arbcom found you to be "an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily." What happened to that person? You are doing the opposite of being "too ready to accuse" others of hounding. Why are you supporting the hounding of me, and opening the door wide for others to be hounded? I really mean those questions. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer to focus on the issue. If you'd like to ask me something about your situation, please post something on your page. I'll look out for it.

Back to the point: it's senseless to argue for the status quo when it clearly doesn't work. If someone is in the thick of persistent and serious allegations of COI, they can resolve them by taking the articles off their watchlist for a period. That should be encouraged, just as people are encouraged to recuse in real life, for the sake of public confidence.

If they won't, and particularly if it involves a significant external financial interest, there should be an easy way for the community to request a topic ban based on apparent COI, without having to "investigate" people. If we had done that with Wifione, 15,000 students in India wouldn't have lost money, and hundreds (thousands?) of hours of volunteer time wouldn't have been wasted. At the moment we do it when it doesn't matter, we topic-ban the minor vanity writers, etc. What makes no sense is that we require hard evidence when the issue is more serious, but anyone who finds it risks being sanctioned. We need a fresh, "no big deal" approach, as in "this is not your fault, but you would be helping the community if you were to refrain from editing X for 12 months." Sarah (SV) 22:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

i'l repeat this. you are ignoring the part of apparent COI that says P does not have a conflict of interest You appear to be quite willing to have editors who have done nothing wrong be hounded and driven off articles they want to work on - and may be contributing productively to. That is messed up to me. I will not support that, and doubt the community will - it will take an RfC to implement your proposal to lower the bar this far. Let me ask you - how do you prevent your lower bar from being abused by POV-pushers against good editors? How do you judge if a claim is valid? Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

additional note. The Wifione case, on its face, was an NPOV-violation case. The key set of evidence there, was all Feb 2013 and earlier. So theoretically... the case could have been brought two years ago. I don't know why it wasn't. ( I really don't) And I don't know if the same case would have succeeded two years ago (I really don't). Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

No. What's being suggested above is, literally, Ostracism, that an editor that isn't breaking any other policy, and isn't even that likely to have COI, can be voted off the island by a mob of angry editors based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. (After all, if he were breaking some other policy they would have called him in for that, and if he were likely to have COI they'd have taken him to COIN as it is.) This would be the go-to weapon for battlegrounders all across Misplaced Pages. That's problematic for a lot of reasons, including the fact that it runs against AGF, NOTDEMOCRACY, and other policies. What might make it less distasteful to me would be if you have a set board of uninvolved editors where such a case can be brought, where the disputants don't get to pick the outcome, and where unsuccessful serial accusers would be noticed for intervention. But...don't we already have a place like that? Geogene (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of the focus on NPOV failing. Someone reported Wifione to COIN in January 2010. His response: "When an article (like you have mentioned) contains too many negative issues, then attempting to reach an NPOV state by adding a balancing positive pov appears to be CoI." He then warns the OP about harassment and raises the idea of a block for it. He insists that the OP "treat content disputes the way they should be treated - like content disputes. Please don't harass a fellow editor continuously and so flagrantly."

COI editors use our policies and DR as Trojan horses. Even with an article as straightforward as the Wifione one, determining whether it's neutral (including which sources are missing) is very time-consuming. You have to educate yourself about the topic, you have to survive the COI editor's filibustering. With a complex issue, it could take months before you understand enough to be able to tackle it from an NPOV perspective and explain it so that others get it too. Sarah (SV) 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

SV that was a case brought to COIN. It not a case about NPOV on the face of it. And as I mentioned, I think that COIN case may have been handled too lightly; I am not sure I would have handled it that way... but I have not dug into the background enough to say for sure. It would take a lot of work that I am not willing to do now. ( i can symphathize with the "too busy for that" argument, for something that is history) But yes if you are trying to make an argument about NPOV, there must be actual consideration of whether the edits are NPOV or not. It cannot be that some POV-pusher who DOESNTLIKEIT attacks the contributor instead of dealing with content, and others act on that, without even understanding the issues. Is that really what you are proposing? Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You've said that COI editors use our policies as Trojan horses to influence articles, why wouldn't they use this the same way? Remember, the decision about whether an editor should edit an article is a straw poll. Wifione had a sock farm. I don't see how this proposal would stop anyone with any staff. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That particular case was not followed up properly because it was lost sight of. Some of it is my fault, because I was aware of it, and intended to follow up, but there is so much coi to work on, that I let this one go. I've noticed tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of coi promotional articles, and managed to get many of them fixed or deleted, and the editors stopped, but unless what I try works at the first instance, I can only follow up a small proportion of them. There are too few of us who have been caring for this problem, no matter how energetically we act, to do everything. We're not going to fix the problem by acting against the editors with the current methods available and we cannot wait for the multi-year process of developing a strong enough consensus to change the rules even if we were to find a change with the right balance: we need to do it by acting with respect to the articles. What is needed is more people looking carefully at new articles and listing for deletion, and checking articles merely tagged and considering them for deletion, and commenting at afd where a great many article do not get deleted because nobody bothers to support the nominator. (about 1/4 of those I nominate there do not get deleted, because nobody seems to pay attention, or take the problem seriously.) DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for writing here DGG. i agree with all that. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Limiting page creation to autoconfirmed users would slow that down tremendously. That's another thing I don't understand. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Noting that I've replied to Elvey at WP:AC/CN#Stricken principle not stricken!?. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not inventing a new field of jurisprudence here. There are multiple analogies to this situation in real life. If you run into someone who you think spends a little too much time at the playground for a guy who does not have kids,

• It would probably be normal to have some concerns
• But if you ask them if they are a child molester, they are likely to be angry. All the more so if you do so within the hearing of others
• If you repeatedly raise the issue within the hearing of others after they have denied it, and in the absence of any real evidence, it is likely that they will eventually file a lawsuit against you for defamation of character.

Put another way, even in the case of child molesting we as a society balance the important task of preventing wrongdoing with the need for people to be free from being continuously hassled by others who may feel they have a basis for concern but who have no real evidence, those who are unrealistically suspicious, and those who use accusations to bully others.

Likewise, I don't think its a very nice thing when someone accuses me of COI in the absence of any evidence other than that I disagree with their own incredibly neutral POV. Accusing me of it repeatedly is even worse, as it insults me, by implication calls me a liar, and has not even a theoretical chance of achieving anything. (I'm certainly not going to "fess up" on the 5ths accusation if I didn't in the first 4. At this point the accusation is clearly being made as a cudgel).

An important problem with the current system is that when a COIN case is filed, there are typically two outcomes. Either COI is established and the editor in question is disciplined, or evidence is not found, and the disagreeing parties go back to the Talk page where the complaintant continues to hurdle the same accusations at the person who just spent several days defending themselves at COIN.

In order to check the potential for abuse, there needs to be one of two things.

1) Some reasonably high standard of evidence, and sanctions for trivial ("he made an edit I disagree with" complaints, or

2) Some reasonable "time out" period during which repeat accusations cannot be made against those who have just been investigated with no fault found.

In the Constitution of the U.S. there is a double jeopardy clause. It is there for a reason. Formerly 98 14:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

YES!! to thing 2, above (where that period is perhaps a month, adjustable by a factor of 2 by an authorized closing investigator). No! to sanctions for raising CoI concern outside of a narrowly prescribed way, no to a narrowly prescribed way. No to regs that would forbid the bulk of the CoI accusations against Wifione, if they were made tomorrow.--Elvey 17:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear support for systemic change because "it's extremely, extremely difficult to deal with an FCOI of a skilled dishonest editor." So I'm thinking that the next time I see such a conflict, I'll ask for a topic ban based on the quite apparent COI rather than seek/wait (forever?) for hard evidence thereof. I think that's what we should plan on. And based on how that goes, consider next steps.--Elvey 15:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Elvey i have been thinking about this too. I've been looking for a test case to bring to ANI over COI. It would need to have the following qualities:

• a self-disclosure of COI so that it is not ambiguous
• disruptive-ish behavior but not wildly over the line (if it were way over the line, they would already have been dealt with on that basis, like this case
• easy-enough-to-discern pattern of POV editing (if it is too technical, the crowd at ANI will not "get it")

i am very curious how such a case would go. but i think if you lack any one of those elements, the case will go nowhere and could even boomerang (the lesson of the TimidGuy case) I want to emphasize that without a clear self-disclosure that the editor is "an FCOI", you have an entirely different situation on your hands. Without the self-disclosure piece, in my view bringing COI heavily into the discussion is going to derail it, and you also will need to have much stronger evidence under the other two bullets to get a community decision. I do think the community is ripe for cases like this, but each one needs to be done well for it to succeed and others to follow. Badly done, ham-handed cases will not only probably boomerang on the OP, but a series of them will likely start to cause a backlash. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

How is your case a test case? What does it test that makes it like the WIfone case? I see it as such an entirely different situation that it belongs in a different discussion, so I've added a new header. In the case you link to, there's a clear ToS violation - clear disclosure of a FCOI, but one that doesn't meet the terms of the ToU. WIfone never disclosed a COI, let alone a FCOI. It sounds like you're saying that a case like the Wifione case would go nowhere and could even boomerang. That's the problem. It sounds almost like you're saying that a case like the Wifione case should go nowhere. What does "succeed" mean to you? --Elvey 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

would you please re-read what i wrote? you misinterpreted it. the case i linked to is not the test case, since there was a very clear behavioral violation and it was taken care of on those grounds. i am talking about something different, where an editor does not make egregious behavioral violations. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure of COI at account creation?

Hi, was thinking today. WP is a scholarly project, and as far as I know, most reputable publishers require authors to disclose any COI they have, when they submit a manuscript. (I know this is true in scientific publishing - not so sure about liberal arts.)

So - what if we included a way for editors to disclose COI when they create an account? Something like: "You may have a conflict of interest (COI) with regard to something you want to write about. Additionally, some people edit Misplaced Pages as part of their jobs, or as contractors. Misplaced Pages's Terms of Use require you to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation for any edits you make in those situations. We ask editors to disclose any other sort of COI they have as well. Please disclose any conflicts you have in the box below. Please note that Misplaced Pages allows editors to be anonymous on Misplaced Pages, and protects the anonymity of editors via enforcement of the outing policy. However, you are obligated to disclose "employer, client, and affiliations" for paid edits, and are encouraged to disclose any other COI. The contents of this box will be added to your User Page."

Something like that. This may be a lead balloon, but I wanted to float it, and this seemed to be the place to start. It would of course require an RFC with very wide notification to get anything like this actually done, should the balloon fly here. Thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to grapple with the dilemma that is Misplaced Pages COI. As you hint, the dilemma especially arises because Misplaced Pages articles are meant to be presented as a tertiary, independent encyclopedia in the scholarly voice - but autobiographers, nor agents of article subjects, cannot possibly honestly represent their own writing this way. Then too, many people are unfamiliar with analyzing or dealing with their own COI in written work. Misplaced Pages must both request (demand) and educate about dealing with COI. You present a way to do so but, I wonder whether sign-in is a WMF coding thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of it (though some of the proposed wording might need adjustment)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I see several problems, especially with the wording proposed.

1. firstly you are raising the threshold for creating an account, and those like me who consider that easy account creation is part of Misplaced Pages's "secret sauce" will oppose that.
2. Secondly we are an encyclopaedia covering everything, so disclosure of all potential COIs is an onerous and undue process, especially when contrasted with the current policy of allowing people to avoid a COI by not editing the article. Taking me as a case in point, when I started editing I might have agreed to disclose who my employer was, but I would not have been allowed by my employer to publicly list on the Internet all the current and potential clients of theirs that I was involved with in my work.
3. Thirdly we have people doing lots of little edits rather than occasionally submitting a whole manuscript. Maintaining a list of potential conflicts of interest that you update every time you submit an edit would be an onerous timesink.
4. Fourthly this approach makes life difficult for those who try to follow the rules, but does nothing to inconvenience those who ignore them. Better in my view to try a completely different approach. ϢereSpielChequers 14:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts! i completely hear all that, and agree they are problems. I don't know that they are killer problems but i hear and agree. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would support some form of disclosure ability at account creation. Needs to be kept short. Likely would also need to be optional with the ability to leave it blank. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutral It's an interesting idea. It would help deter some of the good faith COI editors that start accounts to write autobiographies genuinely believing that this is what they're supposed to be doing here. It wouldn't do anything against stealth/bad faith COI and for that reason would not address the community's legitimate concerns about this issue. As was said above it might also deter account creation from editors that have legitimate privacy concerns but who aren't intending to use WP for promotion. It might even be used a cudgel if some editors may have unreasonably expansive views of what constitutes COI, for example, if an attorney should be allowed to write articles about laws or jurisprudence because of broad "professional interest" or something. Geogene (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

i hear you on the risks. yep those are all legit, i agree. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support The disclose-COI-at-account-creation proposal is in my view a fabulous idea. Note: Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, must disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages. --Elvey 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support with reservations I think this is a good idea. The issues raised are legitimate and need to be adequately addressed. It should be very brief/non prominent and optional (with the option of leaving blank clearly specified). Not sure how best phrased and placed to prevent a chilling effect due to possible over broad interpretation of COI while still making clear paid editing must be disclosed. I agree super easy account creation is extremely important. I also think the process should remain as welcoming and encouraging as possible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
• Do not support - Nice idea, but that seems about as likely to illicit honest responses as the pop up "click yes if you are over 18 to look at our adult site" will get from a from teenage boy. Plus, except for semi-protected articles, you don't even need an account to edit here. —Мандичка 😜 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC queues (offshoot of Disclosure of COI at account creation?)

• Support Not quite like this, though. I would support adding the question "Is this article about a business or product" in the AfC queue and kicking anything with that flag to the second-rate queue. AfC is flooded with this class of submissions and there is not demand in the Wikimedia community of reviewers to prioritize these kinds of submissions along with the others, just because reviewing those is the most emotionally draining and likely to make users a target for arguments with paid staff. It is unfair to volunteers to put them into a pool where they are pressed to engage people who are paid to argue till exhaustion, and only people who know the risks and choose to engage that demographic should have to review this content.

Business is a huge sector in AfC and among the least popular article content among readers. Volunteer contributors have the right to choose what they want to review and right now, this highly problematic class of articles is burdening the community of reviewers and bringing down quality of outcomes and motivation of volunteers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

interesting! thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea to try to let new contributors have a concept of notability and COI before they sink much time into writing an article about themselves. It's no fun to have to tell people they aren't "notable". Geogene (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

what is most needed is very simple: a way of dividing the afc queue by subject. Needless to say, it's been opposed continually by those who set up the procedure. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DGG. how has that been considered? the simple thing would be to ask that folks at AfC check if Talk pages are created and articles are linked to Projects and that could be used to sort/prioritize ... but i would guess that has been tried. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thesystem for doing this already exists: see ]. A simplified version into perhaps 5 or 10 groups would be vert easy to implement. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, though "10 groups" doesn't exactly sound like a simplified version :) Any wiki-classification can expect to grow by at least 100% as people argue over the edge cases.

I saw this proposal the other day but didn't have time to comment. The original disclose-COI-at-account-creation proposal is in my view a terrible idea. I appreciate the brainstorming on how to handle COI issues, but this would only induce honest contributors to provide more personal information than they would have been comfortable with unprompted, while doing nothing to deter dishonest people from spamming and self-promoting.

Bluerasberry's proposal is fundamentally different in being about the nature of the content rather than the presumed motivations of the contributor, and in that sense is a good step forward. I'm not sure why a person who knows their business article will go to the back of the AfC queue would bother with AfC at all, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

New section

added the content below today in this dif which has already been tweaked here - putting here for discussion if anybody wants to.

;Signs of conflicted editing There are some behaviors that are typical of editors who have a COI. No single behavior (outside a statement by an editor of their relationship to the subject they are editing) is definitive, and not every conflicted editor will do all of them. Judgement needs to used before asking an editor if they have a COI based on behaviors like this.

Overall activity

The above are typical signs of accounts editing under a conflict of interest. There are more rare cases, where long term Wikipedians have an undisclosed conflict of interest, such as the Wifione case that was resolved by the Arbitration Committee in February 2015. In those cases, only a long term pattern of edits that violate NPOV - which can be adding positive content and removing negative content about the subject of the conflict, and doing the opposite to articles about opponents of the subject or competitors of the subject - are useful in addressing the issues, which are indistinguishable from advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 11:52, April 15, 2015‎

:Signs of conflicted editing
shortcut|WP:COISIGNS
There are some behaviors that are typical of editors who come to Misplaced Pages on behalf of a person or organization. Some of these behaviors are also typical of editors who are here to advocate for something and have no financial conflict, and some behaviors are typical of many new editors. No single behavior (outside a statement by an editor of their relationship to the subject they are editing) is definitive, and not every conflicted editor will do all of them. Judgement needs to used before asking an editor if they have a COI based on behaviors like these. It should also be taken into account that good faith new editors without COI may edit in a similar manner, either inadvertently, or because they have seen so much COI editing here that they think the manner is acceptable.

Overall activity

The above are typical signs of accounts editing under a conflict of interest. There are more rare cases, where long term Wikipedians have an undisclosed conflict of interest, such as the Wifione case that was resolved by the Arbitration Committee in February 2015. In those cases, only a long term pattern of edits that violate NPOV - which can be adding positive content and removing negative content about the subject of the conflict, and doing the opposite to articles about opponents of the subject or competitors of the subject - are useful in addressing the issues, which are indistinguishable from advocacy. (content at time it was removed Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)) (withdrawn per note away below. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)}}

I would specify that COI edits are much more likely to be about living people and extant companies/products rather than deceased people or former companies. I would also remove the 'Doesn't sign and indent comments on talk pages' - it is a fairly weak clue, a practice somewhat common with new editors and non-fluent English speakers, and doesn't suggest much either way unless it is found alongside a number of other indicators.Dialectric (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

did both. thanks. and thanks for signing for me above. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I added an observation that they (brand new, page-creating SPAs) may seem completely indifferent to a delete nomination. Or they might thank you or blank the page (something that implies both a familiarity with procedure and a businesslike attitude toward Misplaced Pages). I've seen that a few times. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a few changes based on (this is my personal opinion, not intended as a staetment of policy.

I removed "Adding of unsourced content" About half the new editors of any nature do this.

I also added a comment that it should be made clear in asking an editor about coi that it should be done in such a way that they know they do not have to answer, to avoid it looking like outing. I'm therefore very unsure wether the line about "not answering belongs in the list.

I'm also unsure if responding angrily to deletion requests is indicative of COI--many new good faith editors do that, andI find that perfectly understandable. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks those changes were very helpful. will take out the angry thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't support this at all. I apologize given Jytdog 's work on this. However, none of these behaviours point to COI specifically but point to questionable editing practices and or are not objective enough to determine whether the editor has a COI or another editor thinks the editing points to a COI. This change will breed witch hunts. I will revert once per BOLD and suggest wider community input on a change this extensive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC))

littleolive oil agree with your comment 100%. thanks for reverting.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Littleolive oil (i think you meant "objective" not "subjective" right?) also, this grew out of the discussions above and elsewhere about helping the community identify and manage conflicted editors (which include an essay that was launched into article space, and deleted, and is now in userspace - User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery). I am 100% behind the no-witching thing. And am happy to discuss this and whatever else. above, I copied the content of the section as it stood at your removal, just to have that as an anchor for concrete discussion. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

With the possible exception of how the editor responds to questions on conflicts of interest, I think the described behaviours are characteristic of biased editing, editorial commentary, and advocacy of a particular point of view. However this can occur without a conflict of interest relating to a financial or other material benefit for the editor. Perhaps this information can be included somewhere else, such as under a description of advocacy editing? isaacl (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

replying to Isaccl - that is a great point - COI is just a subset of advocacy. the key "signs" of financial COI are the SPA for "a living person or an existing product or company" along with POV editing - and even that is not definitive and cannot be. Cannot be. When I work at COIN I always keep in mind the possibility that somebody is just a fan of X and may very well not be financially connected to X. In my view individual editors should never make definitive claims of COI outside of a declaration by the conflicted editor; doing so is in my view a personal attack. But i also want to add that paid editing happens a ton here (nobody knows how much, but it is a lot. i don't know what your experience is at AfC or AfD but the first two bullet points - a brand new user who knows how to edit, and a SPA for a given subject, and an article straining for NOTABILITY with poor sourcing, for living people and companies/products. This is the M.O. of paid editors and it happens a lot. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see that it matters whether the conflict is financial or other. Indeed, we have seen lots of political, nationalistic, and religious advocacy, and there's no reason those need to be financially motivated. The method by which POV is injected is also the best evidence of POV: selection of one-sided sources, misrepresentation of balanced sources, or simply failing to cite verifiable, accessible sources. None of these take knowledge of the editor to detect, nor do they provide any excuse for outing. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

agreed with all that - but nobody said anything was an excuse for OUTING.... unclear where the comment is coming from. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood. Is there some other way to "make definitive claims of COI outside of a declaration by the conflicted editor" without outing? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The key difference between having a conflict of interest and problematic advocacy is that the latter is only an issue if editors engage in advocacy in their edits, whereas the former is considered to be a problem regardless of the quality of the edits being made. If conflict of interest scenarios were expanded to include cases without material benefits being realized, then pretty much all editors will have conflicts of interest in most topics, since we generally have personal opinions on everything. Thus I believe it is better to keep the procedures for managing advocacy separate from those for managing conflicts of interest of a material nature. isaacl (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with that distinction between COI editing and advocacy of a position. COI editing usually involves promotion of a band/DJ/business/product, or resume inflation for an individual. Usually, the article subject isn't one that draws broad attention or has many editors. Most of the routine work at WP:COIN involves such cases, for which the guidelines above are helpful. They're slanted toward inept promotion, though. Higher-quality COI editing may not raise those red flags. The tough cases are ones where there's heavy promotion involving links to lots of references which were created by non-Misplaced Pages PR efforts.

There are also cases where someone did something bad, it got solid press coverage, and they want that to disappear from Misplaced Pages. It's usually clear what's going on there. For an extreme example, see Talk:Banc De Binary, where at one point the company involved offered $10,000 to anyone who could "fix" the article.

Position advocacy is a different problem. It's often associated with subjects of broad interest. Those situations are much more difficult to resolve. Most articles in the Israel/Palestine and abortion spaces fall into that category. Those kinds of problems tend to go to AN/I, and occasionally Arbcom. Cases which straddle the boundary exist. Landmark Education and Scientology both have strong advocates and opponents. There, the main problem is restraining the editors who go overboard with their advocacy. Heavy use of "cite needed" is often necessary, and long arguments over citations on Talk are normal. That's OK; that's the process which makes Misplaced Pages articles more accurate. When those problems show up at WP:COIN, I'm inclined to pass the buck to AN/I, where they have bigger hammers. John Nagle (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nagle. Good to see that someone who works COIN found the "signs" to be in the ballpark. Do you think it is useful to include them in the guideline? Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

They're useful hints for people dealing with COIN problems, but I can see the guidelines being used for "I'm not doing any of those things so it's not COI" arguments. Those guidelines describe inept COI editing. See, for example, Michael Milken, who has a quite competent paid editor with a declared COI devoted to polishing his image. John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually wrote a new essay that covered the points suggested by isaacl and LeadSongDog. It was a total revamp of the original essay I wrote called COIducks which was deleted. I fixed the issues according to the criticisms, and created a new focus under a new title which focused primarily on advocacy behavior and the proper steps to take when facing such issues. The opposition immediately requested Speedy Delete, claiming it was a relaunch of the old essay. I requested a review of the Speedy Delete which is here: Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_15#Advocacy_and_COI_ducks Atsme☯ 04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did tag the second essay for speedy deletion because it was much the same as the first essay.

COI and advocacy editing is a problem and an essay describing identifying and dealing with it would be helpful. I think an essay, rather than this or another guideline, is the right place to describe and define this kind of problematic editing. Entrenching these definitions into a guideline could turn then into a more hard-and-fast rule to be followed. It would also be used, as John Nagle points out, by editors who say that since they're not doing those things, they're not engaging in this problematic editing. However, such an essay must be grounded in good faith, include clear definitions, distinguish between this problematic editing and the application of both consensus and policies and guidelines, and use existing Misplaced Pages terminology and definitions. Unfortunately, neither version of Atsme's essay did these things (see the MfD discussion) which is why I !voted to delete the first one and tagged the relaunched one for deletion. Ca2james (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

While all of these situations could point to problematic editing none specifically point to COI; that's my concern. I don't see that anything said here in discussion changes that issue. I would suggest an RfC so that this has wide community input. Thanks Jytdog I did mean objective in my first comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with Ca2james because it was not the same. I also believe the way my essay was deleted in the middle of ongoing discussions at the TP of BDD (who deleted the original essay) deserves a closer review because the reason given was based on misinformation. I even went to the trouble of creating a table on the essay TP demonstrating the stark differences between the old and new using side by side columns and highlighted changes in yellow. All but a few sentences were highlighted in yellow. The title was changed, the focus was changed, the information in each section was changed, the lists were changed, and so on. I question whether it was even seen. The images and style along with a few paraphrased sentences from PAG were all that remained in the body of the new essay. I don't see how any editor who actually saw the comparison table and/or read both essays could possibly conclude they were the same. But wait, what is going on here now? Jytdog has taken the lead in creating his version of a COI ducks essay? Interesting. Oh, and let's not forget the plagiarized copy of my original essay that appeared right after the original was deleted. Smells a little fishy to me. Does anybody have a can of Glade Air Freshener? Ocean Breeze would be nice. Atsme☯ 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

this is not an essay. crazy. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, as for the "fishy" remark, I don't think conspiracy theories are helpful here, they are part of what got the essay deleted in the first place. There was a wildly inappropriate parody of your essay posted, it got no support and was immediately criticized on the Medicine Talk page (by Jytdog among others) and speedily deleted.

I appreciate that there are some real concerns here about COI editing, but any essay discussing these issues needs to be POV-neutral, and not read like an attempt to get the upper hand for a certain POV in content disputes. The most recent version of the essay that I saw was much improved and I appreciate your openness to making changes in response to the community's concerns, especially given the confrontational and emotional nature of the discussion. But it still contained references to "pro-industry" edits (anti-industry edits can never be COI motivated? I'd like to show you some examples of some of the crap that I've reverted, especially in articles about drugs that were the subject of ongoing personal injury litigation) and tended to equate consensus with conspiracy. I know you meant well here but you've aligned yourself with people who have made statements that are strongly opposed to guidelines and policies that are widely accepted here and who have gone so far as to call Misplaced Pages itself "corrupt" and the admins "bootlickers". It really might be good to take a short break from this, and if you are still interested in a month or so, try to get input from a wider group of editors to help write an essay that is more likely to gain consensus. Formerly 98 15:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be near impossible to prove COI with the added section. But if for some reason it is accepted, the line "Copying content about that subject into several articles, often with undue weight" could be used as an attempt to justify removal by a advocate/COI to remove referenced information from multiple sites that deals with a common problem they all have. I dont think its provable as a COI indicator, and if others think it is I would change it to "Copying content or removing similar content about a subject on several articles, often with undue weight or misuse of policy and guidelines to justify the actions." AlbinoFerret 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret the signs are not meant to "prove" anything - the text explicitly says that the only proof of COI is a declaration by the editor, and explicitly says that the list is not definitive and that not everything applies all the time. it says that dealing with COI means you have to think carefully about OUTING and AGF; if you think someone might have a COI, and you approach them, it needs to be done in a way that not only doesn't violate OUTING and AGF, but actually respects them. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Formerly, I hear read your concerns and am now trying to get the deleted essay temporarily restored so I can copy it and the TP to Userfy. If my memory serves, I think the essay did include that issue but it must not have been clear so when it shows up again, I will look to see how we can fix it. Thanks for your input. Atsme☯ 16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that this new section is especially helpful, and I agree with John Nagle that it is more of a guide to inept COI editing. It might even be counterproductive, in that genuine COI editors (even those with declared COIs) might say "oh, I'm not doing any of those things, so I'm OK." Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

^Agree. David Tornheim (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• In my experience, most conflicted editors come to WP and have no idea how this place works - most are inept and they don't care - they just want to get their articles posted or add their POV content. Serial, socking paid editors write shitty articles because most of the time, the subjects who are paying them are not NOTABLE and the paid editors have to include unsourced or badly sourced content to get some kind of article written. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

And so the Big Fish are to go free? The small ones are easy to catch and don't do much damage because they are so easy to catch and correct their work. I can't speak for Atmse and Coretheapple, but I think we are interested in dealing with the Big Fish especially. David Tornheim (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• several editors here have blatantly misread the proposed addition - some completely ignored the very careful wording about it not being definitive overall much less any single element being definitive, the call to use judgement, to remember to assume good faith and not to OUT any one. This seemingly almost willful reading some (

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press