Misplaced Pages

talk:Conflict of interest - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jytdog (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 30 March 2015 (→WIfone case: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:13, 30 March 2015 by Jytdog (talk | contribs) (→WIfone case: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page.
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 
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by a media organization:


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

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)
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)

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)
Category: