Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest: Difference between revisions

• Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines/Archive 1   (~ 35 kb)   December 2004 — August 2006
• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive2   (~ 30 kb)   August — September 2006
• Premerge talk page of third section   (~ 103 kb)   August — October 2006
• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive3   (~ 374 kb)   October 2006 — March 2007
• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive4   (~ ??? kb)   March 2007 — the mysterious future

COI being used as a sole justification for deletion

There seems to be a growing misconception amongst editors that COI should be resolved by deletion rather than correction. There's been very strong opinion expressed in AfD debates that something should be deleted 'per WP:COI'. Maybe something should be done to correct the impression that Conflict of Interest is reason for an AFD nomination? --Barberio 13:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a statement to the effect of what you are saying. It must have been lost during recent clean ups. I've restored that. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 14:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see some diffs from AfD debates where User:Barberio believes that wrong conclusions have been drawn from a COI. EdJohnston 14:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

From the past few days, the following have been nominated, or had significant "votes" based on COI - Mike Summers (media/wrestling personality), Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop), Walter A. Perez, Stacy Meyer, Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities... --Barberio 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue with these articles is lack of notability. COI plays a role because the writer is usually making inflated claims of notability in order to enhance their own reputation or promote their own interests. COI is the motivation. Lack of notability is the result. The two often occur together. Can you show us an article where the only allegation is COI, where notability isn't in dispute? Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

COI shouldn't be raised at all, it's a non-issue as far as AfD is concerned. COI is often employed to promote an 'its not notable' argument which wouldn't stand alone. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Norilana_Books's AfD was almost entirly based on COI, with a veil of 'notability' issues. --Barberio 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you can justify such a broad statement. When people think COI is relevant to an AfD, they are free to say so. If you have concerns about deletion criteria, you are free to discuss them at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 01:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The publisher of Norilana Books, who created the article herself, canvassed for support on an external blog during the AfD debate! That does give the impression that undue influence is being exerted, which is a very pure form of COI. I've seen some previous debates about articles on book publishers, and many of those articles were highly promotional and un-encyclopedic. This article (after the improvements added during the debate) seems better than the average, though the current version is still very thinly sourced. Some AfD participants alluded to many print sources to attest to the publisher's notability, but those sources don't seem to have been added to the article yet. EdJohnston 02:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You demonstrate my point. Rather than being about the article's notability, the AfD argument on Norilana Books seems to have rotated around COI and Perceived COI. There are even accusations that people entering into the discussion have irredeemable COI because they are Science Fiction writers! In the end the AfD ended with no consensus, but it also managed to insult Cory Doctorow and Elizabeth Moon, and generate some bad press amongst the Science Fiction community. --Barberio 09:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you continue to misunderstand the reason editors raise the issue of COI. COI is not by itself reason to delete an article. But when the creator of an article has a COI, that is a strong indication that the subject is not notable. The insertion of such articles into Wikipedia must be regarded as attempts at self-promotion, and they should receive more scrutiny than articles about non-notable subjects where COI is not a concern. Pan Dan 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If User:Barberio is arguing that the COI whereby the publisher of Norilana Books created an article on her own company should *not* have been discussed during the debate, I disagree. If she had created a good, neutral, well-sourced article it should have been allowed to survive anyway. The COI implied by canvassing outside Wikipedia during an AfD is *highly* relevant, and it's hard to dismiss that as a non-issue. (Policy violations by the creator of a disputed article are always worthy of discussion in an AfD). The article DID get better during the debate. If it had not, it would IMHO correctly have been deleted, based on article quality. EdJohnston 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

;Concern about the possibility of disruptive editing by User:Barberio User:Barberio seems to be on a mission to gut this guideline. He's already nominated {{COI}} and {{COI2}} for deletion.[1] In an apparent effort to create an advantage for his position, he improperly added and re-added {{Not a ballot}} because "a lot of people have come into this discussion from the COI notice board." [2] [3] He also inserted his own comments at the top of the discussion, out of order. [4] Furthermore, User:Barberio watered down one template and redirected the other while the discussion was ongoing, in an apparent effort to circumvent consensus. [5] [6] I strongly urge User:Barberio to respect the consensus, and not to engage in disruptive editing. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 17:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't bring up this concern here Jehochman because it comes across as a clear argumentum ad hominem on Barberio and not any of the points he raised. Some people obviously agreed with him because the AFD changed the status of the templates. Not a ballot being added to contentious AFD's is standard practice as well. I suggest you use Requests for Comment or a subsidiary such as Wikiquette alerts in future, if you have a broad opposition to Barberio's behaviour.

In regards to this:

“ I believe you continue to misunderstand the reason editors raise the issue of COI. COI is not by itself reason to delete an article. But when the creator of an article has a COI, that is a strong indication that the subject is not notable. The insertion of such articles into Wikipedia must be regarded as attempts at self-promotion, and they should receive more scrutiny than articles about non-notable subjects where COI is not a concern. Pan Dan 13:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC) ”

This paragraph manages to contradict itself, and obviously. If COI being raised is not a reason on its own to delete an article, how does COI showing it might not be as notable be a reason to delete it? This is clearly insinuated, while it essentially is saying the same thing. Notability and COI are NOT interlinked in anyway. If someone creates an article with COI, then it suggests the article may not follow a neutral point of view, but it doesn't necessarily extenuate that the article is not notable.

With this in mind, the template should really be similar to the NPOV templates. Something like this would be far more technically accurate, and would stop the pointless and increasingly worrying debates where COI is relied upon solely to delete articles that could be improved to a neutral standpoint in line with notability guidelines and policy:

Due to a conflict of interest of one or more editors, the neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

If the conflict of interest doesn't do the article any harm neutrality wise, then it isn't really a problem. If it isn't notable, then that's a separate matter. Blightsoot 13:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There is broad, longstanding consensus that conflict of interest is very harmful. Have you investigated any of the problems on WP:COIN? If you get down in the trenches, I think you will find that your theoretical view is entirely mistaken. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of own research

IMO the case of person's theories and research must be covered somewhere. There already are quite a few disgruntled experts who fall into rage or depression after their favorite neologismd get deleted. Right out of my memory I can name Cultural inhibitor, Dancecraft, Dechronification, Omnitopia, Odin Brotherhood, Siberian language, Subsistent worker, Syntax pretentious. I am sure you may add more. Notice, these are not just urban dictionary type neologisms or kookery; these are result of hard work of decent researchers which just didn't happen to gain a sufficiently broad attention yet.

Please someone versed in "policywriting" add a paragraph or two, since it is one of typical cases IMO.

Since this section is supposed to be addressed to good-faith researchers, only a bit too much preoccupied with self-promotion, a word of hope must be incorporated. `'mikka 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:COI

Template:COI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

TfD nomination of Template:COI2

Template:COI2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Nominated for deletion since they're functionally redundant to issue specific clean-up tags, and offer no special utility. Tags should be used to identify the problems with the page, not a vague 'there may be problems here we think, but we don't know what'. If there's an issue with an article that was caused by COI, use a relevant template from one of Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes or Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup that identifies the problem with the article. --Barberio 12:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Captions on Logos

Is this guideline applicable to captions for logos? Namely the removal of simple descriptive captions like "company logo" under logo graphics in infoboxes?--In1984 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In general, non-controversial edits, like fixing format, spelling and grammar are always allowed, as are reversions of vandalism and spam. Does the edit you ask about intend to bias the article, or is it simple housekeeping? (added) One more thing: subjects are allowed to enforce WP:BLP on their own articles. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 02:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not biographical. Company and product related. Here are a few eamples: McDonlad's, Dupont, Fox News, Altria

Are you working for these companies? If so, I don't think there's much problem with housekeeping edits like these to help bring the article into compliance with the style guidelines. However, if you are connected to the articles, you have to ask yourself if it is worth the risk of what can happen should you make a mistake and go to far with your edits. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 03:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The infobox templates have been fixed to provide a consistent "Company logo" on all. I am trying to get them all to be more NPOV. My question is less personal and more conceptual. Namely, beyond the question of who is editing an article, does COI apply to types of edits and organization similar to WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone and WP:NPOV#Bias - commercial.--In1984 04:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how COI is involved in that situation. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 04:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotional article production

Added a brief section on promotional article production. This isn't intended to represent new policy, but to make existing policy clearer. --Shirahadasha 03:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:COI and Template talk: COI2

User:Barberio asserts that a rewrite of these templates is now "required" and has set himself up as the boss of this process. I've objected strongly. The person who sought to delete the templates should hardly be the one to coordinate a rewrite. Please see the above pages. Jehochman ^Talk 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really accusing me of malicious editing? Do you dispute that my edits were in line with the discussion on how the template should be rewritten in it's TfD? Are you prepared to argue against the edits, and all the arguments made in favour of these edits on the TfD, rather than making personal attacks against me? The opinion in favour of a rewrite seems pretty well settled consensus in the TfD, can you please identify the exact problems you found with the edits to the template, and argue why your preferred version should remain. Otherwise, you're just asserting a claim to authority over who should do what with your template, and we don't allow that here. --Barberio 11:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You can read all the comments from people saying why the template should be rewritten, and how the template should be rewritten, here. There's a strong amount of opinion behind rewriting these templates, and only using them on talk pages. The templates are currently inappropriately targeting users instead of article content, inappropriately placed in main article space, misquoting the guideline, and just plain ugly. I'd have preferred them to be deleted, but I'm okay with abiding with consensus and just rewriting them instead. --Barberio 11:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

At least you should provide some kind of analysis or reflection on the deletion debate. Otherwise your claim of 'consensus' seems like playing with words. (It seems like you're just repeating the arguments you used in the unsuccessful deletion debate, making no concession to gain the support of those who thought the templates useful).

Reducing the total volume of articles with the COI-tagged status should be considered. I note that Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:COI has about 300 entries. Rather that let those templates sit indefinitely, perhaps we should start processing all these articles through the COI noticeboard in batches and, if we can't get any cooperation from the creator, start doing stubbifies or AfDs.

Simply replacing these templates with conventional tags may not be a win. Take a look at Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance, and look at the cute graph showing the increase in number of articles tagged for notability. It's pushing 2000 right now. I think there's more hope of clearing COI issues quickly than notability issues. EdJohnston 16:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote the closing admin in the TfD, "The arguments for deletion aren't trivial, and it doesn't seem like they were really addressed well" and "There seems to be consensus for at least rewording the templates".

You're also still making the fundamental mistake of saying there are 'COI Issues'. COI in its self is not an issue, but a potential cause of issues. The presence of an editor with potential COI does not automatically mean there are issues with an article, so there are almost certainly articles in this 'backlog' which have no issues at all. --Barberio 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If an article is neutrally written and backed by reliable sources that ensure its notability, I see no reason for keeping a COI template on it. The interesting case is the one where the person who added most of the article content has a COI, and the article lacks neutrality or sources. There is a pretty good argument for deletion if the article creator can't get around to improving it up to our standards. IMHO, the onus is on the creator to fix it. The average member of Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance can't be dealt with so easily, unless you want to apply an equivalent burden to the article creator in those cases as well. EdJohnston 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotion to policy

I'd like to see this become policy. We'd need to tighten the writing, check for inconsistencies and so on, but otherwise I see no reason not to promote it as it's pretty well accepted. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Strong no to this. People are already pushing COI as a reason to delete articles, and using templates to mark 'tainted articles', this will just add more to that. The COI guidelines are worthwhile, but they need to be kept guidelines not absolute policy. --Barberio 19:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm not clear on what the benefit would be of promoting this to policy. Nothing here is actionable except the part about blocking, and that's already in Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Pan Dan 20:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Support - COI editors have tried the excuse, "but this is just a guideline, it's not policy." More than a few editors wishing to promote their own (drop in something) have sought to water down this guideline. If it becomes policy, it would be easier to fend off those sorts of changes. Jehochman ^Talk 21:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support if inconsistencies are removed, and a section on "past employees", "ex-partners", "detractors", "advocates for and against a subject, person, organization, or belief" and similar, whose interactions with articles about their former employers, partner, organization, belief, etc. puts them in a conflicted situation (e.g. those with an ax to grind). Similar to the current sub-section on "Legal antagonists." The main consistency issue would be the wording on restrictions putting a stronger emphasis on avoiding breaching content policies and guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pan Dan, that's my point. The actionable part is already policy. The rest of it is respected and acted upon for the most part; therefore, there's no reason to keep this as a guideline. Conflicted editors do use its status as an excuse. I agree with Jossi that a good copy edit is needed before it can be policy to make sure there are no loose threads or contradictions. Jossi, I think we'd have to be careful about extending it to "advocates for or against a subject," because that starts to cover everyone if we're not careful. The wording has to be very precise if it's to become policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "advocates for or against a subject" is too wide. Still, we need wording for those with an obvious ax to grind such as the examples given. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

For example, as currently written, an employee of Microsoft may have a potential COI on Microsoft. I would argue that an ex-employee of Microsoft that was fired, feel wronged, and runs a website Microsoftsucks.com, would have as much potential for COI as that employee, but that is not covered in the current formulation. (Notwithstanding the fact that both employee and ex employee could be excellent contributors to that article if they both are mindful of COI and abide by content policies) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

but this also applies to anyone else competent to edit on the subject. Any computer user either uses MS products and likes them, uses MS products and doesn't like them, or knows about MS products and uses something else because of not wanting to use MS. The same is true about any controversy: is there anyone likely to be discussing Near-East politics who does not have an opinion about it, and usually a very strong one? Most such editors are frank about their national/ethnic/religious affiliations, if only because they are very difficult to hide. Does anyone edit Intelligent Design articles who is not committed firmly to one or another position? we cannot avoid COI. Perhaps the best thing to do is to admit it, and edit taking it into account. I haven't the least difficult editing an article about a company edited by its PR agent--it's clear what needs to be cut. DGG 05:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the guideline has become widely accepted, and has stood up really quite well to scrutiny, over half a year and more. The main issue with promoting it to a policy is with enforcement, I suppose.

Cast in the form of advice, it sits naturally as a guideline: with good intentions, Wikipedia advises people not to edit about themselves (for example), because (not wholly explicit in the page) without much experience of the site it is hardly possible to know what you are getting into, and how you will react to edits you see as hostile. So, I think that is all fine: edit wars are a morass, and this as guideline sets up a signpost 'boggy areas ahead'.

The snag comes with having a form of COI in which admins (and others) might feel should be enforceable, not through general considerations of POV editing (which is nothing new), but simply on the basis of some deduction of COI in an editor. The ArbCom has been citing COI frequently in cases, because it turns out that many of the cases that simply will not be resolved by discussion are powered by some sort of COI (e.g. blinkered nationalism). I certainly feel that for the worst cases, the AC is the right place to discuss (typically in private) matters relating to the real-world identities and interests of pseudonymous editors. This is playing with bare wires, and admins acting alone are in some hazard in doing that.

Summary: To take this forward as a policy, it probably needs strengthening with better implementation notes. To give one example, there has been an AC case where everyone has known that an editor is a certain figure in real life, and yet the equation has scrupulously not been put in evidence. Given the tendency in messy editing situations of people to use anything to hand, it should be made utterly clear that Wikipedia does not properly do its business by outing contributors, except under some strict conditions. Charles Matthews 10:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Something like this: Dealing with suspected conflicted editors: The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to what is set out on WP:COI. If this brings no improvement, an early recourse to dispute resolution with an RfC is strongly advised. Admins may act as in any case of POV pushing. It is most strenuously pointed out that potentially conflicted editors do not lose their rights to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously, and that outing editors in terms of their real names is in all cases against basic policy. Persistent cases may have to be brought to Arbitration. Charles Matthews 10:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Added. Very often we see editors who's username matches the topic of the article. In these cases, I don't think there's much problem because the editor has self-identified a connection to the article. Jehochman ^Talk 12:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You'll even see ones who say who they are. Some of these are naive family members, some PR people who just don't realize.

DGG 04:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Promotion to policy -- continued (Arbitrary section break)

I'd like to ask if anyone can provide pointers to notable Arbcom cases that mention COI, or even recent AN/I debates where COI is a key concern. I'm aware of the Arbuthnot case. It is not surprising that we do not see many cases from WP:COIN that lead to blocks, because the average administrator who does not frequent that noticeboard may be baffled by the subtleties, and concerned about doing something stupid. So it may fall to Arbcom to finally do something about a difficult COI issue. If anyone has some favorite cases to mention, it would be helpful to see the pointers. Making WP:COI into a policy may influence the situation, and we need to look at some data to see if that change would be beneficial. EdJohnston 00:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A few cases that included COI issues:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the OTRS may have issues with this? As I recall there have been a number of cases where a person (or representative of a company) made quite reasonable edits to an article on himself - it's just that the people who are unreasonable about it attract more attention, as a "screaming minority". Thus I think calling it policy may be overly broad. As a side point I believe this page is way too long and could benefit from some concisifying. >Radiant< 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Self Involvement

I made Wikipedia:Self Involvement to redirect to this page. The page had only been edited twice. Anyone who objects can erm, do something about it. Mglovesfun 17:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits...

... have resulted in missing the wording related to exercising great caution, and the reference to content policies of NPOV, NOR and V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest template suggestion

I was looking at some of the pages that have been tagged with COI templates and think that template wording does not match the spirit of Wikipedia. As a person who has been the subject of a COI complaint I would like to make some suggestions. The current template says:

The creator of or main contributor to this page may have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article. Due to issues of maintaining neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection. If this applies to your edits, you are advised to collaborate with independent editors via the article's talk page only.

It should be always be reasonable for any editor to add properly sourced material directly to any article. For example, as the CEO of my company, I have access to secondary sources that other editors will have trouble finding. If I have a source about my company in a magazine such as 'Newsweek' then there really should be no need to discuss the addition of the source with other editors first. In another case, where I am a published expert on a disputed conviction, I have had other editors try to use COI to stop me adding extra sources to the article.

If an editor doesn't like any text that is added they should object using the standard dispute resolution process. The text should meet WP:NOTE, WP:ATT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE etc first. As it stands this template and policy is being used by some editors to say 'You've got a COI so stop editing completely', which I believe is not helpful to Wikipedia's growth and accuracy. Editors should always have a chance to improve articles.

I should also be noted that the COI guideline has several examples where it is acceptable to edit with a COI, but that these are not mentioned on the template. My suggested text is something like:

Contributors to this page may have a business, financial, or personal relationship to the subject of this article. To maintain neutrality and avoiding promotional articles, Wikipedia policies say that articles added to Wikipedia should meet a minimum standard for notability and attribition. All editors should improve this article by providing reliable secondary sources for claims and facts about the subject. Non-notable articles and unsourced promotional, libelous, defamatory items may be deleted at any time."

Update: Sorry, I didn't realise that there already had been substantial discussion about this topic. However, having had a COI brought against me and having found the implications in the template to be misleading, I hope that other editors will consider my proposed text, or at least the issues involved. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 06:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem that this gets into, if we open this up just a bit, is people just dumping stuff into WP without anyone having any recourse and then editors having to fight like crazy to get it taken out again. The approach of WP:COI, as I understand it, is to raise the bar such that any impression of potential COI can be dealt with using a peer-review process (i.e. posting it on the Talk page for the article). I see too many discussions from people who believe that they are the exception to WP:COI - if they are, then they should be able to point to a discussion somewhere that shows that there is a consensus among editors about this. Without this in place and enforced, I see chaos ensuing. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Editors who feel there is a COI on the article are free to remove any item that violates WP policy at any time. Those with a COI can then discuss it on the talk page to gain consensus to put it back in. But to give such a harsh warning goes against the assumption of good faith. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency with blocking policy

The guideline formerly said that indef blocks were permitted for single purpose COI accounts. Another editor wants to change this to "for up to one week, and indefinitely if the problem continues after that." In my view this creates an unnecessary burden. Ultimately, we need to change WP:BLOCK so that COI-only accounts can be indef blocked more rapidly. Until that happens, I agree that this guideline should match the policy wording. Jehochman ^Talk 03:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's inappropriate instruction creep for this guideline to attempt to dictate an incremental block schedule. If that discussion takes place it ought to be at WP:BLOCK. Durova^Charge! 06:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

initial block length

As it is not typical to instruct admins how long to block for on a first offense (per other examples at WP:BLOCK), I have removed the phrase from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Blocks. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There was another statement near the top that said the same thing. I completely removed that because it was unnecessary and potentially confusing. I will also make the same change in {{uw-coi}}. Jehochman ^Talk 03:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Business' FAQ

Currently a FAQ is being written at Wikipedia:Business' FAQ to hopefully answer common COI questions before people go to OTRS and so on. The more input we can get on this, the better. --W.marsh 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

COI: Actual versus Potential

Consider an expert of a subject, who we are supposed to welcome.

1. If the expert has a book published on the subject, they could potentially gain financially. COI?
2. If the expert has a theory published in a paper, they could make their theory seem more favorable. COI?
3. If the expert is a member of the Democrats, edits to articles on Republicans or Democrats may not be objective. COI?
4. If the expert is a Creationist, edits to articles on science may not be objective. COI?
5. If the expert runs a bookshop and sells books on most subjects, editing articles on most subject could be a COI?
6. If the expert has a positive opinion on a subject, their input may be biaised. COI?
7. If the expert has a personal web site on a subject, edits may inadvertently drive people to it. COI?

It seems that every editor has a potential conflict of interest. But that it is actual conflict of interest, ie, actual self-promotion, advertising-for-gain, that is subject to criticism? --Iantresman 10:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's right. However it is possible that the things you mentioned could bring closer scrutiny of the person's edits in the relevant arena even if an actual COI does not arise, because one is possible. And you are right that there is always the possibility of conflict of interest -- that's what the purpose of this guideline is, to prevent real conflict of interest from occuring and/or damaging the encyclopedia. mike4ty4 06:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

How can COI even be established when Wikipedia doesn't require people to use their real names, unlike Citizendium? --Fandyllic (talk) 1:11 PM PST 6 Dec 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unconscious bias

Hi.

I think that the phenomnenon of "unconscious bias" should be mentioned. The COI Guideline seems to be designed to discourage _all_ edits from parties with "too close" relationships, even if there isn't any _intent_ to be biased or vanity. The thing is that people tend to unconsciously bias things (otherwise why would we have big long COI debates that say "no I'm keeping it neutral!" "NO you're NOT!" "Yes, I AM!" between some guy with the COI and an independent on the WP community??? Obviously they have no vanity _intent_ but there is still an _unconscious_ bias. These are more likely closed-minded and honestly believe their edit is neutral.). Unconscious biases require awareness and have to be pointed out by the community and the person has to listen and really see it as a bias. That of course requires willpower on the part of the person. This can lead to a conflict-of-interest type scenario even without intent to be biased.

This possibility for unconscious bias should definitely deserve a mention somewhere on the guideline page. mike4ty4 22:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits

I've added item 4. to the list to encourage reforming COI editors to help clean up their own messes. This should be obvious, but during an RFA, one editor used WP:COI as an excuse for not cleaning up past bad edits, so I felt it was necessary to be explicit that self-reverting COI-SPAM is allowed and encouraged. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

COI Edits are Forbidden, not just "discouraged"!

COI edits, by definition, violate Wikipedia content policies. COI edits are defined as edits that favor outside interests over Wikipedia's and hence where those come into conflict with that of Wikipedia (that's what "conflict of interest" means!) it breaches Wikipedia policy. For example if one makes an edit to favor biased interests in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policies then that is a COI edit (since it goes against one of Wikipedia's interests, which is to maintain the neutrality of the encyclopedia), hence it violates the policy and therefore is forbidden.

Since they violate policy then by definition COI editing is forbidden, not just "discouraged" or even "strongly discouraged". mike4ty4 20:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No. COI edits may conflict with NPOV, and even then, they may be in good faith. Would we welcome Prof. Stephen Hawkins contributing to the article on his theory of the Big Bang? I think that as long as other editors get a veto, and a potential COI is declared, there is no problem. --91.155.88.70 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI is a little vague. We tend to spot self-promotion quickly and take prompt action when we see it. If a COI editor added neutral information, it would probably pass unremarked (except perhaps for brief scrutiny at WP:COIN). Any removal by the COI-affected editor of *critical* information tends to be noticed and acted upon. Violation of neutrality is forbidden for all editors, not just COI-affected editors. EdJohnston 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There are exceptions where COI editing is allowed. Also, the definition of COI is intentionally open ended, so it's not right to say "forbidden" when honest people could disgree about whether there is a COI in a particular case or not. No matter how hard we might try, it's impossible to remove common sense from the equation. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"It's impossible to remove common sense from the equation." Which of course is why WP:COI is a Guideline, and not an official policy like, say, WP:NPOV! It's not a hard and fast rule. It's a good rule but not a rock-hard one the way WP:NPOV or WP:NOT is. When I'm talking about "COI editing" being "forbidden" I'm referring to a case where real COI has been proven to exist. COI editing is defined as editing with an aim contrary to that of Wikipedia's (see the beginning of the page!). But is this what you were getting at?: COI refers to the motive behind the editing, and therefore the editing may be a mixture of the type that violates WP policy and the type that does not. Editing with COI motive is discouraged, editing against WP policy is forbidden. Now did I get it right? mike4ty4 16:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since all unneutral editing is forbidden why have this guideline in the first place? mike4ty4 16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

When an article is new, it is hard to know if the contents are true or are referenced to proper sources. The editors who create the article often know much more about the subject than the readers who are looking it over for the first time. In a climate of uncertainty, if you don't yet know what information to trust, and you become aware of a conflict of interest by the creator, that becomes an important topic. After the article has been scrutinized by a lot of people, and a bunch of editors have worked on it, it seems to me that COI issues are less pressing. Many articles reported on WP:COIN are new or little-trafficked articles. EdJohnston 17:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. mike4ty4 07:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that the Arbitration committee does not understand "conflict of interst", when they banned Eric Lerner for one year for a potential conflict of interest, and providing no evidence of improper editing. --66.166.57.133 12:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom had a finding that he engaged in self-promotion. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Self_promotion_by_Elerner. There were a lot of other violations, and it was a long dispute. Complain to Arbcom if you don't think it was correctly decided. EdJohnston 12:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Self-promotion is an example of a conflict of interest. But on reading the "findings" you gave, there do not appear to be any examples of improper editing. ie. no actual COI violations. And there are no other violations shown. Lerner appears to have been banned for a potential, not actual, conflict of interest. At least that it what is shown in the ArbCom case.--61.50.146.84 13:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, in the recently closed case related to the Paranormal, ArbCom addressed the issue of whether editors with COI are forbidden to edit: "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist." [7]

TimidGuy 15:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It could be a mistake to look to Arbcom as a source of policy. I think policy actually flows in the other direction, from the consensus of editors. However Arbcom is forced to study individual cases in great detail, and what they discover when confronting these cases is useful as an input to policy discussions. EdJohnston 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Although ARBCOM may not be a source of policy in and of itself, it may be possible to glean information about the working of present policy though looking at ARBCOM decisions, and hence perhaps to see where further improvements could be made, which of course would ultimately come from the Wikipedia community at large. mike4ty4 07:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed

WP:COI simultaneously refers to two things:

• The existence of a conflict of interest; and
• The conflict of interest policy

This leads to unnecessary confusion: WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to it is not a violation of the WP:COI guideline for editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, even on articles where the conflict of interest exists, so long as they abide by certain procedural limitations, but other editors misread that to believe that the existence of a conflict of interest violates WP:COI, leading to a lot of time wasted on the COI noticeboard. (For example: WP:COI requires editors with a conflict of interest to discuss edits on the talk page. An editor left a lengthy report accusing me of violating WP:COI because I was discussing edits on the talk page while I had a conflict of interest.) Someone can be subject to WP:COI and comply with WP:COI: it's a two-part inquiry, and some sort of disambiguation is necessary to distinguish the two to avoid these problems. THF 08:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC) (updated 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

It's not about permissions. Permissions exist by the nature of wiki. It's about clarifying what WP means by COI. Charles Matthews 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "permissions". At any rate, I discuss my resolution of the ambiguity in the section immediately below. THF 22:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you wrote WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to certain procedural limitations, and I find that misleading. Anyone is permitted to participate on Wikipedia. The COI policy setting is much more about pointing out the nature of the 'false position' of the conflicted editor. The false position does not go away under editing 'subject to certain procedural limitations'. Either the editor ceases to put outside interests ahead of Wikipedia's, or not. Charles Matthews 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my 9 August comment to reflect your issue. Can we address the central point of my argument about the problems of disambiguation? Editors who are abiding by the COI guideline are being accused of violating COI simply because of the existence of COI. Part of the problem, one hopes, will be resolved by the change in the nutshell and the edits discussed below. THF 19:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell Take Two

I have changed the Nutshell language from Don't edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. to Don't edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups unless you are willing to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

The former language was simply incorrect: WP:COI permits people to make NPOV and non-controversial edits, even if those edits promote one's own interests or those of other groups. There is a a whole section of the COI guideline on how to do that. The blanket-rule was confusing editors who were accusing editors with a conflict of interest of violating the conflict of interest guideline even when they were following the clear instructions of the guideline. Editors with a COI should be careful to ensure their edits comply with NPOV and discuss controversial changes on the talk page, but they are permitted to do that.

I similarly added a paragraph to the lead:

Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace.

A noticeboard for reporting and discussing incidents that require intervention related to the application of this guideline is available at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. The noticeboard is not for reporting the existence of conflicts of interest nor for the fact of compliance with the COI guideline through talk-page discussion.

This is also consistent with the main text of the guideline.

In the main text, I added some clarifying text that is consistent with the guideline, and changed the second person to the third person in one example for clarity.

Finally, I added two shortcuts, WP:COI compliance and WP:COIC, which redirect to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Suggesting_changes_to_articles.2C_or_requesting_a_new_article, providing a simple shortcut to provide guidance on how to comply with the COI guideline.

I hope these changes are noncontroversial, and make COI enforcement and compliance less prone to misunderstanding. THF 12:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

changing the rules

The above comment left by User:TedFrank comes when he's on the page for Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:TedFrank. I would suggest that there's what you might call a "conflict of interest", when Ted's up on the conflict of interest page, in editting the conflict of interest rules. Just maybe. Would anyone agree? If so, I'd like to request a revert. Wikidea 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a specific objection to the edit? Or were just here to violate WP:NPA and attack me for making the edit? Comment on the edit, not the editor. The record will reflect that I did not change any rules. The record will also reflect that two administrators looked at the allegations of a violation of the COI guideline, and found that they were just as baseless as the last time Wikidea falsely accused me of violating the COI guideline. THF 19:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted, Wikidea is not the only one to find much of your recent behavior disingenuous. It's at best extraordinary poor form to edit the Conflict of Interest guidelines when he himself is (and has been) up for a Conflict of Interest incident (so he disagrees with the merits - what subject of a COI doesn't?); he writes an article on Michael Moore that includes his own version of highest grossing documentaries, used by nobody, has it posted on his employer's website (for which he is paid) and then strenuously argues for its inclusion on multiple pages, raising the argument that if we don't include it then it's POV; in relation to discussions about an article he wrote under the name Ted Frank, that he is arguing for inclusion under the name User:TedFrank, he complains loudly that other people are using the name "Ted Frank" in discussing his article and him.. It's a bit difficult to assume good faith through much of this, when almost universally everyone acknowledges he is on Wikipedia with an agenda. I think wider comment on the totality of your edits would be merited, and how you go about them. Gaming the rules and guidelines is disdained as much as flatly violating them. --David Shankbone 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Both administrators who looked at your complaint found no violation. The matter is closed, yet you still keep raising it and raising it on inappropriate pages. This is not the page to discuss me. This is the page to discuss the WP:COI text, and my changes came after a commenter on the Village Pump suggested that the solution was to fix the ambiguity in the page that I fixed. Do you have objections to that fix? Comment on the edit, not the editor. You haven't identified a single edit I made to WP:COI that changes the meaning of WP:COI. All you're doing is personally attacking me. THF 19:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An editor reverted all the changes without discussion. Discuss on the talk page, like I did. THF 22:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, please, calm down

Okay, so, everyone please stop the mudslinging; from what I can see here and at the noticeboard, it's going in both directions (or should that be in every direction?) and it makes it all the harder to try and make any sort of objective judgement.

After a quick look, it seems that TedFrank/THF has made more edits than just the nutshell change, and the nutshell change is only clearly in line with content once those are taken into account. That said, IMO the other edits represent a clarification, and are very much in line with the spirit of the policy. I say all this to make sure that everyone is clear about the apparent background to the discussion.

Apart from a little suspicion at what seems to be misrepresentation, I agree with the edits made by TedFrank/THF. And what's with the signatures changing all over the place? Not a challenge, just a question, and somewhat off-topic. Meh. SamBC(talk) 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the nutshell edit is a material change - the other edits are fine. On the nutshell: all edits should be in the interest of Wikipedia, period. Editing wikipedia "to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups" is kind of by definition POV/undue weight/etc, so there's no way to do it and still adhere to the rules & guidelines. Ripe 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it could be argued that the nutshell is at cross-purposes to the policy; while not literally contradicting it, it misrepresents it. How about:

Don't edit Wikipedia with the sole intention of furthering your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Edits that may have that effect must be handled with caution and discussion.

Longer, but actually says everything it should say. One could see the current nutshell as an over-summarisation. SamBC(talk) 00:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Having another intention as well as wanting to promote your own interests does not make it OK. Our guideline is that you shouldn't edit articles in order to promote your interests - the rest is caveats and exceptions in order for us not to needlessly get rid of good edits, and to caution against the appearance of COI. -- SiobhanHansa 00:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not exactly how it reads to me... this section outlines the situations where a person with a conflict of interest may edit, and it's pretty open as long as they talk about it first. However, if you mean what I hope you mean, then how about removing the word "sole" from my suggestion (now struckout above)? SamBC(talk) 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We're probably not that far a part in our interpretations. Removing the "sole" wording certainly takes away my main objection. -- SiobhanHansa 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal because it better mirrors the guideline. As SamBC points out, there's a lot of prose here that is in tension with the old nutshell: such edits are allowed as long as they further the interests of Wikipedia, are discussed, and follow NPOV and our other core policies. I agree that "sole" should be stricken as you suggest. Cool Hand Luke 06:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The SamBC proposed nutshell has the same problem of the current nutshell of contradicting what the guideline actually says. The nutshell says "don't." But that's not the rule. That's precisely why we have the confusion we have: people see the nutshell, think that's the rule, and we have these giant snafus on COI/N. My version--"don't, unless"--was consistent with the rule. Perhaps this is better:

Editing Wikipedia with the intention of promoting your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups is a conflict of interest. Edits by editors with a conflict of interest must be handled with caution and discussion.

This has all the information of the SamBC version without the ambiguity. (Of course, every editor edits Wikipedia with the "intention of promoting their own interests," but that's a separate issue.) THF 12:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the policy really does say that it's okay to make edits with the intention of promoting your own interests (which doesn't mean "helping with things your interested in", by the way, it means doing things that one may expect to lead to material benefit or PR benefit, which would lead to material benefit). It says it's okay to edit things where there might be a conflict of interest. SamBC(talk) 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with weakening the first sentence and "with the intention of" sounds weasel-y. On your second proposed sentence it sounds like you're stating how the WP community should respond to edits by editors with COIs rather than how the COI editors themselves should behave, and there are a spectrum of appropriate responses to edits by editors with a COI. Ripe 13:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it actually says the edit should be handled with care/caution. I can adjust my version to address these concerns as applied to it; I can say 'made' with care instead. There are, however, a spectrum of appropriate responses to edits by editors with a COI. How about:

Don't edit Wikipedia with the intention of furthering your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Edits that may have that effect must be made with caution and discussion.

The intention is important, because there is no rule against making edits that happen to benefit you or someone else; notably, if telling the truth from a NPOV benefits someone or something, it should still be done, we just have to take more care to make sure it is verifiable and NPOV. How do people feel about that? THF, there does seem to be some consensus that we ought to be telling people not to make edits with the intention of furthering an agenda. SamBC(talk) 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that should read "made with caution and after discussion." Being bold is not encouraged in these circumstances, this guideline directs people to the talk page first for such edits. -- SiobhanHansa 16:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to be bold now and make the change with that tweak. SamBC(talk) 17:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we really going to ban William M. Connolley from editing articles about climate science? Biologists from editing articles about evolution? Chip Berlet from editing articles about the LaRouche movement? This whole movement to strengthen the COI strictures is going to have some sweeping effects. Restrictive changes to the rule are going to affect many respected contributors to Wikipedia, and should be considered with great care before being made just because one editor is mad at my compliance with the existing rule. Again, I think this Don't language is going to create more problems than it solves and make the encyclopedia worse off. THF 17:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between "furthering your own interests, or those of other individuals, companies, or groups" by trying to insert your own research papers, Internet posts you've authored and the like, and banning people from correcting bias, inaccuracy and problems on articles in subjects that people work in or on, or are very familiar with. The wording above addresses the former, not the latter. --David Shankbone 17:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines of Behavior for pushing your own work need to be drafted

The History The issue above came directly out of User:THF writing on Sunday a draft of his own version of "highest-grossing documentaries", having his employer pay him for it and post it on their website on a Tuesday, and then pushing it for use on over 25 articles articles by Wednesday. He first made the case on Talk:Sicko, where it was argued by THF ad nauseum, then on Talk:Jackass Number Two, then on Talk:The Dream is Alive, and finally to the more comprehensive avenue of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. The issue spilled over onto the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. As User:JzG pointed out, "THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance - and abide by their decision." This he did not do. Instead, he argued his "ranking should be in all 25 film articles," that it would be a violation of WP:NPOV not to include his ranking, and carried on like this for days, across multiple boards. THF has no film expertise, his employer's magazine is barely known in any circle, least of all film circles, the list was used by absolutely nobody--zero--people in the media, and Ted went around spamming it on the conservative blogosphere (where it was met with similar incredulity, although he told the Talk:Sicko page that it was "starting to be being picked up in the blogosphere" as an argument for its inclusion).
--David Shankbone 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this is factually incorrect on almost every contention. (For example, contrary to DSB's claim that I "did not do" what JzG said, I made no edits to talk pages in support of my proposed edit after JzG's talk-page comment.) Please review what actually happened on WP:COI/N and WP:AN/I, where every administrator to evaluate my conduct found I violated no Wikipedia rules, before making any decisions. THF 19:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Issue I do not see a problem with discussing one's own work on a Talk page in an effort to have it included, but I see a problem in that the COI guidelines in no way outline the standards of behavior one should follow when doing so. This was very controversial, it took up way too much time, tempers flared (not least of all THF's) and a lot of bad feelings were the result. I think guidelines on how to conduct oneself should be drafted when presenting one's work. Otherwise, this issue is going to be a problem again. This is more than warranted. I think just saying "It's okay" but not discussing standards of conduct leads to a lot of problems, and here we have a problem that involved at least seven different pages on Wikipedia, and about 20 editors. When, in reality, it should have been an open-and-closed case. --David Shankbone 15:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE pretty much covers this type of behaviour. Anything that can be hit with WP:NOT should be; it's a much cleaner argument than COI can provide. Charles Matthews 16:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree, but as THF pointed out often, he did not violate the letter of any of these guidelines. I propose the following under "Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article":

5. After having presented a concise case to include work in which you have a COI, it is strongly encouraged that you then allow others to discuss and judge its merits for inclusion, and then abide by their decision. Participation in the discussion is strongly encouraged to be limited to clarification and questions presented by other editors directed to you, and not advocacy. See WP:NOT#ADVOCATE

I think this is not only acceptable, but already expected in such circumstances as the one above involving THF. I think having it as an explicit guideline would benefit everyone involved in such instances. --David Shankbone 17:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That makes good sense to me. The clearer and more solid the appropriate way to behave is made, the better; common sense will work for any exceptions. COIed editors should certainly not be discouraged from correcting obvious misunderstandings/misconceptions about their suggestions, though. SamBC(talk) 17:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, which is why I added the bit about clarification and questions. I also think it's important to use the strongly encouraged language to highlight it is not policy, but definitely a well-developed, and well-reasoned, standard of behavior and to violate it with caution. --David Shankbone 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is disturbing. As DSB acknowledges, I complied with existing guidelines. He then created a massive storm with a disruptive and frivolous COI/N report, kept pushing the false charges after administrator after administrator rejected them, and is then using the fact that he was able to create a massive storm as evidence for the need for a change in the guidelines. That's bootstrapping.

Please note that changing the guideline to make it more restrictive does not just affect me. William M. Connolley is a respected climate scientist who regularly adds cites to his work to Wikipedia. Chip Berlet is the leading expert on the LaRouche movement, and edits many LaRouche articles. Their political enemies regularly try to misuse the COI policy against these respected editors. Do we really want to make it easier for POV-pushers to block WMC and Cberlet? Perhaps someone might want to notify them that someone is trying to change the rules to effectively bar them from editing articles within their expertise? THF 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, this is not barring anyone from making changes, it lets them know the expectations that already exist; these expectations, and your violation of them, has been pointed out to you by several admins on the admin board. There is a process of getting the community involved if "political enemies" are out to obstruct an editor from adding good work they have done. And need I remind you, you are not an expert on films, documentaries or film rankings. You gamed the guidelines, edited them around your behavior, and now oppose spelling out what the rest of us already think is an acceptable way to add your own work on to Wikipedia. If works is meritorious of inclusion, it will stand on its own. And I see you have already canvassed those editors to contribute to the discussion before you wrote "someone might want to notify them." In the end, your behavior, if you haven't noticed, has been almost universally condemned as objectionable. We are trying to craft a guideline to deal with it in the future. Instead of continuing such behavior and being an obstructionist, why don't you lay down your culture warrior sword and join us in doing so? --David Shankbone 17:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop misstating the facts. Each of the five separate administrators who evaluated your COI complaint found I did nothing objectionable, and this entire proposed rule change reflects the fact that you won't accede to that consensus, and each of the administrators to review my edits to WP:COI found there was nothing wrong with the substance (as opposed to the timing) of the edits, and have all refused to revert them. It's not WP:CANVASSing to notify people from a broad spectrum, and each of the three people I notified have been critical of my positions or of my employer or both. This isn't a page to discuss film rankings, and I haven't done so, and I don't understand why you continue to raise a dead issue. Please adhere to WP:NPA and discuss the COI guideline, rather than me. You had your chance to discuss me at COI/N. Please stop beating this dead horse. THF 19:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, I've read your COI/N entry, and you know (I assume) that I've largely been "on your side", to what little extent I was on any side. However, several people have said that there was cause for concern but not for action, and to let it drop, and enjoined you to be more cautious in future. I would say that this re-wording should never be used to criticise someone's behaviour retroactively, and if I see that it is I will let everyone know how I feel about it. The change, however, seems to be in line with what people generally expect and would like to see, just that it wasn't stated explicitly before. It's also possible that this change isn't all about you. SamBC(talk) 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with this wording being used retroactively against anyone; the "Documentary List" episode I am using now as illustrative, and I wish us all to learn from it, and move on from it. --David Shankbone 19:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I support David's proposed edit. It clarifies that while editors with COIs can propose a particular edit on talk, it doesn't give them license to breach advocacy guidelines in doing so. Ripe 19:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The main reason to object to this additional guideline is that it will be easily abused to obstruct legitimate editors and legitimate discussions: an editor will discuss an issue, an opponent will make the debate contentious, and then complain that the fact of the contentious debate demonstrates a violation of the COI guideline, when the editor with the COI has done nothing wrong. The very example that DSB uses to suggest the need for the change is the very example that shows why the change should not be made. Five out of five administrators evaluated my conduct, and found I did nothing wrong, and found nothing objectionable about it. DSB wants to change the rules so that he can claim that that conduct is actually inappropriate, though he has yet to explain why that rule change is desireable. I can show why it is not: even for my conduct that DSB complains about, all I did was clarify misconceptions and misunderstandings about my suggestions, and parry false claims of COI guideline violations. DSB seems to think, however, that the rule change will prohibit what I did on the talk page. Do we want every Connolley edit in talkspace to become a COI/N problem? WMC certainly has contentious talk-page disputes. So does Cberlet. One can find countless other editors who are strong contributors to Wikipedia who will run afoul of this rule change if it is evenly enforced. I strongly encourage editors to evaluate the effect of the proposed change in the guidelines before agreeing to it. THF 19:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

If an editor with a COI suggests a change on talk, someone else objects to the change, and no 3rd party, non-COI editors will step forward to defend the proposed edit, then that's pretty clear that the change should not be made, and further advocacy by the COI editor is not productive. If OTOH the proposed edit is actually good, it shouldn't need the advocacy of the editor with the COI to reach consensus. Ripe 19:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I note that in the Talk:Sicko dispute, two editors initially indicated that they agreed with a version of my proposed edit. My nine talk-page comments responded to questions aimed at me, and made clarifications in response to objections that misstated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I made one last edit to state my position for an RFC, and stopped participation on the talk page, even as additional false statements were made. Is that stretch of behavior going to be problematic under the new proposal? THF 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also both of you please take your content dispute off this page. Ripe 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like simply to point out that 'conforming to the letter of the law' is not adequate. Never has been. Charles Matthews 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. THF 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Question for DSB about application of proposed guideline

Expanding further: this sentence--"Participation in the discussion is strongly encouraged to be limited to clarification and questions presented by other editors directed to you, and not advocacy."--strikes me as problematic. How can one propose an edit or clarify the reason for the proposal without advocating for why the edit should be made? I'd also like to ask DSB a question. Do you believe that I violated Proposed sentence #5 on Talk:Sicko? If so, can you identify a diff from after a consensus was reached that you contend violates the Proposed sentence #5? Let's be specific about what talk-page behavior you think should be barred, and let's see if (1) others agree, and (2) whether the language you propose adequately distinguishes between proper and improper talk-page behavior. (I admit that I was uncivil in my 5:54 9 August edit, and I self-reverted it an hour later. But that was before a consensus was reached.)

Here are all my Talk:Sicko comments:

• 12:29 8 August - disclosure of COI and proposal
• 14:54 8 August - clarification in response to incorrect allegation of COI guideline violation
• 15:19 8 August - clarification in response to incorrect allegation of SPS
• 15:40 8 August - response to question why article about movies omitted television special from list
• 03:28 9 August - clarification in response to claim that source was non-notable and response to question
• 04:12 9 August - response to question; clarification in response to incorrect allegation of COI guideline violation
• 04:59 9 August - response to question; clarification in response to incorrect allegation of OR violation
• 05:23 9 August - response to question
• 05:54 9 August - clarification in response to incorrect claim about BoxOfficeMojo (uncivil statement self-deleted 6:59)

(some point on 9 August - added RFC template, per WP:DR)

• 19:01 9 August - full statement of position for purposes of RFC in new talk-page section where I had not previously commented. Last talk page comment.

Consensus reached on talk page 01:40, 10 August. Before that, multiple editors had argued for inclusion. There were 54 talk-page comments about the proposed edit. I made 9 of them (16.7%), plus the initial proposal. David made 17 talk-page comments about the subject, and I will happily have my 9 comments compared to David's 17 for talk-page appropriateness, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. I don't think that I unduly participated, especially given some of the wild and uncivil allegations that were being made against me. Had I not repeatedly been falsely accused of violating COI, I could have made fewer comments.

Please tell me what you think I did wrong and specifically which of these comments should be barred in the future under your rule? I'm honestly trying to understand. Your original complaint was that I violated COI, but you seem to agree now that I adhered to the existing WP:COI compliance guidelines. I think I was consistent with both the letter and spirit of the rules, but you seem to disagree. I am trying to reach consensus here in good faith. THF 20:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Without close review, I can say that I think we need this wording as much to prevent unfair claims of COI violation as to prevent COI violations. It makes it very clear what is allowed, and what isn't, drawing a fairly clear line. SamBC(talk) 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the wording makes unfair claims of COI violation more likely, not less. Under the current rules, talk-page comments are permitted. The only problem was that the COI page failed to make clear that talk-page comments were permitted, leaving people to mistakenly confuse the existence of a COI with a violation of COI. (See my discussion of the ambiguity above.) Under the DSB proposal, some vague and unknown set of talk-page comments are also barred by the COI guideline. A POV-pusher who is in a content dispute is going to forgo existing dispute resolution procedure and take content disputes to the noticeboard. That's a very very bad idea, but this rule-change now turns discussions about content disputes into COI guideline violations.

Let's be clear: the point of the COI guideline is to prevent Mainspace articles from being infected by self-promotion. Talk-page comments inherently do not cause this problem.

Talk-page comments are productive: an editor proposing an edit cannot possibly anticipate every objection to the proposed edit, and should be allowed to respond to objections. If the very fact of response is "disruptive advocacy", why should this rule be restricted to editors of a conflict of interest? It should be a modification of WP:TALK, not WP:COI.

If the problem is disruptive talk-page behavior, there already exist guidelines to address disruptive talk-page behavior. Disruptive talk-page behavior, acting uncivilly, personal attacks, refusing to accede to legitimate consensus after dispute resolution procedures are used, etc., can be addressed through existing mechanisms. We shouldn't be asking the COI rule to perform that task. THF 20:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC) (edited 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

• Ted, the proposed guideline made explicit would have applied from the "12:29 8 August" time stamp. When I say "Clarification" I mean clarifying your proposal, not "clarification in response to incorrect allegation of COI guideline violation." The idea here is that you are so enmeshed with the proposal that you need to make it, and then let others do your arguing on your behalf. If the proposal has merit, it will be evident prima facie. If you need to clarify how your proposal is used, or what your proposal actually states, then it is acceptable. If another editor directly asks you a question about your proposal, then it is acceptable. But all the "clarification" you mention above is, in fact, advocacy. It's not that the advocacy should or shouldn't be made: it's that you shouldn't be the one making it.--David Shankbone 20:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In a bold attempt to clarify what someone else is saying, I believe that David's use of the word "you" in this comment mostly means "the editor with a COI". SamBC(talk) 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Per DSB's 20:33 comment, I therefore object to the DSB proposal: he is asking for it to be forbidden for editors to respond to incorrect allegations of COI violations and false personal attacks because to do so would be "advocacy." That's effectively going to bar WMC and Cberlet from participating in Wikipedia articles where they have expertise. THF 20:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; you can respond to the COI allegation as long as that isn't mixed up with advocating the proposed edit; any comment addressing a COI allegation should not refer to the specific edit unless absolutely necessary. SamBC(talk) 20:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's still way too ambiguous. For example, DSB advocated against the edit by falsely claiming that the American has to print anything I write, and that it is essentially a blog. When I respond to that false allegation, and clarify the misunderstanding it is effectively advocating for the edit. THF 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that we are trying to avoid COI allegations, Ted. By proposing to insert something in which you have a COI, disclosing it, you then step back and allow others to review it and debate it, only clarifying your proposal if it is misunderstood as to its use or substance. Of course, defending yourself is acceptable, but defending the use of your proposal is not, beyond its initiation, clarifications over misunderstandings, and direct questions. --David Shankbone 20:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking about specific application. Take my 14:54 talk-page comment in response to a 14:25 personal attack. Advocacy or permissible response? I'm trying to understand how this rule works. It's wildly ambiguous what's permissible on the talk-page and what's not. Let's apply it to the particular situation. Where did I supposedly step over the line? THF 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ted, this is an example of a comment that would run afoul of the proposed #5. --David Shankbone 21:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1. That comment had two parts: a direct answer to the question "MoJo's rankings are used on most of the documentary articles; are we going to change them all to reflect Ted's list?", clarifying that my proposed edit did not call for the deletion of the MoJo ranking, but merely the application of NPOV to include both points of view; and responding to the allegation that the source was not a notable source. Are you saying that both parts ran afoul, or just one of the parts? I'm still trying to figure out where this ambiguous rule cuts. THF 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2. Were the other eight talk-page comments alright? THF 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, they weren't. To clarify, most of the discussion on your part would run afoul, but it's not particularly accurate to draw many specific examples from the discussion, because you would have done the proposal differently had you seen the #5. When you proposed to use the Internet article you wrote, you would have outlined why you felt a change was needed and inclusion of your piece was merited. You would have presented your argument at the outset. What happened here was that you threw out a proposal and addressed arguments as they were made each and every time, consistently giving your POV and intertwining the whole thing into a messy problem with COI (in my opinion). This was, in essence, the nature of the problem: you didn't make an argument, you just proposed inclusion with no argument, and then addressed each comment one-by-one. Had you made the proposal with your argument, the merits would have stood for all to see and other editors would see the wisdom of the proposal and argue for it. If "political enemies" argued against it, this POV would be apparent for what it was. This recently happened on the Al Franken board. Personally, I am a supporter of Franken. When one of his opponents wanted to include an entire section on his drug use, which casts him in a bad light in many people's eyes, another supporter didn't want it included. I argued that it was, indeed, notable, and should be included, and gave examples why. That's what is NPOV on here, and an example of how many of us don't edit with our own POV, but can make independent judgments. You should have made proposal and argument at once, and stepped back. So, the discussion on the board is not particularly apt to this explicit guideline; however, had you seen this guideline, much of what occurred probably would not have happened. --David Shankbone 21:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, Ted, in the example I provided, the question wasn't directed at you. This is the problem. You were too much part of the debate. That is the COI. You shouldn't have addressed it unless it was directed at you, per #5 --David Shankbone 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I agree with David that that comment would violate the new #5, and also that it should be forbidden. I also think that David's initial 14:25 challenge was against (at least) the spirit of the policy, and that at that point Ted had done nothing particularly wrong. I'm assuming good faith, and thus assuming that David now realises that that challenge was misguided, and that's one reason for suggesting this change.

Given all of this, I would suggest that the proposed #5 also state that responses should be restricted to the suggested edit, not to the COI itself. SamBC(talk) 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that my own comments would have run afoul of #5. But that's the beauty of #5: Ted would have raised his arguments at the outset, and others would debate their merits, not the line-by-line argue against every comment that took place, and to me spoke to COI issues, especially since Ted was raising the point that no inclusion violated policy. --David Shankbone 21:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I support the addition of the proposed #5 with the addition I suggested, and the further addition of something along the lines of "any concerns about the conflict of interest should be taken up at a more appropriate forum", suggesting which one. Not sure which one, though. COI/N? SamBC(talk) 21:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you attempt a re-write with your suggestion? And I think if there is a COI issue, the COI/N is the place to take it. --David Shankbone 21:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

SBC/DSB Proposal #5 - Can we get consensus for this addition?

Thanks to all commenters. Please note: proposal #5 has been superseded by this compromise proposal. 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for the following under "Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article"

5. After having presented a concise case to include work in which you have a conflict of interest, it is strongly encouraged that you then allow others to discuss and judge its merits for inclusion, and then abide by their decision. Participation in the discussion is strongly encouraged to be limited to clarification and questions presented by other editors directed to you, and not advocacy. See WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. Similarly, other editors' responses should be directed specifically at the proposed edit, unless they are requesting a clarification as to the conflict of interest. Comments about the two should be kept separate. If you have concerns about someone's stated conflict of interest, it should not be raised in the edit discussion; instead, report it at a more suitable forum, such as WP:COI/N

Thoughts? SamBC(talk) 21:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Accept Works for me. What say other editors? --David Shankbone 22:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Object I strenuously object for the six reasons stated below. At a minimum, asking editors to immediately run to COI/N in response to an edit proposal expressly contradicts the purpose of COI/N. THF 22:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Accept In my view this could save a lot of shouting. Someone whose proposal was accepted in this way would be on much firmer ground than someone who got their way through tenacious argumentation. Raymond Arritt 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You give sound advice (which I intend to take), but do we really want to make WP:COI/N a place for reporting people who are failing to be as persuasive as they could be? Especially given the potential for wikilawyering? THF 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object—this rule seems to discourage users from ever disclosing a potential COI, especially in cases where the conflict could be debated. It seems unduly harsh; we don't normally limit talk page activity this way unless a user has been through ArbCom for failing to follow other policies. This could be debilitating in articles on, say, alternative medicine where every practitioner of conventional medicine could be accused of COI and barred from "advocating" the mainstream. Policy This guideline seems to cause problems and doesn't actually help any content disputes except for those in the rare case where someone commendably identifies their own bias. These people should not be treated worse than ordinary edit warriors. Cool Hand Luke 22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This a guideline, not a policy. And I find your "scary scenario" a little ridiculous. --David Shankbone 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you spend some time on the alternative medicine pages, where the sort of scenario Luke posits happens all of the time. (Indeed, I suggest everybody spend some time on the alternative medicine pages, because most of them wildly violate WP:WEIGHT.) I have absolutely no doubt that every single content dispute in the alternative medicine space is going to end up on WP:COI/N. THF 22:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. These accusations are hurled all of the time in all directions, and this guideline would give edit warriors the power to elevate their user disputes to COI/N at will. This eliminates any incentive that anyone might ever have to be non-anonymous. The central fault with this policy is that it needlessly escalates simple content disputes. If you look at the outside commentary on your COI, most editors agree THF's suggestion does not merit inclusion, but they also conclude that it was not a COI issue. Our existing policies can handle talk page debate. Cool Hand Luke 23:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object Our general civility and other guidelines should be enough (and if they aren't it's time we started enforcing them more). It just seems wrong to burden certain participants in a conversation more than others. There are plenty of people who communicate on Wikipedia in a advocacy fashion, some of them will sometimes be on the "opposite" side of the argument. If we are going to have a guideline suggesting people can't advocate, then no editors should be able to advocate, not simply those with a COI. -- SiobhanHansa 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too complicated and ambiguous; it's instruction creep; it will encourage people to hide their COI and/or create sockpuppets; it's unfair to editors who may have a COI but also are editing in good faith and providing valuable expertise; it implies that all COI are SOAPBOX editors, which is not accurate; it's assuming problems before they occur. We have plenty of protective policies that can be used if talk page editors act inappropriately. We have COI/N if a COI editor ignores the rules and edits with a bias. We already have what we need and this change won't help. --Parsifal _Hello 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Object. A talk page is for talking about things. Silencing debate is rarely a good thing; silencing the people who are most affected by and know the most about a subject is a particularly bad thing. People who are going to advocate for something ought to disclose where they are coming from, and any conflicts. Decorum suggests that nobody hog the conversation, whether they have conflicts or they're just opinionated people. Everyone should speak up and have their opinions respected. But beyond that, if someone violates the rules of civility we can deal with that directly. Wikidemo 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Object - far too bureaucratic and like Parsifal said too ambiguous. Cool Hand Luke makes a very important point as well - this rule "needlessly escalates simple content disputes." On top of all this, most of the core points of this rule (that you shouldn't add material that you've had published to WP articles) are already covered in the guideline's 1st & 2nd sections.--Cailil ^talk 00:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as instruction creep, per Parsifal and Wikidemo. This makes more elaborate the rules of behavior for COI-affected persons. The COI guideline is vague for a reason. Beyond a certain point, common sense is needed to tell if a COI-affected editor is behaving unreasonably, and we assume that a group of editors who are discussing the matter will be able to determine that. EdJohnston 01:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

All of these objections are taken in good part. Please see the completely re-drafted suggestion below, which provides clear advice, but only advice. It seems that there's at least an occasional need for it, given the recent palaver that catalysed all of this (and which I only got involved in very recently). SamBC(talk) 01:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Summary of THF objection to the proposed change

Because the talk page is getting messy, let me summarize. There are six independent reasons why David's proposal, even as rewritten by Sambc, is a very bad idea.

1. David is correct that one's behavior will change under the rule, so perhaps the Talk:Sicko dispute would not have happened. But let's take a counter-example where behavior would have changed: on Talk:Sarbanes-Oxley Act, I proposed the inclusion of information from a book I edited. Under DSB's proposal, as he states in his 21:27 comment, I should have written a lengthy justification explaining in detail why the book was notable, citing to the extensive press coverage of the book, discussing the fine resumes of the two authors of the book, citing to multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines for why the article should include the point of view, and anticipating every possible objection--all because I would not be allowed to "advocate" again on the subject. Instead, I made a short comment disclosing my COI and proposing the edit, and my proposal was non-controversial and the other editor working on the article agreed to it immediately, and even criticized me for making a fuss instead of just being WP:BOLD. The DSB rule would have been much more disruptive to the encyclopedia than the status quo--the prospect of having to research and write a formal proposal might have deterred me from making the suggestion for improvement in the first place. It's hard to know in advance which proposed edits will be controversial and which will not: as in the case of the SOX article, a substantial rewriting of an article might be agreed to quicker and with less strife than, shall I say, whether to include a minor piece of trivia in a footnote.

2. WP:IAR: the point of all the rules is to make the encyclopedia the best it can be. The point of WP:COI is to prevent editors from disrupting Mainspace. Talk-page comments are productive: an editor proposing an edit cannot possibly anticipate every objection to the proposed edit, and should be allowed to respond to objections, so long as they do so WP:CIVILly. If we apply WP:AGF, why is the fact that an editor who has disclosed a conflict of interest advocating a change to the page more problematic than an editor who has very strong views about how the article should read? If the very fact of response and give-and-take is "disruptive advocacy", why should this rule be restricted to editors of a conflict of interest? If that were the case, this should be a modification of WP:TALK, rather than WP:COI.

Indeed, in the particular case of Talk:Sicko, which motivated this proposal, I fail to see how nine talk-page comments answering questions and responding to incorrect statements of fact and Wikipedia guidelines were inherently more problematic than an another editor's seventeen talk-page comments advocating against the inclusion as part of a 54-comment discussion, just because some of those 9 comments defended the proposed edit.

3. If the problem is disruptive talk-page behavior, there already exist guidelines to address disruptive talk-page behavior. Disruptive talk-page behavior, acting uncivilly, personal attacks, refusing to accede to legitimate consensus after dispute resolution procedures are used, etc., can be addressed through existing mechanisms. If an editor is violating WP:NOT#ADVOCATE, take it to RFC: it is a problem whether or not the editor has a COI. The problem is the disruptive behavior, not the COI. We shouldn't be asking the COI rule to perform that task.

4. This proposal is proposed as a solution to prevent what an editor describes as a mess on Talk:Sicko. But the problem there also would have been resolved if the COI guideline had not been ambiguous, and clearly indicated that it does not violate WP:COI to discuss a proposed edit on the talk page. The most disruptive comments on that page were the repeated false allegations of violations of the COI guideline because of the confusion over the difference between the existence of COI and a violation of COI. Shouldn't we be trying for a simpler solution that we know will be improvement before we start regulating talk-page comments, with possible adverse effects?

5. It's just far too ambiguous when a talk-page comment is permissibly "responding to a question" or "clarifying a point" and when it is impermissibly "advocacy." Worse, the addition explicitly recommends people immediately run to COI/N in response to a proposed edit, even though people on COI/N repeatedly complain of irrelevant reports of the mere existence of a COI, when the noticeboard is only for disputes requiring administrative intervention. This proposed rule is going to turn dozens of content disputes into Wikilawyering disputes on the COI noticeboard, and disrupt the ability of editors to address real problems of COI. Instead of going to RFC and dispute resolution, editors are going to go to COI/N, and ask mommy to shut up one of the parties. That's not good. We already have too many content disputes being warred on COI/N. Do we want many many more? Do we want every LaRouchie demanding Cberlet be blocked? Why is that good for the encyclopedia?

6. Similarly, this rule is going to create BLP problems, because people will not be able to discuss errors in their biography on the talk page: it will be impermissible "advocacy." THF 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

responses

--David Shankbone 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Sadly, Ted, this is already expected of editors, you just didn't follow it. This has been pointed out to you by numerous people, man long-time editors and highly regarded. And yes, a COI should be made up front, but so should your reasons for wanting to include your own work. --David Shankbone 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

DSB, please don't say things that aren't true. My conduct was reviewed by five administrators at the COI/N, and each agreed that no intervention was necessary. THF 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of the five admins, I would like point out that our agreement not to intervene regarded the narrow question of COI policy. It was not a broad judgment on "conduct" per se. Raymond Arritt 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Man, long-time editors who are highly regarded came to the reverse conclusion as you, DSB. At the least there's not consensus on your point, which is why we're discussing it here. Cool Hand Luke 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, five editors came to consensus there were no COI violations; quite a few editors took issue with Ted's behavior, and you need only look on the COI board, the Sicko talk page and the admin board to see that.--David Shankbone 22:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say otherwise. Just that some disagreed with you. Hence no consensus. Cool Hand Luke 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There was pretty strong consensus that Ted's behavior was poor. It's worthwhile to note that out of all the times Ted complained about my behavior, nobody said a word to me, but did give him an admonishment. Except for you, of course. Hey, were you ever in the Federalist Society? lol. --David Shankbone 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Newyorkbrad and Pete on COI/N. I assumed you were talking about the COI issues, where most non-parties seemed to have disagreed with you. Since this is an article on COI and not THF's behaviour, I assumed that we were still vaguely on-topic. Cool Hand Luke 23:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

And a number of administrators said words to David. Newyorkbrad warned him against personal attacks (a warning you are not abiding in his uncivil personal attack on Luke), and Peteforsyth wrote a lengthy defense of my actions while criticizing the "pile of unreasonable" arguments made against me. But the COI/N discussion speaks for itself.

Separately, isn't it curious that DSB writes a guideline proposal that states that editors should make a single proposal with a single list of detailed reasons, and then stop talking about it and let people hash it out, but feels compelled to respond dozens of times on this page in defense of his proposal? It is as good as evidence as any for the unworkability of the proposed rule. THF 23:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

1.The proposal wouldn't have to be lengthy, in the case you suggest little to nothing more would be necessary; there's a certain amount of common sense. The person who said you should've been bold was clearly unfamiliar with the COI guidelines. SamBC(talk) 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam, did you read David's 21:27 comment? He expressly states that an edit proposal would have to be lengthy: it has to anticipate every possible objection, because the editor will not be allowed to comment again. If someone responded and incorrectly said "Ribstein is not a reliable source", I would not have been allowed to answer the objection, so I would have had to include that argument--and two dozen others--in the initial proposal. THF 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with him; in that specific case, I would say that you would be allowed to respond solely to the point "Ribstein is not a reliable source", as long as it referred solely to that and not to the application of such to the proposed edit. More to the point, if it's true that Ribstein is a reliable source, it's likely that someone else will make that point. Make the suggestion with all pertinent information (which needn't be very much), and then let COI-free editors discuss. The editor saying that about a source wouldn, in any case, not be behaving appropriately. They should be asking "what makes Ribstein a reliable source?" SamBC(talk) 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• THF is interpreting my comments, and treating this as a policy. If a person is being broadly misrepresented, we specifically said above that he could defend himself. Ted, I understand why you are objecting, so strenuously; you already have said on the Talk:Sicko page you have a larger project in mind that will be your own work. --David Shankbone 23:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your 21:27 comment said that my talk-page comment defending myself against being broadly misrepresented violated the new guideline. I find it problematic that the line between permissible "defending oneself" and objectionable "advocacy" is indefinable. I'll ignore the unfair personal attack rather than defend myself.

In the unlikely event I make another edit proposal on Sicko, I will adhere to the proposed guideline (even if it is rejected) and do it as a single talk-page comment plus an RFC; per Raymond Arritt, that is a better way to proceed when a page is well-trafficked and the proposal is likely to be controversial. I just don't think it should be part of rulescreep. Have you considered writing an essay instead of trying for such a drastic change to the guideline? THF 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Some questions: Don't you find it problematic that the two proponents of the rule-change don't even agree what the rule means? Isn't it better for Wikipedia if the editor already familiar with Ribstein's credentials can respond to the contention, even if the editor has a COI? And what if the opponent of the edit proposal is correct and Ribstein is not a reliable source? Are you really saying that the opponent can only ask Socratic questions, and not make an affirmative claim? What's the remedy when the opponent of an edit proposal is not "behaving appropriately"? Is that also going to be reported to COI/N? And if this is such a good mechanism for discussing content disputes, why is it in WP:COI instead of WP:TALK? (Finally, do you agree that one can effectively advocate by asking lots of questions?) THF 23:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

2.The "rules" of COI aren't rules, per say, but guidelines as to how to minimize possible issues with NPOV, advocation, and so on, where a conflict of interest exists. They are primarily for the defence of good-faith editors with a COI. Note that the proposal says that people shouldn't challenge based on the COI, and that if they do it should be seperate to discussing the addition. SamBC(talk) 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

3. This guideline seeks to prevent such disruptive behaviour, by giving advice, not to provide a stick to beat violators with. How about adding "or RfC" to the "such as COI/N" term? SamBC(talk) 22:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That does not solve the problem. The language you propose tells people to tattle every time there is an edit proposal. That's a disaster. THF 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It does no such thing. It says to do so if they believe there has been a problem with COI, which they ought not to think if they've read the proposed term. SamBC(talk) 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It says If you have concerns about someone's stated conflict of interest, it should not be raised in the edit discussion; instead, report it at a more suitable forum, such as WP:COI/N It calls for people to go to COI/N, if they have concerns. A person who reads WP:COI isn't going to be familiar with the legislative history and the intent of the drafters. The rule has to be clear, and this rule clearly calls for people to run to COI/N every time there is a content dispute. THF 23:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, try to adjust the drafting, not dismiss the suggestion right out. Fix it, rather than get rid of it, especially as its only a proposal. SamBC(talk) 23:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the suggestion right out: I am dismissing it after a consideration of the mild benefits and extensive costs. My fix is to maintain the status quo and see how the fix of the ambiguity in the header and nutshell work. THF 23:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if there's any benefit, and I don't agree that it's mild, then the correct thing to do is try to edit it to maximise the benefit and minimise the cost. That's what we're trying to do. SamBC(talk) 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good luck. I think the guideline just needs more clarity, not an expansion or contraction. Cool Hand Luke 00:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

4. Clarifying the ambiguity would indeed be a good thing. Work has been done, including that by you, to clarify. The proposal adds to the clarification, certainly doesn't take away from it. It makes it clear that there is no COI violation if one does what's suggested in the proposed term of COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamBC (talk • contribs)

Also, the whole sicko thing was a mess, and it was partly down to you, and partly down to David, and goodness knows I'm sure other people didn't help, and just as surely other people did. It's a problem that we can see a possibility of recurring (and not just with the same editors), and we can see the outline of a way to prevent recurrence. SamBC(talk) 23:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

5. That does need clarification. I'm going to try a longer, clearer proposal, trying to address this concern, as well as other concerns you and others have expressed, where I can see the concern as potentially valid. I'd then appreciate if you tell me of any concerns that are left unresolved; I'll either try to edit based on them, or explain why I don't think it's a valid concern.

6. COI on BLP is a seperate issue, as I understand it; in any case, I hope my new draft will address this concern. SamBC(talk) 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would like to suggest that both THF and David stop posting about this (anywhere) for a while, and cool down, because you're both skirting around personal attacks now and I don't want to see it go any further. The articulation displayed in this discussion suggests to me that you're both intelligent people, and I believe that intelligent people can always be reasonable if they can calm down long enough to realise that they aren't being, and to see the advantages of reasonable behaviour. Take a break, both of you, and I suggest that everyone else (including me) not say anything addressed directly to either of them for a while. A while needn't be long, just long enough for people to calm down. SamBC(talk) 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

New, more extensive guideline addition draft

I am now proposing a general edit to the section "Suggesting changes to articles, or requesting a new article". My suggestion appears below with new material in bold. In one case, a word intended to be bold in the finished version appears non-bold in the middle of bold stuff; it should be obvious where this is the case. Also, unless it's a major change, this section will be edited based on feedback and discussion, to prevent lots of version making this talk page even longer.

start of draft suggestion

An editor with a conflict of interest who wishes to suggest changes to an article should use that article's talk page, with the goal of ensuring NPOV through discussion and consensus.

1. You may wish to log in and create a user page for yourself that describes you and/or your professional background, using a real name or a pseudonym.
2. Go to the talk page of the article.
3. Create a new section by clicking the "+" at the top of the page. Title it "Proposed change" or "Proposed addition." Type in the changes you wish to have made, and sign your post by typing four tildes, ~~~~. The following suggestions should help to ensure a civil and reasonable discussion, but they should not be considered compulsory:
   1. You may wishIt may be helpful to disclose your conflict of interest on the talk page.
   2. You might consider including a link to this section ( [[WP:COIC]] ) to indicate that you are following this advice, and to help people to understand how to respond.
   3. When describing your changes, try to be both clear and concise — it makes it much easier for people to consider and respond to your suggestion.
   4. Your proposed change should be supported by reasoning independent of your conflict of interest — assume good faith that other editors will treat your suggestion on its merits.
   5. This reasoning should be as complete as you appropriate, while remaining clear and concise.
   6. Once you have presented your case, it may be best to take a back seat and minimise your participation in the discussion, to avoid any perception or accusation of undue advocacy or pushing an agenda. Of course, if there are indications of any misunderstanding or misconception, it is reasonable to politely address this; similarly, if any editor asks you a question, a response is appropriate.
   7. If you realise that you have missed a useful point of reasoning, please add it, but not in reply to any part of the discussion not directed to you.
   8. If people respond in a way that seems unfair, keep cool, remain civil, and if all else fails consider the guidelines for dispute resolution.

To request a new article, you can present your idea on the talk page of a relevant article or category.

Editors responding to such a COI-compliant suggestion should bear in mind the following points:

1. Assume good faith, the user is likely trying to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia, even if they have a conflict of interest.
2. Treat the user's suggestion on its merits, rather than trying to assess the conflict of interest itself.
3. If you believe that the user is being disingenuous, keep calm and keep observing for while. If you become sure that they are acting in bad faith, consider the following steps:
   1. Make a polite summary of your concerns on the user's talk page.
   2. Seek a second (or third) opinion from another editor, preferably one not involved in the discussion.
   3. Consider the advice of the dispute resolution guidelines.
   4. If all else fails, and you believe that the user is acting inappropriately, consider taking your concerns to a suitable forum, such as WP:COIN, RFC for articles, or WP:RFCC. Please familiarise yourself with all such forums before deciding where to take your concerns.

Discussion

So, what do people think? I'm prepared to explain my reasoning for each point, but I would hope that they'd be self-evident. SamBC(talk) 00:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a major improvement, and a clever solution to the objections to make matters a suggestion, rather than a rule with a strong recommendation. To clarify: is any text deleted from the existing guidelines? Can you include that in your redline above as a strikethrough? I want to make sure we're not losing anything.

I disagree with the reference to WP:COIN, which is not for content disputes. WP:COIN is to draw attention to editors with ownership of little-trafficked articles where they are being self-promoting. A reference to dispute resolution is all that is needed, and COIN is not DR. On second thought, I guess it's okay if the "if all else fails" is bolded in the final version; if all else fails, then a COIN report is appropriate, but it should be made clear that COIN is not for content disputes. A talk-page discussion, no matter how obnoxious, is not a COIN problem, even if it's a problem of WP:TALK or WP:CIVIL.

No. 5, This reasoning should be as complete as you can manage. contradicts the general consensus that it is better to state talk-page reasoning in a short and concise manner. Experienced editors will know to disregard this recommendation in the right circumstances, but I worry about the newbies, many of whom need no encouragement to be unnecessarily verbose.

Otherwise, this is unobjectionable and good advice, but since they are (necessarily) just suggestions, it is perhaps better as a creation of a separate essay, rather than in the guideline. I don't object to linking to the essay page from the guideline once there is consensus over the content of the essay. THF 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC) (edited 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC))

Firstly, very little text is removed - in fact, none is removed, per se, just altered slightly. I'll add the strikethrough bits in a couple of minutes (after I finish this response).

Secondly, COIN is appropriate in some case, as are the RFCs. However, a step just before the last resort referring to DR would probably be a good idea; I'll add that when I add the struckthrough stuff.

Finally, it really isn't long enough for an essay, and the first part is partly an expansion of what was there, partly advice based on people's experiences. The second part is quite an addition, I will admit, but I think, on some deep consideration, that advice for people without a conflict of interest when they find themselves in this situation was a fairly glaring omission.

Thanks for the feedback, though, with a little luck (and plenty of goodwill) we should be able to reach a consensus that helps us all to improve wikipedia and not get into messy arguments. SamBC(talk) 01:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And those edits are done. SamBC(talk) 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the suggestion of being as complete as possible to being as complete as appropriate (in the same edit as this comment). SamBC(talk) 01:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this. I think the proposal is in accord with our existing policies, but I think we might throw in a clause to remind potential COI contributers that their goal should be achieving WP:NPOV through talk discussion.

This guideline is getting very verbose. It might be a good time to overhaul the entire page. Also, one thing that isn't currently well-explained is the roll of COI/N. It says now that suspected COI should be reported, but I think we mean something more like suspected COI editors violating our prime policies (V, OR, NPOV, ect.) Cool Hand Luke 01:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

More, we mean something like COI editors violating policies and not responding favorably after being reminded of them. COIN is for situations requiring intervention. THF 01:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just made a bold edit to clarify that the mere existence of a COI is not a reason for any action. On the other points, the verbosity of the whole project page is a bit of a problem, and it's not as well structured as many others; however, a complete redraft and restructure is a major task that may be difficult to achieve consensus on. I'm happy to work on it with others in the near future, though; I'd just prefer to see some consensus on this first. And finally, I'm about to make an edit above to clarify that NPOV is the goal. SamBC(talk) 01:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Theoretically I think this looks looks pretty good. Given that it adds a fair chunk to an already long guideline it may be worth thinking about whether this will make a practical difference to the way these conversations go. The longer the guideline, the fewer people who should read it will. That's probably another discussion though..... I do have a suggestion about wording: On the Editor responding section I think points 2 and 3 should be switched. We should be emphasizing the editors responsibility in the conversation before we start assuming problems and pointing them to dispute resolution. -- SiobhanHansa 14:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion, and I've changed the proposed bit above in exactly that way.

On the point of the length of the guideline, I would suggest adding the proposed material and then having a bunch of us get together on a subpage to work on refactoring the guideline as a whole, before proposing the refactoring. Any simple refactoring should be pretty noncontroversial, as it should basically maintain the meaning of the current guideline. SamBC(talk) 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So, are there any objections to these additional points of guidance being added to the guidelines? SamBC(talk) 00:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

COI Assistance Noticeboard

Let me jump in. This proposal is well intentioned, but I think it overloads an already convoluted guideline with too many instructions. May I suggest that we create a separate noticeboard where COI editors may log a summary of their requests with a link to the relevant talk pages where they would place the full request? These instructions could go at the top of that new noticeboard. The "COI Assistance" noticeboard would help the project:

1. Ensure that requests don't slip through the cracks on thinly trafficked talk pages of low profile articles.
2. Provide a central place to monitor the activity so we can prevent "buddy editing" and other forms of abuse.
3. Supply a stream of volunteers. Experienced editors requesting assistance could help resolve other, unrelated requests on the same board.
4. Show newcomers the history of past requests so they can see what works and what doesn't.
5. Demonstrate fairness to business interests who may have legitimate gripes about their Wikipedia coverage.

WP:COI/A would be for COI editors requesting assistance with suggested edits. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

all this is very well, but why do we need a second noticeboard for this? DGG (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We could put everything on COIN, but I think a second noticeboard would improve usability because COIN is already very long, and I think it makes sense to sort different types of requests into buckets. Additionally, the instructions at the top of COIN will get very overloaded if we try to explain how to submit this type of request there. My feelings, as a web developer, are that these two pages should be separate, but closely connected. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think that would make COIed editors have to jump through even more hoops, which is a bad thing as there's a lot of perfectly appropriate COI-affected edits. As for the convoluted guidelines, if you look above you will see some suggestion of working to refactor the whole thing.

Telling COIed editors to post to a seperate place would, in fact, alter the current "policy" (I know it's a guideline), while the proposed change gives clearer instructions to all concerned. On the other hand, a noticeboard that editors could refer cases to when they were unsure may be useful, for cases where the community feels that they cannot make a clear decision about the proposed edit but there is no need for intervention. The COIed proposers of edits may also use such a noticeboard if, and only if, they feel that their proposed edit was handled inappropriately. SamBC(talk) 12:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There'd be no extra hoops. The editor could use the board to get attention. They could post directly to the board and then leave a link at the talk page, or post at the talk page and leave a link at the board. For very little extra effort they could ensure that their request receives more timely attention. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm with DGG and SamBC here. I think this is purpose is already served (weakly) by the table of contents, and that it's a small incremental benefit to create another page. Also, if we clarify the guidelines, less content disputes should spill over into COI/N, making it shorter. Cool Hand Luke 13:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DGG, SamBC, and Luke. COIN has a giant backlog, and the consensus there is to try to figure out how to reduce the scope of the noticeboard and discourage reports that don't require intervention. THF 13:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Reports that don't require intervention can be closed and archived. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've greatly simplified the section in connection with the below ("suggestions for COI compliance"). What I removed was basic how-to stuff in how to create a talk page and add new sections to discussions. The material I deleted is certainly well intentioned and appreciated, but I don't think it's a good idea to add beginner-level tutorial information on how to use Wikimedia software in the middle of a guideline page. I left in the suggestion about asking for new articles in the category page or related articles, but is that really the place to ask? Isn't there already a place where one can ask for new articles? Beyond that I don't see that we have to go out of our way to tell conflicted editors how they can lobby for an article about themselves, their company, etc? Why not leave it up to their ingenuity and better discretion? Depending on the article they could approach someone on their talk page, on a wikiproject page, wherever. Wikidemo 07:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've not added it back or anything, but I think a guideline for handling conflicts of interest should include advice on how to, y'know, handle conflicts of interest. Otherwise it just says what it is and what to do if you think someone isn't handling it right, with rather little indication of how to handle it right. SamBC(talk) 12:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance

Per WP:BOLD, I have created WP:SCOIC, as there didn't seem to be much dispute over the ideals expressed within SamBC's proposal, just over how best to fit it in to this page. Since these are nonbinding suggestions, I think this material works better as a separate how-to-essay page linked to from this page (see, e.g., WP:NPOVD, linked to from within WP:NPOV), rather than as a lengthy addition to the COI page. Sambc thought this might be too short for an essay, but it takes up a full screen on my fairly large monitor--if anything, it's too long for a section of a guideline. But I am not tied to my position; I've added a mergeto tag to the SCOIC page, and will not oppose a deletion if the decision is made to use the material here. THF 13:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a nice effort. If you want to keep anything like that level of detail it's best not to merge it back in, because little if any of that would be appropriate for WP:COI. That's a guideline. You're giving advice, instructions, help to a specific group of people on how they can comply with the guideline. That would normally be subject of an essay, help page, tutorial, or the like, not a guideline. Also, who is your audience? Where do the COI problems come from? If you're thinking of Wikipedia newbies who come here anonymously or start a new account for the sole purpose of creating a conflict article or slanting an already existing one, best to be very detailed, encouraging, understanding, patient, etc....tell them they CAN contibute but to please respect Wikipedia's policies for their own good and ours. You could ask if the welcome committee will add a link to the welcome page or one of the pages that links from there if it's a persistent problem here. If your audience is more knowledgeable editors who are looking for more info on how they can do the same, the tone would be more straightforward and to the point. Finally, if you're addressing problem wikipedians I don't think any "please consider doing it this way" page is going to get to them. There we need firm policies, guidelines, mediation procedures, etc. Wikidemo 08:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Many editors with a conflict of interest are operating in good faith, and there's a very bad problem of false positives in Wikipedia where good-faith editors are unfairly attacked simply for participating on a talk-page. A lot of problems come from people overzealously enforcing COI for matters that are not COI violations.

I tend to agree with you it should be a separate page rather than part of the guideline, but I'm not going to object if people put it on the guideline page. THF 08:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell Take Three

Since April, administrators have complained that the nutshell affirmatively misleads people about the COI policy. It absolutely has to be changed so that it does not incorrectly imply that editors with a conflict of interest cannot edit, because there is absolute consensus that such editors can edit. While there is disagreement over the phrasing of the clause, isn't there consensus for this more important point such that we shouldn't be removing the disclaimer? THF 14:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say COI editors can't edit. It says COI editors can't use Wikipedia to promote themselves or their "stuff". - Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's even less accurate. That implies that even suggesting an edit on a talk page is a forbidden use. It suggests that pages well within Wikipedia rules are forbidden. Again, the nutshell needs to reflect what the guideline actually is, because many people will read only the guideline. The nutshell is wrong. THF 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the WP:COI guideline is doing two independent things. One is defining what a conflict of interest is. Two is setting guidelines for how editors with a conflict of interest should act. A nutshell needs to distinguish between the two, rather than confabulate them. That's probably going to need two sentences: one for the definition, the other for the caution. THF 23:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

How about "An editor writing on a subject which may benefit themselves or other groups or individuals with whom they are associated is said to have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors wishing to contribute to an article for which they have a COI should apply special caution to ensure verifiability and WP:NPOV neutral point of view." SamBC(talk) 00:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NB: This is very different from the current nutshell, but does actually seem to better summarise the content of the guideline. SamBC(talk) 00:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"An editor writing on a subject which may benefit themselves or associated groups or individuals is said to have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors wishing to contribute to an article for which they have a COI should apply special caution to ensure verifiability and neutral point of view." says the same thing in fewer words, but I like this change. Jehochman? THF 00:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the focus on an editors official relationship to a potential beneficiary rather than on their intent to promote. i work on a lot of nonprofit/activist/political articles where there is huge COI from supporters of a particular point of view, who come to Wikipedia in order to promote that point of view. They have a very definite conflict of interest but almost certainly do not consider themselves "associated" with the group being benefited. Because of this I much prefer the "in order to promote" wording. -- SiobhanHansa 01:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okedoke, here's another try (it's quite a small edit), but I don't want to make it entirely about intent because that's so hard to demonstrate. "An editor writing on a subject which may benefit themselves or any associated/supported groups or individuals is said to have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors wishing to contribute to an article for which they have a COI should apply special caution to ensure verifiability and WP:NPOV neutral point of view." How's that? SamBC(talk) 01:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that reluctance. From my perspective that's a good adjustment. I'd also like to say SamBC that I really appreciate your skill and effort at facilitating collaboration here. It's a hard job and you've been excellent at it. -- SiobhanHansa 01:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I like what it said a while back. Let me look at the older version and I'll suggest something soon. Getting it right is more important than fixing it this instant. Let's discuss it a bit more, eh. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you decided to simply edit the nutshell rather than discuss as others have done here. May I ask why? SamBC(talk) 12:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The nutshell is a summary. The current nutshell is bad. I edited it to be a good summary of the page, and in fact, you yourself said it was an improvement. There's nothing wrong with incremental improvement. There's no need to revert unless the change makes things worse. I'd ask you to restore my version and then by all means continue the discussion and see if somebody can make it better. Discussion here does not preclude editing there. :-) - Jehochman ^Talk 13:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was basing my comment on your previous comment, getting it right is more important than fixing it quickly, discuss it a bit more... but if your latest comment is accurate, then there's nothing wrong with my new edit using my suggestion, which I consider to be more of an improvement (and others have endorsed and fed comments into). SamBC(talk) 13:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think your nutshell mis-states what the guideline says. Please take one or two sentences from the guideline and use them to create a nutshell. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems a decent nutshell to me, and to everyone apart from you who's commented on it; nothing says (that I've seen) that a nutshell has to be based on a sentence or two of a guideline, and doing so is no insurance of a correct summary. SamBC(talk) 13:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

Besides yourself and THF, who else has commented on this nutshell? I don't think you have a consensus behind your version. I hate reverting, so I will leave it, but I think it's much more confusing, and presents things the wrong way. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

SiobhanHansa commented in support of the most recent version. I find it interesting that you feel that the nutshell needs broad discussion for change, except when you decided to rewrite it yourself with no discussion. SamBC(talk) 13:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also add that I have no disagreement that it needs more work, but I think the guideline as a whole needs work, and that ought to make it easier to summarise. It's also more constructive to work with other editors to find a suitable nutshell than it is to say "no, that's not really right, so I'm going to fix it on my own". SamBC(talk) 13:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I for one prefer the other version[8]. The current one is not a nutshell, its too wordy and over complicated. I don't see why this needed to be changed--Cailil ^talk 13:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, my friend, I've just installed a new version that is cleaner than the ones before. Everyone, feel free to edit if you can make it better. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I think the version you just added had only one flaw: it missed the oft-missed issue that just having a potential COI isn't a bar to contributing, under appropriate care. Otherwise, it was very good, and removed the implication that all edits about something you're involved with are automatically conflicted. I've made an edit to attempt to address that one issue. SamBC(talk) 14:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cailil, the main problem with it (not the only one) was that there had been a call for more discussion which was then ignored by the person who made the call; the reversal was about 50% knee-jerk, which I admit and apologise for. The other reasoning was that it did not address some of the concerns that had been voiced here. SamBC(talk) 14:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

SamBC, I like your addition. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's good, let's hope it's settled now ;) SamBC(talk) 14:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I like this version too. -- SiobhanHansa 14:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this is an improvement--Cailil ^talk 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

COI guideline should be deleted

The wiki policies make the COI guideline redundant. What matters are the edits not the editor. Since most editors here do not choose their real names as their usernames and don't post their CV on their user page, we can't know for sure if there is a conflict of interest anyway.

This guidline on wikipeda could perhaps be justified if editors with a conflict of interest are a significant source of bias in wiki articles. However, there isn't a shred of evidence for this. Why don't we let independent experts evaluate bias in wikipedia articles and the behavior of editors that leads to the bias? Using the results of such a study we could make good guidlines and policies to deal with this problem. Count Iblis 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good point. I'm convinced that there are many editors who fall under the COI guidelines but we don't know about them because most editors are pseudonymous. In practice the guideline can't be applied consistently, so we may as well get rid of it. Having said that, I'd like to see editing-for-pay be absolutely prohibited and cause for an immediate siteban. Raymond Arritt 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You should start here if you want that policy implemented. THF 21:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, I mean Wikipedia:Reward board. THF 21:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Really small amounts considering the work. I bet we could get the RA's suggestion implemented (and get all hell broken loose) if somebody like AT&T pledged several thousand dollars to promote their article to FA. Cool Hand Luke 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, it's a guideline. All guidelines stem from and are based on core policies and WP:FIVE. The guideline is there to help people conform to policies. Plus, we don't have a ready stream of independent experts. SamBC(talk) 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want this to be deleted, you can nominate it for deletion. I don't think you'll be successful, but I suppose you can try. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll think about that. Count Iblis 12:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

COI guideline needs to clarify that editors are not to conduct on-Wiki investigations

An unfortunate side-effect of the current COI guideline is that editors in contentious content disputes seek to use the policy to gain a wikilawyered advantage. We thus see disputes like this one, where WP:NPA was repeatedly violated by repeated obnoxious questioning about an editor's biography, all under the guise of determining whether there was a conflict of interest.

In my mind, WP:AGF requires that there is a presumption that there is no conflict of interest. It's certainly a rebuttable presumption. For example, a google search suggests an editor is the press agent for Richard Rossi, an article he extensively edits. And there are many notorious cases of anon IPs whose WHOIS shows their relationship, such as the sanitizing edits from the House of Representatives.

But it seems to me that, outside of cases of outside evidence of undisclosed COI, editors get to ask only one question: "Please review the conflict of interest policy; do you have a conflict of interest on this article?" If the answer is "No," that should be the end of the inquiry under WP:AGF. The editor doesn't get to make further direct inquiries. This rule--a necessary corollary of WP:AGF and WP:NPA--should be memorialized somewhere on the page.

Any alternative is obviously unworkable, as the Jaakabou/PalestineRemembered dispute shows: if editors are permitted to conduct discovery, we'll have Israelis demanding to know whether Palestinians are involved in terrorist organizations, and Palestinians demanding to know Israeli editors' military records, with all of the uncivil strife that violations of WP:NPA entail.

POV-pushing by edit-warriors operating in bad faith can be punished as such without investigations into intent. Single-purpose accounts can also be dealt with as needed without prying questions. Good intent does not forgive NPOV violations, and bad intent does not taint good edits. As WP:NPA says, comment on the edit, not the editor.

(My COI: when I was reported to COIN, I received lots of obnoxious and prying questions about my work habits and sources of pay, with my denials only resulting in more intrusive questioning, before I was exonerated.) THF 11:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated questioning when the target doesn't want to answer can be a form of pestering. I think the existing policies cover these issues pretty well. Perhaps we can clarify WP:COI that attempts to uncover COI should not digress into pestering or personal attacks. I don't think we should make this guideline overly bureaucratic by prescribing strict protocols, nor should we make this guideline any longer. If anything, it needs to be shortened. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This only needs a sentence or two. The guideline can be shortened while including this important point. It's not enough that it's arguably covered by the trolling guidelines (and anyone accused of pestering will respond "But he didn't answer my question!", as an editor did in my case when an admin told him to cut it out), because editors defend this misconduct regularly by reference to WP:COI. The editor most recently blocked in the case mentioned above insists he has done nothing wrong because all he did was investigate COI. Too many editors think that COI investigation gives them the excuse to disregard other rules. THF 12:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, you may have gotten the short end of the stick in that regard, but your proposed solution paints with far too broad a brush. At WP:COIN I've dealt with editors who started user accounts under their own names and whose contributions were self-promotional, yet who insisted they had no conflict of interest. It would seriously harm the project to tie the hands of editors who investigate these cases in good faith. Have a look at this example where the editor was stubbornly disingenuous about an obvious WP:COI. I'll be glad to brainstorm with you about finding a better solution to your problem. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF merely requires a presumption of good faith. If User:Joe Shlabotnik is demonstrably affiliated with Yoyodyne, and is making edits under that name to the Yoyodyne and Joe Shlabotnik articles, and is being self-promotional, I don't have any issue with the presumption being rebutted. But no one needs to ask Joe a single question to determine that. It's not even clear what good the questioning would do: are you going to believe him or your lying eyes if Shlabotnik denies that he has a COI in editing the Shlabotnik page? An admin just needs to issue a COI warning for failure to disclose COI and controversial self-promotional editing.

I think the example I had above of User_talk:Jacksbernstein is useful. This user has, so far, refused to respond to questions about his COI: it just created strife on the page because people were asking silly questions like "Are you Richard Rossi editing under an alias?" A ten-second Google search revealed that he's Rossi's press agent. An editor can do that sort of investigation without badgering the user, and administrators can take the appropriate steps if that user continues to violate the COI guideline now that he has been warned. THF 18:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be entirely forbidden to ask, but users have no obligation to answer, and it should be made clear in this guideline that NPA is a paramount policy. Inquisitions are at the least useless and should be discourages, but I don't know whether this guideline has the force of policy to completely ban them. At any rate, COI suspicions do not give users license to smear a user because it's "relevant to their conflict of interest." That's an unacceptable excuse for violating NPA. Cool Hand Luke 18:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

COI declarations as a show of good faith

perhaps the wording of the COI guideline as something to do with the problem--it does not conform to our actual practice, being much more negative. Perhaps it should be re-worded as advice, warning, and explanation that the material will be very carefully reviewed. Personally, I much prefer dealing with declared COI, and would support a statement that declaring it will go a considerable way to establishing good faith. DGG (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. If we implemented a punitive policy we would simply be forced to deal with underground COI accounts. I think this would be much worse for monitoring bias in the project. I would be strongly in favor of mentioning that COI disclosures demonstrate good faith and should engender good faith in others. I think this is consistent with WP:AGF. Cool Hand Luke 05:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Redrafting/Refactoring

Okay, so there are a lot of comments about the structure, size, and ambiguity of this guideline. I suggest a redraft/refactoring of the existing guideline, and to that end I've boldly created Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/redraft and Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/redraft. I would like to suggest that people roll over to that talk page and start discussing what we'd like to see from this. If there's interest here, it's worth spreading the word wider, like at the village pump. SamBC(talk) 12:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Try WP:AN too. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried a rewrite in April, see #Rewrite above. There's room for improvement, but I think the things I tried to do (reduce wordiness and remove redundant material, giving people with conflicts clear alternatives to editing, clearing up the definition) are still important. --bainer (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A refactoring should reduce the wordiness and remove internally redundant material, although material redundant to other guidelines and policies isn't necessarily a problem, especially for policies; guidelines are advisory material that emanates from policy and WP:FIVE, AIUI. Your participation in refactoring would certainly be useful, though. Please indicate support and thoughts on the talk page I linked above. It should help get things moving. SamBC(talk) 13:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does editing an article concerning one's college (currently attending) constitute a WP:COI? Thanks. --User:Kushal_one

The answer is probably "It depends."

Well, if your work-study job is in the public affairs department then the answer is yes. Otherwise, for a student, probably not. Durova^Charge! 16:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this necessary?

Is WP:COI a necessary behavioral guideline? We are supposed to "comment on content, not contributor." While it is true that oftentimes the editors with a COI are editing with a bias, the problem is ultimately the content - the existence of the COI is irrelevant. The editor could easily hide his identity. The edits would still be problematic for not being in line with our content policies (NPOV in this case), but declaring the existence of a COI does not affect the legitimacy of the edits.

I'm afraid that in calling a COI we may be pissing off potentially helpful editors (often with expert knowledge about the subject). I've suspected this to be the case for awhile, and remember a few incidents, but a good example from today is at WP:ANI#QuakeSim. COI was used as a reason for deletion, and while we have reviewed the deletion and restored the article, it is obvious that the author was not happy with the way he was treated here. Hopefully he'll stick around and help out that article some more. So what if he has a COI? We're just asking for NPOV, use of RS, no spam, etc - if he edits in accordance with these, what is the problem? He was a new editor with knowledge about the subject that he wished to give to the public (with no advertising aspect), and instead of welcoming him, we nearly bit his head off for having a COI, which is supposedly a problem.

The content is either bad or it isn't, but what does it matter who the editor is and what they do? Why do we condemn and drive away people for being close to a certain subject when they could actually improve our coverage of it? This guideline doesn't seem to provide anything useful as it is either a statement of the obvious (blatant spammers and self-promoters) or a personal attack on an editor (telling a well-meaning expert that they have a COI). We should stick to content policies in these situations - this isn't necessary and can possibly harm the project by driving away experts.

I'd like some input (in case I missed something) before I do anything further (such as a deletion nomination). Thanks in advance. The Behnam 06:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

To me the difference is that COI applies to how the editor edits the related article; if there is a real COI, it's better for that editor to post on that talk page instead and let other editors make the actual edits to the article. They can provide info, but avoid adding their bias to the article by insuring the edits are made through consensus and not directly as an individual.

But regarding deletion of articles - I may have missed something, but I don't find COI a reason to support a deletion at AfD. The AfD decision should be made according to content of the article, not who wrote it. If the article is WP:SPAM, or the topic is not notable, or there is some other reason to delete, that's all separate from if the article author had a COI. If they do have a COI, the AfD participants might examine the article more carefully for problems, but even then - problems with articles can be corrected without deletion, unless they don't meet WP requirements for inclusion, ie, notability, etc.

I agree with you that the COI label can drive people away and should be used carefully, especially with editors who edit multiple topics and have COI on only a few. On the other hand, an editor who has a COI and also is a single-purpose account is worth a closer look. Someone who comes here only to write about himself or herself, or their own company/band/book, etc, is not likely to stick around and improve Wikipedia if they are not getting their agenda satisfied. --Parsifal _Hello 08:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Behnam is resuming a debate that has previously occurred on this Talk page a number of times. Both Arbcom and WP:ANI discuss COI issues all the time, and they weigh the significance of the editor's real life connections when determining if the editor's behavior is reasonable. Your view is that they should stop doing that? Here are some of the Arbcom cases where COI is discussed (copied from an earlier discussion that you can still see above):

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Free_Republic
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Midnight_Syndicate

The deletion issue discussed in the QuakeSim ANI was not handled in the best way possible. It is accepted that a COI, by itself, is not a reason for deletion. The presence of a COI is a valid topic to be explored in AfD debates, though. EdJohnston 13:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Current case:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS

This guideline enjoys very wide support and there have been discussions of promoting this to policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. I'll read up on those links and then decide whether or not to continue discussion. The Behnam 17:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Right now, all I'm seeing with those links is that ArbCom has used COI in its reasoning. This suggests that it will be difficult to ever get rid of this guideline, but I'm really more concerned about whether it ought to be supported than if it is supported. So I suppose I'm more interested in seeing where concerns such as mine have been answered before. The Behnam 17:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

One thing to point out is that the guideline is also here to advise editors with a potential COI in how to edit wikipedia in any case. SamBC(talk) 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this should be dealt with by editing the guideline--the wording probably is excessively off-putting--though it could be argued that it doesn't seem to dscourage people much! It may not be realistic to say that one should never do it, since people do it all the time and often the articles are kept. Without COI contributors there would not be all that much of an encyclopedia in many subjects--it is after all one's associates who are most likely to write a bio.

It is also my feeling that almost all bios with COI need editing, usually drastically, and therefore a notice is appropriate. Interestingly, not all of them are excessive--a good many need editing to add the necessary sources and information showing notability that the subject was too modest to include.DGG (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors who arrive here with a COI need to be advised what to do. Many of these cases wind up at WP:COIN. We usually tell them that they have a COI, they should edit cautiously, etc. Does User:The Behnam want to *remove* the phrase 'conflict of interest' from that dialog? Conflict of interest exists already in the external world, lawyers know about it, we didn't make it up.

If you want to see where concerns such as yours have been addressed before, look for 'Barberio' in this Talk page. Cases at WP:COIN that lead to blocks usually turn out to be horrible violations of neutrality, and you could always say, why not enforce neutrality? But then everything would go to WP:ANI or to user-conduct WP:RFC, the first being a blunt instrument, and the second taking six months. EdJohnston 21:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's just the feeling I get. This guideline wants to cut corners in what seem to be similar cases of non-neutral editing, but unfortunately does this by getting personal and violating WP:AGF. I don't view this as necessary either - WP:AIV works in the most extreme cases, while ANI is fairly efficient in dealing with those that need a little discussion. The last two options work from content violations or incivility, which avoids dwelling on personal RL associations and focuses upon what they do on Wikipedia alone. I will, of course, read about the Barberio situation, though I must note that I have had experience with COI (where I was making the call on someone) and, in retrospect, consider COI a bad way to deal with the situation. The Behnam 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Your claims about the defects of the current guideline would be more convincing if backed by data. For instance, find some currently open cases at WP:COIN that illustrate the problems you perceive. COIN is, in my view, effective in handling a set of problems that frequently occur, and for which other options are not appealing. EdJohnston 02:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to argue from principle, especially when dealing with a principle. I can take a look, but I can say right now that I expect most cases to be fairly legitimate problems anyway. What I worry about are the exceptions - we are violating AGF and the proper non-personal/Wikipedia-oriented approach by taking a shortcut, WP:COI. The Behnam 03:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to jump in here, but the situation is even more muddled than it appears. There is vast misunderstanding about this guideline, its purpose, and how to deal with COI, even from some very surprising sources. I'm quoting from this Reuters article about WikiScanner: "The changes may violate Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines, a spokeswoman for the site said on Thursday." [...] "It violates Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute to an entry about it, said spokeswoman Sandy Ordonez of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia's parent organization."

When even spokespeople from Wikimedia grossly misrepresent the guideline, we need to take a very hard look at it to make sure that we are not inadvertently putting out the wrong message or confusing people into thinking this guideline is something that it is not. It appears from this discussion and the many similar discussions before this one, that this is precisely what is happening. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

3rd party references

I'm looking for opinions from uninvolved editors. On a certain John Doe's articles, is it acceptable to link to John Doe's grandson's page where he has:

1. a bio on his granddad, i.e. information that he wrote himself.
2. saved scanned pages (images/pdf etc) of News articles about his grand dad

The information being linked may or may not be controversial. Most of it may be simple facts like "He had three sons". So, is any of the above two acceptable? COI says:

If you do write an article on area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources.

So that means the grandson's links dont qualify as references since they're not 3rd party sources, am I correct? And also, the grand son's links dont qualify as notability references because they're not 3rd party references, correct? Otherwise I could create pages on my family too and link them to own personal website www.matt57.com and where I talk about my grand dad John Doe. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 13:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The newspapers are the most interesting part of this. The rest of it is more debatable, but the newspaper articles themselves are a third-party source, and are probably reliable. The citation, however, should refer to the newspaper articles themselves (with {{cite news}} or similar); the provision of courtesy links to a scan may be controversial due to linking to a copyvio. SamBC(talk) 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so we can probably accept the news refs without linking to the scans, but after verifying from the (possible copyvio) scanned news articles. That way at least we could verify what was present in the News articles.

What about information on Matt57's own page about his grand dad, that he wrote or compiled himself? That doesnt qualify as a valid reference for information or notability as per COI according to policy, right? Since its not a 3rd party reference. Because then I could write any length about my grand dad on my personal website and someone could add that to his article - or is that acceptable? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, those sources would be usable (or rather, not unusable) by anyone but the author per COI, but that doesn't matter because they're not reliable sources and thus not usable per everything else. They may, in some circumstances, be considered an acceptable ancillary source, but they could never establish notability and should never be used to source anything even faintly controversial. SamBC(talk) 14:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the article on Vanessa Fox can reference Vanessa's own blog for autobiographical information, such as her birthdate or employment. We have no reason to think she'd give false info. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless, of course, a reliable source disagrees, in which case the choices are to mention both, attempting not to imply any comment on anyone's honesty, or to mention neither and not say anything about birthdate, employment, age, whatever. SamBC(talk) 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And when the disputed information is necessary for notability, then AfD is generally the appropriate course. DGG (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Applications of COI policy to allegations of attenuated COI

Discussion ongoing at my self-report at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Sicko, and may provide some ideas for those rewriting the page. THF 13:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Paid Editing

Hi.

What would happen if someone was getting paid to edit Wikipedia in such a way as to produce encyclopedic content, not paid to distribute propaganda, and even encyclopedic content in subjects to which the paid editor has no involvement at all? I just saw a suggestion floated here suggesting immediate banning of anyone doing any paid editing! What about that type of editing, anyway? It does not seem damaging to Wikipedia -- how does the editor getting paid cause any harm in that case? mike4ty4 21:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is officially an amateurocracy, so I believe they would be summarily banned from Wikipedia. In fact, I believe someone was banned for life just for arguing with Jimbo Wales on the subject. I'll see if I can find a reference. Wikidemo 21:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. Enjoy - washington post article. Wikidemo 21:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly a balanced reply. Should be read in conjunction with this ban discussion, if at all. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

However this suggests though that the edits made may not have been neutral or encyclopedic. That's the type of editing I'm talking about -- getting paid to write neutral and encyclopedic, including verifiable unoriginal research, for Wikipedia, not to simply promote something. mike4ty4 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an amateurocracy? Well then how can you get an accurate, good encyclopedia anyway? mike4ty4 08:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the thought is that paid editing would raise to many red flags. For example, many topics are not covered evenly on the project. If an editor was paid to write detailed articles on every model of Cannon camera, for example, it might seem totally innocuous and non-controversial, but the unbalance in coverage would effectively give the company free advertising by virtue of Wikipedia's high page rank. Likewise, I think Microsoft's efforts to rebut criticism with encyclopedic contributions undermines our perceived credibility as an encyclopedia, even if the edits are in perfect accord with our policies. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a good summary. And that's assuming that the articles written by paid editors are actually neutral, fair, non-POV, etc. You've seen how bad paid PR writing is, and how spammy people and businesses are when they write about themselves. The last thing we need is a bunch of PR prose to wade through. Or worse, people who get really good at encyclo-mercials, who can find and cite sources beautifully and master all the tactics and writing styles needed to avoid speedy deletion, POV, so you would never know it's a PR piece until you realize that it's painting an unduly remunerative picture of its subject or a bad one of the competition. Even something hard to detect, like simply failing to mention the main competitor in a list of comparable products.

If we could control all these dangers, I'm not sure I agree that coverage bias by itself is a bad thing. But the people who believe it is make a strong case. Wikidemo 22:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a page here at Wikipedia where people can sign up to accept offers to write improve articles for pay or trade of services. The names of those offering and those accepting and the terms are there. Here it is: Wikipedia:Reward board. This may not be a COI issue, but it does refer to the COI policy. -- Fyslee/talk 05:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been repeated moves to delete this page. I'd be glad to help anyone wanting to try again. Personally, I think it a mistake from the first, but now with the renewed discussions of these problems, I think it sends an altogether wrong message. I'd accept the part about offering barnstars and the like as awards. But money?!! DGG (talk) 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This raises that question. Namely, does this spamminess of autobiographies come from an unconscious source or is it deliberate on the part of the autobiographer? As if it's the latter than there should be no problems whatsoever with writing an autobiography if you decide to keep it neutral. Yet it seems that all autobiography creation runs afoul of Wikipedia's system... That does not seem to make sense unless there is an unavoidable, unconscious component to the bias. Also, I was not asking about deliberate PR writing, by the way, I was asking about encyclopedic content. PR writing is an open-and-shut case -- it's often more interesting and potentially more useful to discuss grey areas, like non-PR paid writing. mike4ty4 08:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I was reading up on these issues as related to the User:MyWikiBiz case, the The Washington Post article about the Microsoft issue, and other issues related to WP:COI on the project such as edits exposed from WikiScanner, and this brings up some interesting points for discussion. Here is my question: If someone is being paid or reimbursed to edit Wikipedia, does it matter what agency they are working for? For example, if they are being paid to edit Wikipedia, but work for another non-profit organization, instead of a for-profit organization, wouldn't this still be an obvious problem and conflict of interest issue? What if that non-profit was, for example, a religious based organization, if there were financial incentives involved, for instance reimbursement for time and costs and even free use of corporate computers while editing Wikipedia - wouldn't it not make a difference whether it was a for-profit corporation reimbursing the editor's time and money/costs, or a non-profit organization? Wouldn't a non-profit be just as bad? And what if that non-profit were a spiritual or religious-based non-profit organization? If an editor's time and costs are reimbursed, or even if they are editing the majority of the time from a corporate computer where they themselves do not have to pay for any of their internet time or computer usage, wouldn't this also be a serious conflict of interest issue, regardless of whether it was a conflict of interest related to a for-profit company, a non-profit company, or fees and time and computer resources being reimbursed by a religious-based organization? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Here is a more specific version of the points above: If the Vatican were allowing a Vatican public relations employee to edit Wikipedia articles very closely related and of high interest to the Vatican, and is reimbursing that employee for their time, and/or the computers they use to edit Wikipedia - is the same level of conflict of interest scrutiny given to that employee as would be given to a User:MyWikiBiz type person or a Microsoft employee editing Microsoft articles? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
    • If an Admin knowledgeable on Conflict of Interest issues responds saying that the same standard is applied to financial conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, regardless of whether that editor/admin in question is from a for-profit, non-profit, or religious-based organization, that would provide some clarity. If there is some sort of different standard given to employees of religious-based organizations, I would like to hear that too, that would be interesting to note the various standards applied for financial conflicts of interests to different types of organizations and companies. Disclosure: - I myself am not affiliated with any organization, my computer and internet access is paid on my own time and as a volunteer contributor of information and articles. I am also only posing these questions to clarify the existing policies and procedures, and not addressing the financial conflicts of interest or lack thereof related to any existing editor/admin or editors/admins. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
    • In case you are thinking about the Scientologists who edit on this site, I think you should put your efforts in other directions. I think it would be very unwise for you to sir up that controversy.
    • In general, paid editors should use article talk pages to propose changes, be above board about what they are doing. That way the community can evaluate their suggestions and maintain neutral point of view. Whether the organization paying is for-profit or non-profit makes no difference. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, I was not referring in particular to any specific editor or group of editors, but thank you for your response. Perhaps could you address the question through the "Vatican" example I gave, above? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
        • Nevermind, perhaps you are right, and this environment at the present time is still too touchy on religious-based organizations funding financial conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, while it's for some reason less controversial to discuss the exact same activities if they originate from a for-profit corporation. I withdraw these questions and this thread of discussion, and I'll try to get these questions answered and clarified in another manner so as not to potentially "stir up controversy." Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 00:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC).

Conflict of interest and intention

Hi.

There seems to be a discord here. In the beginning it defines "conflict of interest" as involving a specific intention that is incompatible with Wikipedia's policies. However if that were so, then why invoke the guideline against people who do not have such intentions, as seems to occur with some degree of frequency (since the involved party may honestly seem to believe they are being neutral). If the party honestly believes they are being neutral and thus has no intent to violate policy, the guideline may still be invoked due to their close relationship with the article subject alone, instead of handling it like most other types of bias. This suggests the way this is implemented, that it is merely the close proximity that is sufficient to trigger conflict of interest, no intentions required, and thus with the implication that the bias is unconscious or has an unconscious component. The rest of the guideline seems to reflect this in the way it treats "conflict of interest" as simply being due to a "too close" relationship. Hence the discord. However I could be wrong, and so I'd like some discussion on this matter. I'm not just going to make a vast, sweeping change to accepted guidelines without community consensus. mike4ty4 08:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you can put your fears at rest. The guideline simply does not ban articles with COI, just advises against it in the strongest terms, on the basis of much unfortunate experience. In those rare instances where someone writes a good article nonetheless, it will stand. It isn't always excess puffery--it's sometimes a failure to talk about the things that make for public notability, or even on occasion excessive modesty that gives no indication of notability. COI alone is not reason to delete, just to look carefully and edit critically. DGG (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't even really advise against it that strongly, it just gives advice on how to edit when you have a COI to avoid violating reasonable behaviour and policies. The strange thing is that WP:COIN, or at least reports to it, seem to base a lot of stuff not on the policy as written. SamBC(talk) 12:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what policy Sambc refers to. WP:COI is a guideline. I wish even ten percent of the people who offer opinions about how WP:COIN ought to run actually helped man the board. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. mike4ty4 06:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Famous experts who are discouraged to contribute because of being accused of COI

• Kyle Ganns explanation why he left wikipedia. [9]

This was removed by Durova^Charge! , but I think Kyle's example needs some attention in the COI-project page, because it illustrates very clear why famous experts do not have an equal position towards other contributors. Can you place this back in the article? I consider tagging contributions from famous experts as COI a poor job, which is unequal and unfair. Houtlijm 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline about how people should edit, not an article about experts participating (or not) in Wikipedia. I am going to clarify something in the guideline in just a moment to see if we can help this objection. - Jehochman ^Talk 06:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah,all right. Then it's okay.Houtlijm 07:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An essay on that subject would be more appropriate. Also see Wikipedia:Expert rebellion. Probably the most useful thing to come out of that movement was the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline. Durova^Charge! 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Check today's WP:ANI. I just dealt with a situation like this. Somebody trying to insert a spam link wasted a lot of my time arguing that their favorite blog was a reliable source, when clearly it wasn't. I can understand how somebody less patient or less familiar with Wikipedia could get very frustrated and leave under those circumstances. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about linkspamming with attention as the main motive, but about a famous expert (Kyle Gann is a leading person involved with microtonality) who's edits were falsely tagged as COI. When you're famous outside wiki, your position as a contributor is not equal on wikipedia. You become more easily a target for COI-tagging, which I consider a bit unfair and not very good for the content of Wiki, because a famous expert knows more about the topic then the person COI-tagging him. It's a difficult problem.Houtlijm 15:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really qualified to judge what happened in this particular case. But in general famous experts are human. Sometimes they're arrogant, and don't give a necessary explanation; no matter how well people knows a subject, it is not unreasonable to expect them to demonstrate why they are right. And some experts have a tendency to overvalue their expertise, or extend it into neighboring fields. Sometimes they are even wrong. (For some editions of the Brittanica, the guy who wrote on printing thought it was not Gutenberg but one of his competitors who made the invention, and the principal author who did Shakespeare thought someone else wrote his works. The overall editors there managed to have the mainstream opinion expressed also, but it illustrates the difficulty.) More important, sometimes someone comes along and pretends to be an expert. DGG (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The People

there have been many different times while editing, i have seen someone edit an article, and it looks like vandalism, with no sources cited. If someone says they are an expert, and i mean a REAL expert (for instance, if a user said they were actually J.K Rowling) do you let them edit? this has always confused me as you can never tell, especialy if the IP or user says they are the person they are editing the article about. If this doesnt make any sense, and i hope it will, please tell me and i will explain. So, for instance, if an IP or user said they were Drew Carey, and wanted to edit the article with anything, what do we do, still make them cite? --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 03:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they cite. One would think that J.K. Rowling and Drew Carey have staffs of assistants whose job is to keep newspaper clippings and such. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancy between guideline language and common sense understanding of COI

This guideline needs cleanup to express some points that ought to be in it but aren't.

• A conflict of interest is essentially a temptation. Or to be more specific, it's the discernable appearance of a temptation to participate toward some other purpose than advancement of Wikipedia's five pillars.
• The current language presumes that conflict of interest exists only when an editor yields to such a temptation. This is misleading: some editors abide by site standards in spite of a conflict of interest. Yet it is advisable for such people to take special precautions that avoid the appearance of impropriety.
• Those special precautions are a wise idea even when an editor abides by site policies because of Wikipedia's exceptional transparency. The press is interested in what happens at Wikipedia and the public usually presumes from a headline that reads "Joe Schmoe Edited Article about Himself" that Joe Schmoe's edits were inappropriate.

Durova^Charge! 14:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a clearer distinction needs to be made between a "conflict of interest" (which is as you describe) and a "conflict of interest violation", which is when there's actually a problem. I think that's the language as it's generally used here and across en.wiki, but I'm not certain. I hope it's clear here what I mean. Basically, the policy needs to be clear that there is nothing wrong with an editor having a conflict of interest if they conduct themselves properly, and the suggested steps (such as use of talk pages) is a good way to ensure that they conduct themselves properly. We don't need every instance of conflict being reported at the noticeboard, only when someone actually does something wrong. SamBC(talk) 16:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sam, can we chop this off the end of the nutshell: "or in consultation with other editors"? It's a bit of instruction creep. We say "non-controversial" and later we spell out what that means. I really want the nutshell to be short, and don't want to give even a toehold to those who look for any silly reason to ignore this guideline. If the nutshell says too much, it may contradict or water down what's said later. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the wording is misleading without it. The policy spells out that COIed editors can make absolutely non-controversial edits (reverting vandalism, copyediting, etc) freely, and may make bigger edits by consulting with other editors on the talk page. Including one of those cases specifically would seem to detract from the other, and users not understanding that suggestions can be made on talk pages by COIed editors is a cause of a lot of spurious reports and bad feeling. SamBC(talk) 02:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the nutshell as it stands is shorter than that of WP:NOR, and only marginally longer than those of WP:V and WP:NPOV. SamBC(talk) 02:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am testing another formulation that might be workable. Feel free to adjust. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Feels like it should be possible to make it shorter, but I can't see how. Says what needs to be said, and doesn't say anything else as far as I can tell. Good. SamBC(talk) 05:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree somewhat with the premise. Not every motivation that isn't in alignment with our encyclopedia's purpose is a cognizable conflict of interest. In fact, only a small number of outside motivations are considered improper, and they relate mostly to personal and financial interests - there is a potential conflict when covering a company the editor owns or works for, a competitor, a project of the editor's, etc. There are actually three levels - a potential (or the appearance of) a conflict of interest, an actual conflict of interest, and an improper edit based on a conflict of interest. We want to avoid the appearance of improper editing, whether or not it results in improper editing. We also want to avoid improper editing in fact, whether or not it gives off a bad appearance. I think the body of the guideline already makes that distinction, even if implicitly. Having said that, I think the nutshell is fine. Wikidemo 05:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm less concerned with the nutshell itself than with the guideline wording, which pretty much presumes that conflict of interest = resulting policy violation. The appearance of impropriety is functionally indistinguishable from actual conflict of interest. Examples follow.

• Joe Schmoe, the mayor of Anywhere, registers as JSchmoeAnywhere and corrects minor errors in his birthdate and educational history, citing his personal website as a reference.

• Is there a policy violation in that? Not at all.
• Could that have real world consequences? Of course. Two weeks before reelection the opposing campaign plants a news story "Mayor Schmoe Edits Wikipedia Article about Himself". Shills for the opposing campaign post complaints at the newspaper's website that mayor Schmoe was trying to increase traffic to his personal website and partisan bloggers insinuate that he made the edits from a city computer. This whittles away some votes and forces him into a runoff election.

• Mary Schmoe (Joe's wife) is a PR manager for Anywhere Pharmaceuticals. In order to "avoid" COI she edits about her employer from home, describing in the article's second paragraph how the company's stock price has risen since the recent government approval of a new heart medication.

• Is there a policy violation? Possibly WP:NPOV. This might earn a warning if she's persistent, but she's just an IP editor and keeps a low profile.
• Could this have real world consequences? Of course. A hacker for her husband's opponent traces the edits to their home. The local paper runs a follow-up and the other campaign goes on the warpath, claiming that Mary was trying to bury information about a class action lawsuit against Anywhere Pharmaceuticals. Former mayor Schmoe loses by 312 votes and his wife Mary resigns from her embarrassed company in order to "spend more time with her family".

The real world is not kind. Yes, these are conflicts of interest. And yes, professional adults who ought to know better do make these kinds of mistakes (and worse) all the time. Durova^Charge! 06:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, so what are you suggesting should be changed about the guideline? SamBC(talk) 06:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to wrap my head around the exact wording. Basically the guideline ought to communicate how policy-compliant edits can still create problems for an editor who has a conflict of interest, and how off-wiki consequences can be far more serious than on-wiki consequences. This is one of the world's ten most popular websites and a growing collection of PR debacles have hinged on this issue. Durova^Charge! 06:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect the ideal would be a new section dealing exclusively with warning users of off-wiki consequences, without actually being too scaremongering. Along the lines of "while editors with a potential COI may edit aritcles related to their COI without breaching any wikipedia policies or conventions, users should be aware that their contribution history will normally be recorded publicly and permanently. Editors should consider any impact this might have in their life and activities off-wiki." SamBC(talk) 06:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Other wording needs to be adjusted to accommodate that. I wonder if it's possible to convey how the COI guideline actually serves the COI editor's interests at least as much as Wikipedia's. Durova^Charge! 13:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How about this? Create sections on Apparent COI and Hidden COI to explain how even if an edit complies with our guidelines, it could still have adverse real world consequences, and how anonymity isn't a shield. Dear editor, please know what risks you are taking. Use the above two examples. This is a guideline, so it can contain hypothetical examples. While you are at it, thwap the rest of the article with Strunk and White so total length remains about the same. Shorter is often more effective. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't go over the top with the Strunk, it's not like it's a non-controversial set of principles for prose. Yes, there's probably some unnecessary verbiage, but not everything that seems unnecessary by strict logic really is; the subtle changes in meaning can be important. SamBC(talk) 18:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Prospective from legal profession

In the law COI is huge, particularly for judges. Very different context, I know, but the parallel is interesting. For judges the appearance of a conflict is a problem just as bad as an actual conflict because it degrades the credibility of the outcome of the case, of the judge as a professional, and of the entire legal system. On Wikipedia, an apparent conflict brings disrepute on the project and people won't trust what they read. At the very start, disclosure is crucial because that proves honesty. Judges also avoid actual conflicts whether or not anybody is likely to know. If they were allowed to hide conflicts they considered harmless, some would abuse the privilege and game the system. Moreover, it's often impossible to be fair because in judging, like editing Wikipedia articles, there's no single objective right answer, just judgment. How much attention to you devote to derogatory information, and just how should you word a mention of a company? You can't avoid your own self-interest when choosing between two equally correct answers. The way the outcome will affect you is the elephant in the room.

We don't need to hold people's hands too much, I think. We're (mostly) adults here. Sure, you can warn people that a misguided COI edit could haunt them in real life. But why save people from themselves? If they want to spam the site they'll learn the consequences one way or another. Maybe it's worth a link to a strongly worded essay with examples, but adding essay-like material to the project page about what might happen off Wikipedia would lose focus. Wikidemo 06:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It's wise to set this out at the guideline level for several reasons. A lot of the advice and analysis Wikipedia in the mainstream press is written by people who have a flawed understanding of this site, so newcomers often arrive in good faith and follow bad advice. Volunteers need a project page we can point them to that affirms what we're saying. It's also useful for us to take proactive steps to reduce these problems so they don't degenerate into tit-for-tat wars between two editors who have opposing conflicts of interest. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate for an example. We also don't want the limited number of volunteers to get swamped or for "everybody does it" to become a defense for manipulative behavior. A good portion of the public who are aware of the WikiScanner mistakenly think that's the only way to detect COI... Durova^Charge! 06:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new introduction

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is a competing interest that could lead a person to participate at Wikipedia in ways that detract from the purpose of building a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia. Conflicts of interest can result in policy violations. Although the editing community generally extends good faith toward new participants, extreme or persistent problems can exhaust the community's goodwill and enhance negative reactions to other guideline and policy violations.

The appearance of impropriety entails real world public relations risks. As the world's most popular reference website, the press pays attention to what happens here. The headline Mayor Schmoe Edits Wikipedia Article about Himself creates a negative impression even when the actual contributions comply with other guidelines and policies. Editors who have a conflict of interest can avoid adverse PR by posting suggested edits to talk pages and seeking assistance from relevant Wikipedia:WikiProjects.

From User:Durova/COI proposed revision. Durova^Charge! 03:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Conlict of Interest Question

Hello,

I had signed up to give our non-profit agency's history and mission statement. I don't want to breach any COI policies but also feel this is a good resource for people wanting to learn more about our agency. Since I'm new to the Wiki community, I need advice and opinions regarding this matter.

Thank you,

VanishedChildren'sAlliance 17:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)VanishedChildren'sAlliance 10/03/07

Firstly, that information would need to be available in some sort of published source. If this is the case, then the best way to avoid breaching the guidelines and policies, if the article already exists, is to post to the article's talk page, explaining your situation and potential COI, and presenting the material you'd like added to the page, or the edits you'd like to have made. Discussion should ensue and consensus will emerge as to what to do, and one of the other editors will do it. If there isn't already an article on your non-profit at wikipedia, then it's rather more difficult and potentially fraught. SamBC(talk) 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What happens if none of the "other" editors have gotten around to doing it yet, but the consensus seems good for the change (even if perhaps the change had to be modified)? Would it be acceptable for the proposer to attempt the change, provided he does not deviate significantly from what was agreed with in the discussions? mike4ty4 06:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead if it seems reasonable--if anyone is following, they will object if it isn't. DGG (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible new TfD nomination for Template:COI

Can I re-nominate this template for a deletion discussion? This template seems to contradict the COI policy, since it is applied directly to pages, and not to users. Pages cannot violate the COI policy, only users can. Pages can have problems with NPOV, can be written as advertising, and can have countless other problems, but pages, at least according to the COI policy aren't the ones with the Conflict of Interest. It's the users that have the COI. Fredsmith2 00:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. Pages can be tainted by COI editing. The template serves as a warning to users who may view a page that has been spun or whitewashed by a COI editor. We use these templates to mark damaged articles until somebody has a chance to clean them up. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for objective input from the people who wrote the conflict of interest behavioral guideline, not necessarily from the group of people you're referring to, who are using the tag. It seems that the people who wrote the COI guideline are different people, with a different philosophy, than the ones who use the COI tags to tag pages. That's why I want to re-nominate this for deletion. Fredsmith2 18:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy to those who have been following the {{COI}} issues for some time, it would be helpful if you would read the previous deletion debate, if you have not already done so. Then you might share with us here what your reflections are on the previous discussion. EdJohnston 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for posting the link. I didn't know where to find this. I'll review this and share my reflections on the previous discussion. Fredsmith2 19:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, here is my opinion: we really need some people who are very familiar with all of the Wikipedia policies to do the voting on this. Also, and this seems ironic, it seems there are lots of people who are really emotionally invested in Template:COI and Template:COI2. I think if we continue to have newbies, and the group of folks who seem to be guarding those two templates, be the ones who are the majority voters on the deletion discussion, we'll continue the arrive at "No consensus." Is there any way to request this to be reviewed by the editors at the wikipedia headquarters, instead of just opening it up to a general discussion board? Fredsmith2 02:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is one more problem with proposing COI and COI2 for deletion. See this language from WP:TFD:

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

That implies that the discussion would have to take place here, at WT:COI. Any decision to get rid of these templates would have to be approved by consensus, as a change in Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guideline. EdJohnston 03:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Are these tempates really attached to WP:COI? As far as I can tell, they just sprung up recently (last November and April), and the Wikipedia behavioral guideline has been in place for a long time. Fredsmith2 05:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They are part of the functioning of WP:COI, because they are part of how WP:COIN does its work. The activity and usefulness of COIN are widely accepted in Wikipedia. EdJohnston 05:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

They weren't commissioned by a discussion and consensus on this page. Either that, or I've never seen where they were. Please post where if I'm mistaken on this. It seems that these were created, developed, and promoted by a fringe group of wikipedians who don't really understand WP:COI. Where does it say that just because you have a behavioral guideline, then you should also have a corresponding template to tag pages with? Fredsmith2 05:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"It seems that these were created, developed, and promoted by a fringe group of wikipedians who don't really understand WP:COI." It doesn't seem that way to me. Nor am I aware of any evidence whatsoever that such a fringe group has done such a thing. --Ronz 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yours seems to be the popular opinion, or "consensus," I guess. It looks like I better silence my opinions about the COI templates before I get in trouble. I'll write one more comment and then take a break from expressing my opinion about this. Fredsmith2 22:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fredsmith2, if you have concerns about the policy, feel free to open a policy requests for comments to get additional opinions and see whether people think changes are needed. I think that the templates cannot be deleted so long as the policy encourages their use. That said, you are free to suggest improvements to the policy via community consensus, though I think the odds of that specific change gaining support are rather low. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unconscious bias again

Hi.

I notice I never got any comment on my last post here about unconscious biases, and am wondering if the issue played a part in the development of this guideline. mike4ty4 06:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you please remind us what your post was about unconscious biases? Fredsmith2 02:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the "contents menu". It's #16 as of this posting. mike4ty4 19:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Way too much emotion in the 'Consequences of ignoring this guideline' section

I propose we reword "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable." to simply a reference to the WP:NPOV article. This is a page about COI, not NPOV, and quoting Jimmy Wales without referencing him or discussing his quote at all, and bolding the quote just makes it seem really emotional. It's discussed in the NPOV page in a much more professional way, and I think this suggestion would really help this page. Fredsmith2 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

How about to: "Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. The neutral point of view is a strict policy of Wikipedia." (with link)? mike4ty4 06:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to include your ideas. Because "unconscious" could be read as "asleep", I used "unintenional" instead. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the examples of Jimbo's quotes that are intended as rhetoric, not as literal statement of policy. They are confusing on a page like this. for one thing, its a guideline page, not a policy page, and guidelines are flexible--so it can give the wrong impression. DGG (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

COI is targetted at self promotion. However as it stands the nutshell is quite "bitey" towards others we want to encourage, and could be read to suggest they have a "close connection" etc. It mis-sets the stage for the rest of the page and as worded might incorrectly deter people who should be welcomed to contribute but be aware of neutrality.

The current wording a newcomer reads:

Nutshell: Editors are strongly advised not to edit articles where they have a close personal or business connection, except for certain non-controversial edits. For more substantial edits, COI affected editors may use the talk page to request help from neutral editors.

I'd like to reword this nutshell roughly as follows:

Nutshell: Editors are expected to write neutrally when editing on Wikipedia. Neutral point of view is incompatible with editing to a personal agenda. Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) a close personal or business connection with a subject are recommended to disclose this, and should in any event take great care to avoid edits that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven. Editors writing about themselves, their own organizations, or matters that they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors.

The aim is to distinguish between:

1. Those who have a personal interest (people editing on their professional field, for example or on subjects they have an interest in), whom we want to encourage but warn about COI and avoiding controversial edits, vs.
2. Those writing about themselves, their businesses and products, their band or website, whom we mostly want to tell up front, "don't create an article on yourself, your band, your business, etc. Let someone else do it".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a sensible change. It seems to me that the important thing is not to outright prohibit WP:COI editing - this just risks it happening covertly without anyone noticing. We should encourage people to feel that they can declare a COI and have the material fairly reviewed. Some people's friends/employes are notable and we'd like to have articles on them. Ideally the COI noticeboard should be more welcoming for someone to say "I have written article X but have conflict of interest Y, could someone impartial verify it for notability/neutrality". We should be able to come up with a phrasing that discourages COI editing (and warns of the pittfalls) without necessarily demonizing it. WjBscribe 15:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a good improvement to me. It better meets the purpose that is to dissuade the majority of COI editors (i.e. NN bios, bands etc) without appearing to strong-arm users into saying they can nerver write about things related to them. ELIMINATORJR 15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I really like the new version. Cbrown1023 talk 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous edits to the nutshell have often been to cutdown the length. I predict that such a change will lead to people complaining of instruction creep and unnecessary verbosity. I like it, though. SamBC(talk) 20:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Too wordy. It's supposed to be a nutshell, not a watermelon shell. WJBscribe, we added a comment at the top of WP:COIN inviting COI editors to ask for help if they need somebody to review their talk page suggestions. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The first bullet point is too easily misused by a bad faith editor to attack an expert. It can be construed to exclude an expert from working on an article in their field of expertise. We do not want to do that. POV pushing is something else. It's not covered by this guideline. Please avoid instruction creep and muddling the guideline with other concepts. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

(ec)That last sentence comes across as a little overbearing. This is a proposal for change inviting discussion - and the point is that there is a growing view that divorcing COI from POV has missed the point. NPOV COI editing would not be a problem. I don't see how the phrasing excludes an expert (it certainly isn't intended to) - I wouldn't describe them as having "a close personal or business connection". Perhaps you could explain? WjBscribe 20:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

My friend, NPOV COI editing is a problem. Believe me, I've experimented with it myself, and it's a problem. I say this from experience on both sides of the fence. People who are closely connected to a topic need to avoid editing that topic, for several reasons. Besides unintentional bias, COI editing creates a bad appearance, spawns drama, and exposes the editor to off-wiki embarrassment. It's a bad idea. We should give people good advice, not mislead them into thinking it's OK. The other problem is that every COI promoter or POV pusher will say they are maintaining perfect neutrality. If you write this into the guideline, you will give them endless room for lawyering and gaming. Please consider that. The guideline currently says that editors are NOT excluded from editing in their own field. We need to keep, and possibly highlight that, because it's often misunderstood. We also need to avoid people screaming COI when really their problem is NPOV. The method of solving each type of problem differs. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How about this? - Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell: Editors are expected to write neutrally when editing on Wikipedia. Editors who have an outside duty that conflicts with their neutrality on a topic need to be careful, and may need to refrain from editing in topics where they have a close personal or financial connection. Editors with a conflict of interest may use the article talk pages to suggest edits by neutral editors. They may also use the conflict of interest noticeboard to request help.

A nutshell is not always one sentence. For example, see WP:OR. It's brief, but if multiple key points have to be made, it makes them.

Most of your comment is common ground or doesn't strengthen the nutshell. We know COI editing is a "problem" if it happens; this doesn't add anything to the debate. It's far from clear that "We should give people good advice, not mislead them into thinking it's OK" is a good description of anything anyone's saying. Your point about what the guideline currently says is also not useful - the nutshell needs to sum up the guideline, and this one misrepresents it by being too hardline and not noting that is the case, which is exactly why it's the nutshell and not the guideline being proposed to be edited.

The problem with your wording is, it is much less helpful. An "outside duty" means what exactly? Does a person have some "outside duty" if they want to write about themselves, or even their book or band? No. Does "...and may need to refrain..." make COI stronger? No, it weakens it in exactly those cases we want to present a strong COI. The second bullet is also weak: what editors "may" do, doesn't actually direct action, it presents just one option for action.

What we actually want to do is say, "If you have a strong (personal) interest in something (of any kind), always do these things: seriously consider disclosing it, but whether you do or don't, just be very careful to be neutral and don't say anything that would look like promotion. But if its actually something which is a known self-promotion concern - writing about yourself, your business, your band, your book, your organization, etc - then just plain don't do it yourself. Ask instead on a talk page."

That is a strong COI description. It says what we actually want them to know and do, in a nutshell. I still think the original's stronger and more useful. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like the original 'nutshell' proposal. It's far more concise, the terms are a lot clearer. Unfortunately, there's too much to debate around the concept of "outside duty", as FT2 points out, as well as "need to be careful" and "may need to refrain" are not nearly directive enough. These will be a source of debate and discussion from the get-go. The two "Aims" that are posted above are a good focal point as to what we want to achieve here. The statement needs to be clear and concise without any ambiguity - Alison ^❤ 00:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An expert physicist, may have a close personal connection to the subject, but that's not a COI. People need to read the whole guideline. The nutshell is just an introduction. It cannot define everything perfectly. Most importantly, the nutshell should not contradict what the guideline says. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

An expert physicist may well have his own book to promote, his own research center to link, his own theory to push. So COI can potentially apply to anyone, including an expert physicist. What I'd expect the page to require of a physics expert is that 1/ they write neutrally, 2/ they consider disclosing if they might have a conflict, 3/ they take great care not to seem to be promoting their own agenda, and 4/ They do not write an article on themselves, their book, their own research establishment as these kinds of articles often are pure self-promotion and if notable should be left to others. That is exactly what the original proposal suggests, very clearly, and very specifically. As you say, the nutshell is a summary and will not say everything. But the original one does say the absolute core points of what is requiired and recommended and important to know. As you say, the "In a nutshell..." cannot define everything. Its aim is to summarize the core of it, what people need to know and do, and it does that very effectively. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, FT2's proposal seems reasonable. It's more informative than the original and although rather long, gives exactly the information a new reader should take out of the page. Whilst I empathise with Jehochman and can understand his points, his proposal looks a little more bitey to me. New users need friendly, consise instruction from a nutshell and I believe the change will do that. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree to any of these. No matter what we say, people will misunderstand or misrepresent the guideline, and we'll need to help them understand the nuances. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

With some 6 views supportive (despite proposed length) and 1 medium support, and ultimately no hard opposes, I've gone ahead and updated the nutshell. Slight changes - bold on one part, and trimmed wording to try and keep it a fraction shorter in another. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks just fine now - Alison ^❤ 14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article Internet COI?

Becasue of this policy the article Internet is very possibly well in violation of this. It is due to face 100% of the Users here on Wikipedia is obviously using the Internet and therefore ther Intrest is in the Internet. Does this page on it needs to be deleted or what should be done about it. Do you guys have any comments about this. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you joking? Because whether you are or not, this shit ain't funny. Pardon my French. JuJube 05:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we shouldn't let people who speak English edit on en: at all, either. —Cryptic 06:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Less US Americans would be a nice start, anyway. — Dorftrottel⁠ 11:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I had this discussion going on at two places and it seems to have more cooler heads over at the discussions at Talk:Internet#This_Page_is_Very_Possibly_Conflict_of_Interest. A recent edit to WP:COI clearified the problem at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest&diff=next&oldid=167501188. To me I felt the old way of it being written kinda made stuff like the Article Internet, or anything that most everyone here is accustomed to seem like a COI violation. I hope that edit cools heads down as it did mine. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocks

I have to say that the "blocks" addition to the guideline looks like a slippery slope to me. The original intention was only to advise people to stay out of COI. That remains a good idea for a guideline. The addition of blocking justification, and the use of WP:COIN to get round the lack of an actual enabling policy, strikes me as fairly dangerous. Charles Matthews 08:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain that more fully, Charles? WP:COIN has traditionally been a venue for applying blocks as well as advice, although we prefer persuasion of course. I wouldn't call COI in itself a reason to block, but it certainly seems reasonable to accept it as one factor when applying blocks. Persuasion alone isn't very successful with an editor who violates policies in search of personal gain, or under orders from work. That's the angle I approach this from down in the trenches. I'd like to learn more of your perspective. Durova^Charge! 14:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I think "noticeboards" have a case to answer when they imply executive action. That's what we have processes for. Exactly why I think the blocking clause should come out of this guideline. Blocks for disruption should be based on garden-variety reasons. Charles Matthews 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Scientists and Experts

I have seen several cases where scientists or other experts have difficulty writing about the own areas of expertise without referencing their own work. If Alan Turing were alive today, we'd be happy for him to work on our computer science article, but he'd have a problem doing so without talking about his own discoveries. We already allow reasonable self-citations.

To encourage more experts to contribute, I propose adding to the COI guideline:

If an expert wishes to write about and cite their own work, they should contact the relevant wikiproject to arrange for peer review. The arrangement should be recorded on the article talk page by providing a link to the relevant discussion.

Let's discuss this. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of this change. It will probably help with expert retention. With a project behind them the experts won't be driven off by a single cantankerous editor, and they would receive immediate help with the basics of wikipedia editing. One thing though, how are experts new to the project supposed to find out about this specialized guideline? Mayhap if this is changed, we should add an "if you're an expert" to the welcome template. Just my two cents. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 14:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How about an expert section in Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia? (SEWilco 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

In my opinion, WP:COI is a child of WP:NPOV (and in lesser extend, a sister of WP:SPAM and a stephchild of WP:NOT). So, an expert is perfectly capable of writing about their own subject, as long as their contributions are neutral! If an editor does many good edits, and then adds one own reference to one article of their own, then that is not a problem (that is, the coi-editor meets WP:NPOV). For that one edit they does not have to contact a wikiproject, or whatever (though they probably has done that already).

This is actually the main problem in many fields, not only in science! E.g. a librarian is very well allowed to add a link to their own library, as long as their contributions meet WP:NPOV. If their library contains the best or only link to that subject .. so be it, but it should be recognised that if there are obvious better/more neutral links, that these should be used (and the editor should not ignore such edits; (bad faith warning) 'oh, I know more here, but the link I add would not link to my library, so I will leave it'!) And that is where the problem starts, the editor should only be notified of their conflict of interest if they do not meet that criterium.

In a way, I do agree with the above solution, though it might be expanded. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What if we include a word such as "extensively", as in "If an expert wishes to write about and cite their own work extensively", to eliminate the de minimus cases that aren't an issue. I agree with your analysis. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree, so:

If an expert wishes to extensively write about and cite their own work, they should contact the relevant wikiproject to arrange for peer review. The arrangement should be recorded on the article talk page by providing a link to the relevant discussion.

and maybe add:

Similarly, if an expert editor wants to add external links to documents from the website of an organisation with which one is affiliated, one should contact a relevant wikiproject and arrange for the creation of a suitable template. The assessment of the wikiproject should be recorded in the documentation of the template. Note should be taken that the addition of references is preferred over the addition of external links only.

Any comments? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is a sensible proposal and one which should not hinder the application of this guideline in any way. In any case, any biased additions that may occasionally arise despite the review process are easily dealt with. Adrian M. H. 16:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good middle ground between self-promotion/business promotion and technical expertise. Durova^Charge! 17:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems like it adds a layer of bureaucracy, so we should be very careful about it. There are experts in every field. Do we have active, responsive, fair-acting wikiprojects in every field of endeavor that can handle this (all the sciences, math, literature culture, anthroopology georgaphy, music, busines, finance, religion, history, politics, popular culture, film, etc) and are willing to take on the assignments? Does "affiliated" include consulting arrangements, membership on standards organizations, one's university, governments, commissions, professional or licensing organizations (e.g. the American Medical Association, American Bar Association)? I can imagine a system like this working but we shouldn't rush into it without thinking through all the implications, and then we have to consider whether the effort required to put it in place and operate is worth the payoff in terms of increased reliability. This, then, would affect reliable sources, verifiability, and perhaps original research. To make it worthwhile, peer reviewed expert contributions would have to carry some weight beyond that of a non-expert contributor. A statement about music, or history, or science, that has been peer reviewed would have to be on more than equal footing with the random addition or deletion, so that changes the consensus process too.Wikidemo 18:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the direction this discussion is heading. I don't think making new formal or mandatory rules is a good idea or necessarily what is being suggested. There should be few formal limits on experts citing their own work outside of NPOV. I think avoiding COI comes naturally from NPOV. What we are discussing here should be viewed as a guideline as to how to avoid POV and COI and to clarify where there may be problems and formalize a means of avoiding such problems through voluntary peer review. It should be clarified further that citing ones own work does not necessarily mean COI or POV. Those who's interest is in self promotion etc. will avoid peer review, whereas those who are just trying to contribute will ask for peer review. This peer review should give the expert editor a firewall against accusations of COI and NPOV. This should be an ongoing review of self-citations such that the reviewers can jump to the defense of the expert when assaulted by a cantankerous editor. We should sell this as a means of support and encouragement. Most experts are very comfortable with peer review but may also perceive it as potentially combative. This type of ongoing peer review needs to be critical but not combative and we may need to clarify that to the reviewers. This after all not a grand peer review, simply supervision for reasonable actions. Perhaps we should not call it peer review but something like "peer supervision to support expert editors".--Nick Y. 18:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more comfortable name would be "peer support for expert editors." No matter what the name is, they are going to slap down someone who gets out of line. Keith Henson 00:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Many Wikiprojects have few active participants, and those who approve of a request might not bother answering. Is notification of the project sufficient or is positive approval required? Is the expert inviting review or is review required? (SEWilco 15:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Somebody has to take responsibility for the review. If the expert needs help getting a review, they can post to the conflict of interest noticeboard. This process would be voluntary and would serve to protect the expert from allegations of COI. Many experts are scared off because people accuse them of COI. Peer review would protect them. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If response is low or absent the editor could try to contact some editors directly (e.g. by looking at the edit histories of some relevant pages). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, basically. We have people writing who don't have "peers" in a sensible definition. These are very valuable individuals, and we should leave them to it. Charles Matthews 17:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a very good idea to me. As for people without peers, let's say we have a case like an expert writing on Resonance_enhanced_multiphoton_ionization, which is a technique probably most WP:Chemistry people know little about - let's assume no one does. Despite our lack of specialist knowledge, we can probably at least tell if the person is (a) simply trying to boost their own Google rank or (b) trying to push some sort of pseudoscience or maverick viewpoint. Even if there isn't a specialist WikiProject (in this example there is no project for spectroscopy or even for analytical chemistry), I doubt if there is any general subject area (such as chemistry) where there is not a WikiProject, and that is where the expert should post. Walkerma 20:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the concept of keeping tighter leash on experts who find it hard to keep from citing their own opinions in place of verifiable information. However I don't think this is a workable solution. There are many topics that don't have relevant, active wikiprojects. It'd be simpler to make a change in WP:V or other policy tightening up the loophole allowing authorities to use their self-published material for sources, and to make sure that WP:NOR's language is clear enough. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Supporting topic qualified editors (Scientists and Experts) continued

One point that might be considered is to give more weight to people who edit under their own name (or make it clear who they are in real life). There certainly is a place for being anon, I would have avoided several months in jail had I done that some years ago. But being able to identify people out in the real world is important if you are going to rely on them as people qualified to speak on some issue.

One of the events that caused Jehochman to bring up this topic was Sadi Carnot. Last spring he was up to his usual pattern of stuffing an article, capture-bonding, with a lot of nonsense and unrelated (but referenced) material. His long term goal seems to have been pushing his personal pseudoscience. He moved on to other articles after fighting with me for a considerable time over loading an article about a simple concept with a ton of confusing, unrelated material. You can follow this in the article history and the talk page.

Before Sadi left (that's a saga in itself) on Oct 2 I put a notice on the talk page that I was going to split out the stuff Sadi had stuffed in. I waited ten days. There were no comments. I then split the article and dumped the material unrelated to EP capture-bonding in a new article "capture bond" and did a minimal clean up of verbiage that was just wrong such as a cite with an incorrect article name. Trying to be careful on Jehochman's advice, I put up a request on the talk page to fix a cite. Publicola who says on the talk page "I am no expert in these fields" came over from the Sadi ban/unban ping pong discussion, chided me over a POV split "My heart sank when I saw that both of these "unrelated" articles immediarely mentioned Stockholm syndrome. This is what is technically known as a mess, and it will take time and experienced, uninvolved editors to sort out." [10]. He proceeded to merge the articles, stuffing Sadi's material back in and leaving out such hugely important matters (to me) as giving proper credit to Dr. John Tooby. At that point I decided it's not worth fighting with people who don't know the first thing about EP and feel they can edit an article that requires an understanding of EP.

Now, as to my being a qualified person in this area.

Others have made a big deal in other articles that I am an electrical engineer, holding it against me that I write about points related to evolutionary psychology. I have never bothered to explain that as an undergraduate I took more units of psychology than you need to get a minor in the subject as a liberal arts candidate. (Engineers at that time and place were not permitted to have minors.) I was offered a place as a graduate student in the U of Arizona's psychology department by Dr. C. L. Trafton, himself a EE who went into psychology.

There are about 2800 Google hits with my name and "evolutionary psychology." I have cited most of the major names in the field, read most of the major books and a lot of the important papers. To the extent one can educate and contribute from outside academia, I have done so.

There are a number of other areas where I could be considered knowledgeable enough to be either blocked or encouraged to edit depending on how this falls out. Memetics (5300 hits), cryonics (2100 hits), nanotechnology (1700 hits), some aspects of space engineering, most areas of electronics and some areas of power engineering. I know enough to pick up BS in a lot of other fields such as AI and chemistry. Of course there is an area I am an expert on that I am legally bound for the next few years not to even mention.

If it is decided that people who know something about a topic are desirable as editors on those topics there might be WP:Qualified? A lot of people are qualified to pick up on spelling and grammar errors. But perhaps people should be discouraged from making substantial edits on an article about a subject where they are not knowledgeable. That kind of bias might have helped with the Sadi problems. Keith Henson 00:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We definitely need to do a better job retaining experts. Have you joined any WikiProjects? Could you help review good article candidates or featured article candididates? There's no need to wait for this proposal to pass. In some ways, your assistance in reviewing articles may be more valuable (more scalable) than in writing articles. For instance, I have a pet article that needs help: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gamma ray burst. - Jehochman ^Boo! 08:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps people should be discouraged from making substantial edits on an article about a subject where they are not knowledgeable. If in fact we had dozens of experts volunteering to help with every article that involved science or other matters of deep knowledge, then, yes, we might want to discourage editors who lacked such knowledge from doing substantial edits. But we don't have a plethora of experts. We do have a lot of editors who (a) can research a topic they're interested in; (b) can understand information printed in secondary sources like newspapers and magazines. (Note that synthesizing very technical journals, something only a true expert can do, gets perilously close to original writing.) Nor do we have a structure to vet editors (or to somehow, otherwise "discourage" inappropriate ones), and to the extent that we implemented (somehow) a voluntary system, that would only leave the field open for problem editors to jump in and change things, with the covering protection of "do not edit" available to attack just about anyone else. In short, we're not Citizendium. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with "editors who (a) can research a topic they're interested in; (b) can understand information printed in secondary sources . . ." If an editor can do this, then he/she is knowledgeable.

I do have a problem with editors such as Sadi Carnot and his alternate identities, not to mention admins who blindly back up such editors based only on their following form rather than considering content or qualification. Sadi claimed COI against me and was backed up by Physchim62 who reverted the article to Sadi's stuffed version and locked the page. (Physchim62 also unbanned Sadi after he was discovered to have screwed up a large number of articles to push his fringe views). Here is how Physchim62 put it on the talk page:

Keith, let's get a couple of things straight right now.

Capture-bonding is not "the cause" of Stockholm Syndrome. It is your proposition of a cause. It is not the only description of evolutionary events which could lead to the survival of Stockholm Syndrome as an adapted trait, nor even the simplest. Your edits have not given any indication of the acceptance of your theory among other practitioners: it is only Sadi's efforts which have given any indication that others may share your views. In effect, you have simply posed an unfalsifiable hypothesis which you then present as accepted science, both here and in other places on Wikipedia.

If you cannot stand other people writing about your views, you should not even be reading this article, let alone editing it. Please note that Wikipedia has evolved a number of different methods for bringing about debonding of editors towards certain articles. Relevant policies and guidelines include: WP:OWN, WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:UNDUE, WP:COI, WP:EW. If you continue to prevent other editors from improving this article, I shall not hesitate you apply one or more of these debonding methods to you. Physchim62 (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This shows such a level of misunderstanding the topic that I am not going to go into it.

The same article capture bonding has been turned into junk *twice,* first by Sadi who finally was banned after pushing his fringe ideas into hundreds of articles and once by a editor who stated "I am no expert in these fields" and clearly does not understand the basics of evolutionary psychology. The latest editor has made no claim of reading any of the EP background material and seems (like Sadi was) impervious to explanations I have tried to give on the talk page about how capture-bonding is neither abnormal nor animal psychology. As I mentioned above, I am particularly upset that the latest editor has removed the credit for the EP capture-bonding concept, with the implication it belongs to me. It actually belongs to John Tooby. In my professional writing I have been meticulous in giving proper credit--even in this case where the originator of the concept didn't publish. The current version damages my reputation in this respect.

The whole experience has been so unpleasant that (if typical) it's no wonder that Wikipedia doesn't have "a plethora of experts." Keith Henson 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what takes place at the other fork, they seems to have the same problems we do; formally qualified academic experts are just as apt to try to one-up each others qualifications as those with less formal qualifications. People qualified in one field try to pass expert judgement in another. Different workgroups contest bitterly on the acceptability of articles on topics bridging the two. My own view is that people who are truly qualified as experts will be able to give the best arguments, and marshal the best evidence, and should rely upon that. If an editor doesnt understand the basics, teach him. If he persists in not understanding, you will still be able to convince the uninvolved bystanders and carry the point. DGG (talk) 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I am always willing to learn how to do something better. Please take a look at the capture-bonding talk page and let advise me on what I should have done to either educate Sadi/Physchim62 on this subject or convince uninvolved bystanders.

And while you are at it, go to the bottom of that talk page and let me know what I should do to convince Publicola that I know what I am talking about. If that doesn't work, how do I get the article corrected so it does not damage my reputation by failing to properly credit John Tooby? Keith Henson 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who have been following the debate, 7 hours after this [[11]] was posted an admin deleted capture-bonding. In the state just before being deleted the article had been reduced to the point the contents had no value, but deleting it eliminated the history and talk pages where a lot of information was relevant to current discussions about the mess Sadi Carnot created. (The content battle over capture-bonding was an early event in the path to him being exposed.) Is there a way to restore the article in some non public place where these records can be made available to concerned arbitrators? Keith Henson 18:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the only Wiki. I think it might be possible to have a parallel linked wiki where people could get vetted expert articles.

If anyone cares, capture-bonding was put into my user space. I am not sure I want to put it back up in wikipedia even if the request to undelete it is accepted. Keith Henson (talk) 03:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But what do we do with the "pseudo-experts"?

I'm going to present this as a generic case, but I have already seen it happen twice in Wikipedia. Let's say we have an "expert" on a minor but perfectly mainstream topic, who has a relevant PhD and maybe even is a professor at a small institution. Let's call him Professor Smith. Smith claims that the standard textbook explanation about a well-known phenomenon is wrong. Basically, everyone else is wrong. He has published several papers about it in peer-reviewed journals. He rewrites the Wikipedia article on the topic to promote his view as the "correct" one, and cites his own papers. Now, the problem after looking at the sources in detail is that they were all published in journals with low impact factors (some of them even having an unwritten reputation for accepting anything that gets submitted), and basically no one has ever cited the papers except Smith himself. Therefore, there is no reliable source that says explicitly that Smith is wrong and replies to his arguments. That is, of course, because Smith is being ignored by the scientific community. Textbooks and the mainstream opinion on very specialized topics are often wrong, and subject to change. But, given the extraordinary claims by Smith that everyone else is wrong, one would expect that if he were right he could at least publish in major journals, get people's attention and be cited.

How can we deal with such a situation? Having an "expert-level" discussion on the scientific problem itself is not going to help for two reasons. First, because Smith will have more ammunition than any other Wikipedia editor, having researched the topic in such detail, even if he is wrong. Second, because that is not the purpose of the talk pages. An original conclusion reached in a scientific debate on the talk page might be regarded as a form of original research at worst. Should we say that we can only accept papers that have been cited a certain number of times by uninvolved parties? That might help, but one could take that too far. We often cite recent mainstream papers, where relevant, without looking at how many times they have been cited. These fights are very tiring and time consuming. I gave up on the first one, and haven't even started the second one.

I think we actually need to be more strict regarding COI and self-citations, regardless of expertise. If a real bona fide expert such as Alan Turing shows up, his work will have such impact that he will be able to cite other people instead of citing himself. Of course, it depends on the nature of the claim that's being backed up by the citation. If you are just citing to back up a trivial factual statement such as "the melting point of compound X is 123 °C.[ref]", a self-citation wouldn't matter much. But if you are citing for "the best theory for explaining phenomenon X is the one by Prof. Smith.[ref]", you have a problem. --Itub 10:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If an expert who holds a minority view changes an article to reflect his view exclusively, that's improper because of undue weight. Neutral point of view requires that all prevalent views receive coverage according to their relative prevalence. Fringe theories are not represented at all, because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research and we require citation to reliable sources. I hope this quick explanation of the relevant policies is useful. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Believe me, I've tried that. ;-) The problem is that it is not OR, as it has been published in "reliable" sources. There are two sub-problems: 1) WP:RS and related policy pages seem be under the delusion that all peer-reviewed journals are equally reliable. 2) Pages such as this one and WP:OR are too lax with respect to self-citation. These people are smart and point at these loopholes. I would propose a stronger wording, something along the lines of "self-citations are only allowed for non-controversial claims that no are not challenged or likely to be challenged" (to use the phrase from WP:V). Basically, what I suggest is that a self-cite should not count for satisfying WP:V. If the material is not likely to be challenged, fine. But if it is likely to be challenged, then a reliable third-party reference must be added. I'm also not talking about what we normally call fringe theories. That is I'm not talking about the face on Mars, but about debates like whether the proton transfer happens before or after the electron transfer in a specific chemical reaction. ;-) The most relevant of the guidelines you quote is WP:UNDUE, but debates based on it are often difficult. How does one decide exactly how much weight should be given to each theory? --Itub 14:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish you would provide pointers to these cases (at least privately) because I would like to see how they come out.

You are talking about a real problem, but how is supporting knowledgeable people against topic clueless editors and admins related to this problem? The current situation is such people can use wiki rules like COI as clubs to beat down people who do know the subject.

In the mean time as someone with knowledge about the subject, can I clean the junk out of capture-bonding? Or are knowledgeable people locked out of editing an article if they have written about the subject? Keith Henson 16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Itub's original post here. I think there is a misunderstanding of the point of limiting self-citation on Wikipedia. As I understand it, the intent was/is to block one loophole in how a crank might slip his own crank theories into WP: either self-publish or put the information up on a website & use that as one's source. Obviously this is not perfect, & still allows a lot of bad material into Wikipedia, yet I don't think it's possible to raise the standard much higher without keeping editors from citing good sources. (Right now, I'm regretting the fact that we don't permit MySpace to be cited as a source: I understand an important amount of eye-witness information on the recent unrest in Myanmar is only documented in posts on MySpace.) The solution in this case is to trust to the Wiki process: if Itub's fictional Professor Smith has rewritten the article to reflect his opinion of the subject, then its up to the rest of us to point out that the article violates principles like WP:NPOV & push back. Of course this does not always happen for the reasons Itub points out (e.g. not enough eyes watching some subject areas), but I think any cure so far proposed is worse than the affliction. -- llywrch 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits section

The Non-controversial edits section doesn't seem consistent with everything above it. The top section of this page seems to indicate that editors with a conflict of interest are allowed to make any encyclopedic edits they want. The top part of the page "expects," "strongly discourages," and says editors "are not barred." This section of the page uses the overly strong word "allowed," which seems to imply that the reverse is "not allowed," or editors "are barred."

I think we should change from:

Non-controversial edits:
Editors who may have a conflict of interest are 
allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial 
edits, such as:

to something like:

Non-controversial edits:
Editors who may have a conflict of interest may make 
non-controversial edits without fear of being accused 
of editing contrary to the spirit of the Conflict of 
Interest behavioral guideline.  Non-controversial 
edits include:

Or, just get rid of the section. If someone can't think of a good way to reword it and replace the word "allowed," maybe we should get rid of it. As is, it really seems to clash with the rest of the page, and as far as I can tell, it's a recent addition within the last few months. And, is non-controversial edits an official wikipedia term, and does this concept exist outside of the COI page? Does saying non-controversial edits are allowed imply that a conflict of interest is the same as controversy? And isn't everyone allowed to make non-controversial edits, including editors with a conflict of interest?

Fredsmith2 19:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

After reading over the section on non-controversial edits, I believe it's OK as is. The fact that a series of examples are listed (including vandalism removal) gives a reader the sense of what these edits are. You're right that the phrase 'non-controversial edits' is not an official Wikipedia term. The proposed revision, above, seems rather verbose and just amounts to saying (in more words) that non-controversial edits are *allowed*. If you don't like the word 'allowed', would you prefer 'unlikely to be criticized?' EdJohnston 14:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Need section on photographs

I think there should be a section on photographs and illustrations. For the most part, we should encourage even parties with potential conflicts of interest to submit photographs and illustrations to Commons, so long as they are willing to do so under one of the free licenses we accept. We can point out that reduced resolution images are acceptable, in case they are unwilling to relinquish control over a full quality image. They can then mention the availability of the image on the talk page, or perhaps it would be ok to let them add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content, as long as they are not overly propagandistic or offensive. --agr (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is suggested language:

Wikimedia Commons encourages even parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept.

While Commons prefers full resolution media, reduced resolution images are acceptable when the copyright owner is unwilling to freely license a full quality image. See Commons:Welcome for detailed requirements.

Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. The best approach is to mention the availability of the image or media files on the article's talk page. But it is usually acceptable to edit the article directly to add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content, e.g. adding a publicity mug shot to the biography of a performing artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArnoldReinhold (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no current restriction on editors with a COI from submitting photographs. So I think the above suggestion is trying to solve a non-problem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem I'm trying to address is our lack of free images that we can use to illustrate articles about people born in the last hundred years or so. We are at a real disadvantage here compared to other encyclopedias, who can routinely get permission for limited use of such images. This policy is a place where publicists go to see what they can and can't do and therefore it seems like a good place to let them know how they can add images and other media to articles of interest and that, in general, this is encouraged. Policies do not have to only contain negative material. I believe that we would get a lot more such images if the PR community knew they were welcome. --agr (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

this needs to be removed.

Okay, first of all let me just say that I'm part of a team working hard to get advertising on Wikipedia. This is better of wikipedia, and better for the users. Until that happens, however, we have no CHOICE but to insert facts into articles, and the fact that we know these facts for a reason (a connection with the company) is no reason to share this information.

After all, EVERYONE in that case has a conflict of interest, since obviously they have an interest in a company, since there's a REASON they've heard of it (either as a customer, from a friend, through being a recipient of advertising, meaning for example their favorite programs are PRODUCED [indirectly, through money] by that company etc etc etc).

So, from a completely neutral viewpoint, this policy should be removed, in the interests of a balanced and fair wikipedia. As a long-time wikipedia user, I can't think of ONE SINGLE REASON to divulge a conflict of interest. Facts don't become less true because someone says them who wouldn't have if they hadn't been hired, etc.

Wikipedia is about VERIFIABLE FACTS. NOT OPINIONS.

It would be an appropriate policy if Wikipedia were about Opinions like "you know, the Arch Deluxe is pretty fucking awesome." Then we need to know if it's a McDonald's ad executive who says that, or someone over 250 pounds who spends upwards of a quarter of their income on fast food. It matttters. For cited articles, it DOES NOT

incoherent rambling

i defy anyone ANYONE reading this to

and in cas e it turns out

ISN"T THAT THE REASON IN THE FIRST PLACE

?????????????????????????????????????/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.196.141 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

List of articles X user has a conflict of interest in

I have a page in my userspace called User:Solumeiras/List of articles I have a conflict of interest in. Are such pages a good idea? The reason I ask, is that, if people openly disclose their COI's, will it make for a more collaborative editing environment??

Feedback is needed, and this could be useful. Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 11:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Recommended to disclose?

When did this get in here as a summary?

Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) 
a close connection with a subject are recommended 
to disclose this... 

If this is really true, shouldn't it also be in the body of the guideline, also? My two cents is that because this guideline page recommends this disclosure, it poses a barrier to Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia everyone can edit." Do we really want to steps to be:

1. Create an account
2. Declare all conflicts of interest
3. Start editing

Wikipedia has always seemed to me to encourage people to try to start editing immediately, if they see something they can edit. Do people really need to reveal personal information about themselves to edit Wikipedia? Fredsmith2 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The recent edit by SlimVirgin seems to bring the header back into synch with the page. Thanks. This seems resolved. Fredsmith2 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Too little guidance on new articles

The guideline says To request a new article, you can present your idea on the talk page of a relevant article or WikiProject. What it doesn't discuss is whether it's okay for a registered editor to write a potentially COI article in userspace and then ask for review, the way that unregistered editors do (in essence) at WP:AFC, and, if so, exactly how they would do it. Or, as another example, if an editor userfys a mainspace article because of COI, how would an editor (after trying to make it neutral) get it back into mainspace?

It seems to me that it would be good if the COI noticeboard or some other place were definitively established as a review point, to review proposed moves of articles out of userspace to mainspace. Or, if in fact under no circumstances does Wikipedia want COI-impacted editors to ever write a new article in which they have a personal interest, to bluntly state so in the guideline.

Wikipedia:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself is similarly silent about any alternative other than to simply put an article about oneself in mainspace and hope for the best. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The language you cited above, about requesting a new article, is very terse but is in keeping with the brevity of this guideline. You should consider how to attract interested editors to help out at whatever place you nominate to receive the submissions. Articles for creation seems to get 30 requests per day. The COI noticeboard goes through periods of neglect, and even now could use more volunteer attention. So it's not clear where the additional enthusiasm might come from. Curiously, new page patrol does get a lot of attention, and COI articles are briskly dealt with there, not always in the most diplomatic way, though editors are strongly encouraged to place speedy deletion notices on the article submitters' Talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I'd just test the water. Perhaps there is less of a problem than I think, or perhaps the best place to discuss a change would be at NPP. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:TE and COI

Imo, the policy should include more on Tendentious editing. Somewhat similar to NPOV, which places too much focus on political disputes and too less on other (maybe less obvious) aspects of accuracy (e.g. stylistic issues), this page focuses too much on real life connections, and too little on TE, which comprises much more than e.g. writing for your company etc. A COI can (often enough does) arise simply when people are writing about their favourite topic. I'd like to hear others' opinion on this. I dorftrottel I talk I 13:14, December 9, 2007

The essay WP:TE is interesting, but I think it takes us too far afield from what most people understand as conflict of interest. Some editors already interpret WP:COI in a broad sense when assessing the cases posted on the noticeboard, and I think that is correct. This seems to be permitted by the phrase (in this guideline): relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization. This allows great enthusiasm for some viewpoint, even in someone who does not personally know the article subject, to be considered a COI for purposes of Wikipedia editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I only wish it would be made clear by dedicating a seperate section to such issues as "fan writing" etc. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:33, December 11, 2007

E.g., Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic provides some clues as to what I would appreciate in an extension of this page. I dorftrottel I talk I 08:13, December 12, 2007

Photographs and media files--move non-relevent stuff to commons page?

It would seem that we could reduce this section:

Photographs and media files

Wikimedia Commons encourages even parties with potential conflicts of interest to upload digital media files, such as photographs, illustrations, audio files and video clips, so long as the media is of good quality, is in a format we use and the copyright holder is willing do so under one of the free licenses we accept.

While Commons prefers full resolution media, reduced resolution images are acceptable when the copyright owner is unwilling to freely license a full quality image. See Commons:Welcome for detailed requirements.

Once media files are uploaded to Commons, they can then be incorporated into Wikipedia articles where appropriate. The best approach is to mention the availability of the image or media files on the article's talk page. But it is usually acceptable to edit the article directly to add one or two images that illustrate the existing article content, e.g. adding a publicity mug shot to the biography of a performing artist.

To something like this:

• People with a conflict of interest are in no way restricted from uploading media to Wikipedia Commons.

Isn't all of that other stuff in this new section already somewhere else? And isn't that somewhere else a lot more appropriate for a description of Commons media than the conflict of interest policy page? Fredsmith2 (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It certainly could be reduced to what you propose, and, yes the information is available elsewhere. But this policy is one people and organizations who are the subjects of articles are most likely to read and uploading photos and media files is something we should strongly encourage. Subjects of articles and their representatives almost always own images we would like to have available and this is one aspect of COI where our needs and theirs largely coincide. So why not use the space to make that case here rather than assume they will weed through our policies and figure it out on their own?--agr (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Carolyn Doran and COI

Could someone explain how many editors actions (deletion, protection, etc.) concerning the Carolyn Doran article are not classic examples of COI? --Fandyllic (talk) 12:40 AM PST 23 Dec 2007

I think this might be trolling, but assuming it's not—do you really think that volunteers for an organization have a conflict of interest that prevents them from removing BLP(1E) violations from an otherwise un-notable former executive? The implications of imputing such conflicts of interests would be dramatic. See also User_talk:Jimbo Wales#Carolyn Bothwell Doran, User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 30#New Cade Metz article in The Register, snarky comment at Talk:Carolyn_Doran and finally Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_December_22#Carolyn_Doran. Cool Hand Luke 08:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well someone at Wikipedia has to qualify for COI. Also the invocation of notability or not is the most abused part of Wikipedia, try something else. Also, no one has answered my question above about how COI can even be established when so many people on Wikipedia can hide behind the cloak of semi-anonymity or complete anonymity. Whether the implications of COI are dramatic or not is irrelevant. I won't accept a question as an answer to my question, try actually answering the question. --Fandyllic (talk) 8:38 PM PST 30 Dec 2007

There is no way to establish COI, unless an editor chooses to declare one. That is explained at Wikipedia:COI#Declaring_an_interest. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Book Publishers and Conflict of Interest

I'm curious about how to deal with what appears to be the use of an article page that while describing the ideas presented in a set of (probably self-published) books, seems to be an advertisement for those books. There is a real tension here between Wikipedia's encyclopedic commitment to the dissemination of ideas and its refusal to be used for commercial purposes. Before deciding whether to go forward to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, I'm deliberately being general and not naming specific articles or editors.

In the case I have in mind I have been informed by a reliable source on an academic discussion list that the author of the books in question has moved from scholarly research to commercial publication.

Just as an example - he with his coauthor has published ... more than 60(!) books for wide audience.... Today it is even not pseudoscience but commercial enterprise. It looks he decided now to earn in wider American market.

The publisher of the books in question only publishes books by this author and they are widely advertised on the web. Advocates for them have posted PR materials on various open sites including videos on Youtube and suspicious looking rave notices on Amazon.com. I suspect that the original editors of the article may be engaging in similar PR activity on Wikipedia. These editors take a strong proprietary attitude towards "their" article and strongly challenge on the talk page anyone who disputes the ideas presented in the article.

The article is a reasonable encyclopedic description of an example of pseudoscientific activity; I'm only concerned about the proprietary attitudes of some editors trying to suppress meaningful criticism. Do any members of the community have any ideas as to how to deal with this? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

To start with, books in Wikipedia have to be notable to be have an article. Assessing notability should be a simpler matter: Are there any secondary sources that describe the book? Any reviews? Any commentary about the book and/or the author? I am certain that answering these questions would be a better recourse than than pursuing a limitation based on WP:COI. See WP:BK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi, but notability doesn't seem to be an issue here. The books involved have been subject to extensive scholarly criticism — in fact a whole literature has grown up around them. I think Wikipedia should have an article about their topic, but the proprietary and protective editors of the article should be cautioned in some way. WP:COI seems the only tool available; the situation doesn't seem to rise to the level of Disruptive Editing. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Then seek community input by means of dispute resolution. Can you provide the name of the article(s) in question so that uninvolved editors can take a look? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your sensible advice. The first thing I saw when I looked at the Dispute resolution article was the question: "Is it urgent?" In the case of this article, which I think you've already correctly identified as New Chronology (Fomenko), I'll wait to see how the other editors react to my latest edits. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to lend a hand, if needed. I read the article and could not find any specific issues. Please give me a summary of the dispute in my talk, if you would like my assistance. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Publishers frequently use Wikipedia for promotion;

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Dennis_Publishing_Spam-2
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Storming_Media_LLC_Spamming
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_2#Publisher_Spam.2C_Incisive_Media_Investments_Ltd._.282.29
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#pygmalionbooks.org
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#Bloomsbury_Publishing_PLC

These are but a few, hopefuly your situation is not on the scale of the above--Hu12 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your examples show that one of the problems is the links that are clearly to marketing sites. There are a few of these in New Chronology (Fomenko), as well as an oversize image of Fomenko's book. I'll consider removing the links or replacing them with less commercial ones and reducing the size of the book's image.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Arthur Rubin and Ansell

The chauvinist bias should be removed from this page, as Ansell indicates. Also, it is not a "clear grammatical error" as Arthur Robin indicates, as "they" is becoming more acceptable as a way of avoiding bias. Style manuals usually suggest rewording "he or she" out of it. So, it should probably be reworded. My vote, however, would be to remove the entire sentence, including the bolding, because I think this sentence weakens the guideline.

But if this sentence must be kept, will someone please change it to:

Editors who forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests stand in a conflict of interest.

And about the bolding, please, someone, anyone, get rid of the bolding. This guideline looks like a tract for a pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme, rather than a professional behavioral guideline for an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style clearly states, "Italics are used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences (bolding is normally not used at all for this purpose). Generally, the more highlighting in an article, the less the effect of each instance."

In a nutshell: GET RID OF MOST OF THE BOLDING ON THIS PAGE!!!

Wikipedia's policy is to be bold. Wikipedia's policy is not to USE BOLD. Fredsmith2 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the bolding on this page so much. WP:MOS applies to edits in article space, so far as I know. But while I'm here, there is a persistent problem where a mere COI and editing in violation of the COI guideline are not carefully distinguished. Somebody can have a technical COI and it is harmless, so long as they behave correctly in matters where they have a conflict. A COI violation happens when you edit in a case where the guideline says you shouldn't. In my view, the current guideline doesn't make this point clear enough. The sentence you are criticizing I think is attempting to define a COI violation but not doing it very clearly:

Editors who forego advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests stand in a conflict of interest.

I'd prefer a different wording, since I think it's possible to 'stand in a conflict of interest' without violating the guideline, so long as you abstain from editing where required. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It is very unclear. ...plus all that other stuff you said. What's this really trying to say, anyway? Is it saying that advancing outside interests is always a conflict of interest, or is it saying that you can advance outside interests as long as you keep the aims of Wikipedia in mind? And, exactly which aims of Wikipedia must you keep in mind to successfully advance an outside interest? If there aren't answers to these questions, then this line should probably be deleted.

I would also tend to think that the policy pages and behavioral guideline pages should be pillars of style, and excellent models of well-written pages, to serve as examples to people writing articles, rather than having a very non-professional sytle. But maybe I'm wrong. Do the policy pages have a much looser requirement for style, similar to how talk pages do? Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "violation of the COI guideline" is a relatively new concept, within the last year. That's probably why it's not really talked about on here, is that it's still creeping its way into this guideline. A year ago, the COI guideline only seemed to indicate that editors with a conflict of interest had no right to control content of pages they've come up with, and that was the only way to literally violate the guideline, is if you got mad about someone else editing a page you had a COI with. "Violations" of COI were handled by other policies and guidelines, and in my opinion, still are adequately handled there. I agree that we should do something about all of the cases you have to deal with as an admin, but I think that adding a bunch of bolded warnings to this guideline may not be the most effective way to do it. Fredsmith2 (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry my edit caused someone a hassle. I thought that "they" had been an accepted singular self-reference for quite a few years now. I certainly have never had any academic assessments/articles commented on for my usage of it. Sorry if there are traditionalists who prefer a chauvinist grammar but the world is changing. Feel free to use a changed version, but reverting me won't bring back the old boys culture! Ansell 05:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Exposing COI versus outing the editor

Let's say I know of an editor who is working here under numerous sockpuppets, and given the subjects, his edits present a conflict of interest. His edit history, while incriminating, only tells part of the story. He has added external links, all with the same owner, to the articles that he edits. It's already obvious to me that the guy's efforts here have more to do with self-promotion. Later on, two people contact me off-wiki and confirm my suspicions. How can I act on this information without outing the editor, and violating some rule myself? I know some admins have already gotten in trouble for dealing with this sort of thing off-wiki, yet at the same time I could see the need for a non-public (but official) channel to deal with this. Is this an OTRS issue or should I bother them with something like this? Thanks, -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If the case is truly this blatant, why not just file a regular complaint at WP:COIN? It should be possible for people who see the report to read between the lines without the need for you to expose any information you shouldn't. EdJohnston (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We often spot COI by the tone of the edits, which are non-NPOV and unencyclopedic. COI can be imputed from editing patterns without needing to expose the editor's identity. We would only discuss the editor's identity if they have self-disclosed, as is fairly common. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it also seems relevant if an editor is employed by an interested party -- for example, the publisher of a book -- and is using articles to market the book. Knowledge of such employment strengthens the case in ambiguous patterns of editing. Furthermore, "exposing" the editor's employment in such cases does not seem to violate the spirit of WP:OUTING, which appears as part of a more general article on harassment. Perhaps some clarification of the WP:OUTING section in the harassment article to reflect the Conflict of Interest policy would be appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve here. We need to contemplate the reasoning behind WP:OUTING--what is the point of it?--and determine if that reasoning is applicable to people who are self-promoting. If our rules and guidelines only serve to thwart more important project principles, such as NPOV, then it is time to re-examine them. Outing is verboten because it "places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media." The question is: if another person is publicly saying things they are also saying on Wikipedia, and it becomes a COI problem, then does the "protection" reasoning behind WP:OUTING still apply? --David Shankbone 15:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well in this case, it would be self-employment. The problem is that these edits have occurred across different sock accounts over a long period of time, too old for WP:SSP or WP:RFCU. If I made an accusation against the currently-active user name, I could only offer WP:COIN my word that he's a sock, and hope they accept that. But this person is so volatile, I am certain it will lead to a really huge dust-up (in fact that seems to be his strategy around here, grinding down opponents through intimidation or sheer exhaustion). The guy has actually posted his own (ostensibly notable) full name in some articles (but from an IP - when I called him out on this, he outed me, and Oversight-L had to take care of it). He has really built his own trail of evidence, as anyone can do a WHOIS lookup on a web address, but I wasn't sure whether pointing this out might be considered "outing" (it's not as though I've dug up anything private). And finally, a well-established and respected Wikipedian approached me off-Wiki about the matter, but after I told him what I knew, I didn't hear any more about it (perhaps something else hapened behind-the-scenes). Thanks, -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If an employee who is a newcomer to Wikipedia makes the mistake of editing an article about there employer in a biased way, we can revert. We can warn the person about COI. If they are highly persistent, they can be blocked. Outing the person could cause negative publicity for the company and cause the editor to lose their job. That result is too strong for the offense. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest that rather than blindly reverting when there's an obvious conflict of interest and they're an obvious newbie, that we try one of the following first:

• Reworking the newbie's edit to remove the COI
• Initially try an educational approach, rather than a "warning" approach

And, I'm talking about real, genuine, sincere newbies here, rather than bots or professional marketers. A lot of people have their first wikipedia experience because their employer tells them to edit wikipedia. The newbie can't change that. Instead of trying to make these folks' experience difficult for them, and ostracizing them, we should be trying to befriend them and make them wikipedians. Our initial approach to a newbie should be, "How can we make this person a valuable wikipedian?" rather than, "We might need to block this person!"Fredsmith2 (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Our warning template is mellow, see below, and we have Wikipedia:Business' FAQ to provide helpful advice. These can be used as appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

{{uw-coi}}

---

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

---

As I suggested above, I've proposed an exemption to the harrassment guidelines to allow posting of limited employment information to demonstrate Conflict of Interest. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Is Revealing Conflict of Interest Harrassment? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Issues for those of us accused of COI (& Suffering Off-Wiki Harassment for It!) Reading this section has been helpful (including especially link to harassment) and putting something on the main page would help a lot. Couple points.

• First, perhaps WP:Privacy could be merge into Wikipedia:OUTING#Posting_of_personal_information which I discovered in this discussion, to avoid confusion or for people with various outing issues, who don’t happen to find the outing article. (I suggested that on that articles talk page too.)
• I’ve read COI a few times, though this is first time I’ve looked at the talk page. I’ve done so because of my many interests, associations and writings and because a) I’ve done 20-30 hours of web site work over a year period for an individual’s not-for-profit group A, and as a friend I cleaned up and added purely factual material to his wiki page, and b) I do an unpaid weekly blog for associates of not-for-profit group B group whose wiki article was being turned into an attack article. I worked with other anonymous editors to make it more NPOV.
• Having here discovered Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment on this page I now realize that the person who has been attacking me viciously off-wiki for (what I believe are NPOV edits) to the group B article probably has been editing the article on group B. A lot of anonymous IPs have worked on it. (Someone who threatened me on COI just started an account name - but complained about a change I made to “his” edit that was not made by him but an anon IP.) I wouldn’t be surprised if this person also has been editing group C article which was turning into another attack article filled with libelous unsourced info til I and other anonymous editors dealt with it. I was smeared off-wiki for those edits too. So guess will have to figure out how one discovers who is doing this stuff to stop them if then continue the harassment, on or off-wiki.
• Anyway, it would be nice if on Help:Contents the listing of Policy and Guidelines could be expanded a bit. It looks like it’s just one more issue, but it’s got some of the most important issues, including these.

Just my thoughts! Carol Moore 23:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

The phrase 'conflict of interest' doesn't appear on your talk page, so it does not seem that any Wikipedia editors have raised this officially with you. Is the 'harrassment due to COI' you speak of in your edit summary something that happens to you in your off-wiki activities? EdJohnston (talk)

I do not think WP:PRIVACY should be merged into WP:OUTING (which is actually just a section of WP:Harassment.) They deal with two different, though somewhat related, subjects. PRIVACY is a page of advice to users about protecting their own privacy. All of it, except the last sentence, is about what you might want to post (or not post) about yourself. The last sentence mentions that you should not post personal information about others, but that is really there more as a point of comparison than anything else. It is kind of a "See also", and it does have a link to WP:Harassment (which answers your concern about people not finding it; in fact, I will edit it now to make the reference more explicit). WP:PRIVACY really would not work as a section of WP:Harassment; among other things, PRIVACY is not a guideline at the present time (it has a "proposed" tag, but it is probably more of an essay), while Harassment is tagged as a guideline but, in my opinion, is really more of a policy. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

TO: EdJohnston. First, sorry if not clear. The editor I'm having a problem with threatened to report me to an adminstrator for COI on Group A talk page. But after I told him that his sharing info on me he'd drudged up might get him banned ala WP:Privacy, hopefully he backed down. Of course THIS COI/Outing discussion evidently means I might have been wrong. And then once I realized he might be the same person doing the off-wiki harassment of me, I certainly can see the need to be able to report somewhere such personal info, should it be evidence he or some other wiki-editor is the person harassing me offline about my online wiki edits.

TO: 6SJ7 Great addition! Too much to read and understand for it all to sink in! Your additions I think will help others, including those like me who who end up there because "WP:privacy" is the first thing they think of to type in when faced with the problem! :-) Carol Moore 05:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc /talk

Register article

The Register [12] recently reported that past changes to this policy may have been done with ulterior motives by the editor named in said article. I'll leave it up to interested parties to determine if this is the case, but I wanted to make everyone aware of it. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is no a policy page but a guideline. Secondly, my last edit to this guideline was around June 2007, that was minor. Thirdly, my contributions to this guideline where discussed thoroughly around October 2006 here. Lastly, I do not think that doing forum shopping helps at all, Cla68, and simply creates drama. You already started a discussion about this at Wikipedia:COI/N#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008

Proposal change: assume good faith, esp. in dispute resolution

I propose a change to the policy that is inappropriate to fail to assume good faith when having a COI and that it is completely inappropriate to try to stop dispute resolution. SeeWikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Jossi_and_Prem_Rawat_2 Andries (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There is already wording about this in the guideline, Andries. Conflict of interest in point of view disputes: Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see it. I think you misunderstood my proposal. Andries (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What I meant to say it is that it is inappropriate to assume bad faith of an editor with an opposing view when having a COI. Andries (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not legislate common sense. It is already not acceptable to assume bad faith, except when there is evidence of bad faith. This proposal is superfluous instruction creep. Jehochman ^Talk 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that; it appears to be an attempt to get some ambiguous language into a policy/guideline such that it can subsequently be used as ammunition for wikilawyering in some strange personal vendetta. –Henning Makholm 04:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it is to prevent happening a serious problem to Wikipedia again that gave Wikipedia a lot of well-deserved bad publicity in the media. Andries (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But having a COI on a subject and assuming bad faith of editors on the subject with opposing view is I think quite bad behavior. Andries (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• However you guys decide to slice it, I would strongly prefer Jossi's opinion on this matter to not be considered, nor the opinion of any of his proteges. --Pax Arcane 17:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Editing and/or creating articles about people you have known or met in real life in a non-promotional way

Would this still be a conflict of interest? I'm curious. Personally I think it would not be if you felt that the person in question was genuinely notable and could reference it to reliable sources, and kept it objective. I believe that it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis, but in cases where an experienced editor feels someone notable that they have met or known in real life is missing or in need of improvement on Wikipedia to write an NPOV, sourced, quality article, that is not "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Experienced editors can write an NPOV treatment of any subject, including those they are close to and including BLP. All COI concerns should be treated on a case by case basis. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Direct discussion vs. outing

I see in the section on how to handle conflicts of interest that it suggests directly discussing potential issues, but also says that outing editors is always wrong. In the case of biographies, however, I'm not entirely sure how this would work. Is the idea that one should ask whether there is a COI, but not whether it is the subject him or herself? I would think in the case of someone editing a biography that it is allowed to ask whether the person editing the biography is its subject, and presumably that this is what "direct discussion" means. I realize such situations have led to controversy, but I would guess it is also the general practice. If there are problems with clarifying this, I'd be curious what they are. Mackan79 (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering how large the archives are on this page

wouldnt it be a good idea to create a summary or index of past arguments and their outcomes? Low Sea (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag

I have removed the "guideline" tag, since it only contains advice for editors, not anything that can actually be seen as a guideline - particularly since any attempt to find if someone is not following this 'advice' would itself be a violation of several policies, there is no sense in calling this a guideline. --Random832 (contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's guidance on how to behave; guidelines needn't necessarily be "actionable". The guideline tag indicates the consensus support it enjoys, while an essay has no such status. It's a major change, and if it is to be made, it should be discussed first. SamBC(talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is in direct contradiction with a policy that also supposedly has consensus demonstrates that a consensus does not exist. --Random832 (contribs) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't in contradiction with any policy, Random. All you need do in the case of a suspected COI where there is policy violation is say, e.g. "User:X's edits are so poor and so fawning [or so attacking] that I suspect he is in some way connected to [whatever it is, or whoever it is]." There is never a reason to out someone onwiki by publishing what you think is their name; if the name itself rather than the suspected connection is important, it can be e-mailed to involved editors and admins, or if sensitive to the ArbCom.

Remember that what matters most are that the edits are poor. A COI might be the reason for the poor edits, but it's the poor editing that gives rise to the suspicion of COI in the first place (assuming the user hasn't said who they are.) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should it even matter, then, if the person does disclose a COI? Or if they do and then come back as another account, should we take care not to disclose who is returning? To hammer people when they disclose their identity but give them impunity if they don't is one of the major inconsistencies. Mackan79 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why do we have COI/N, and why do we routinely allow threads that _DO_ include a real name? --Random832 (contribs) 18:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't see why it's important to have a guideline about conflicts of interest at all, if all that matters is the content of the edits. --Random832 (contribs) 18:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All that matters is the content, but given that COI is often a reason for violating NPOV, we alert people for that possibility. Our goal is to allow everyone to edit, but people with COI should be extra careful, and others should be extra alert for NPOV (and other related) violations in such cases. Crum375 (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So what is the purpose of WP:COI/N? Why was it not deleted when I brought it to MFD last month? --Random832 (contribs) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

According to its mandate, it's for resolving "... disputes with tendentious editors and cases where editors are repeatedly adding problematic material over a longer period of time." I see no conflict between that activity, sensibly carried out, and the rest of our rules. Crum375 (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Editors who do disclose their affiliation with the subject of an article and ask for advice in how to stay out of trouble are usually very well treated at the WP:COIN. The main problem is when you see a pattern of clear promotional editing (often using what appears to be insider knowledge) and then the editor behaves in a cagey manner when questioned about their connection. Discretion should be employed even when that happens, but you'll see phrases like 'apparent COI' used. Nobody is going to go out and publish the email address and phone number of a possibly COI-affected editor, but you'll see cases where adverse inferences about someone's affiliation are drawn, and the adverse inferences often appear to be correct. If you see what you consider to be improper speculation about someone's identity, you should make that known to the person speculating, using email if necessary. Or complain to an administrator.

There have been AfD debates where people affiliated with the subject participated, and I see no impropriety if they disclose their affiliation (not their personal identity) when commenting there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems consistent with this page as written, other than the two sentences: "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." Do others agree that these should be removed? I pointed out above it also seems inconsistent with the first sentence of that paragraph, which states that "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor...." Mackan79 (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a tension between COI/COIN and editors rights to privacy. This tension is real. That doesn't mean we should remove this. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mean we shouldn't remove the guideline, or were you responding to my suggestion? I agree there's a tension here, but this is also why I don't think it's a good idea to suggest editors have privileges that they don't entirely have. Mackan79 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing anonymously is a core principle of Wikipedia. If I work for IBM, and edit that article, it should not make me lose my anonymity. If I make poor edits, and violate NPOV or NOR, this can be corrected via normal processes without revealing my personal info. If personal details need to be shared, that can be done discreetly via email. Crum375 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What if you're editing tendentiously from a company IP, and you admitted off Wiki what you're doing? The WP:COIN seems pretty clear that in some cases we discuss this, where it clearly becomes an issue. Mackan79 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If I publish my private info on a public forum, along with my intentions to disrupt Wikipedia, I would no longer be anonymous. One thing we need to watch out for, however, is situations where people have previously (e.g. due to inexperience) published their personal info, and later decided to become anonymous. We have to make all efforts to help them regain their anonymity in such cases. Crum375 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In all cases

Regarding the rv here, the problem as noted above is that we clearly don't follow this in "all cases." Among other things, the previous version tells people they have privileges they don't have. I think it would be better to keep a simpler version that tells people where to go to discuss this, while noting that bad faith use of the guideline is looked upon badly. I don't think we should say something which goes against practice. Mackan79 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is never a reason to disclose an anonymous editor's personal info publicly. That we sometimes do it does not make it right, and violates a core Wikipedia principle. In all cases private info can be forwarded via email to the appropriate parties. Crum375 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct that ArbCom wants to resolve every such case, but I'm interested if others have a view. Mackan79 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention ArbCom — admins and other established and trusted editors may also receive such emails to help decide COI issues. Crum375 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have received such emails about one particular editor, and I was not sure how to handle them. In these cases the emails confirmed my own suspicions. However, if I were to block someone based upon such an email, how would I provide evidence without revealing the identity of the "informant?" At the same time, if I were to give the blocking reasons on Wikipedia, then it might very well reveal sensitive information (perhaps even unintentionally) about the person being blocked. Finally, the emails were from individuals who had a personal, off-Wiki disagreement with the editor in question (although I do not doubt the veracity of their information). So I don't think "I've received an anonymous email which says this is a COI" is going to carry much weight. Based on this reasoning, in my own situation I finally forwarded the emails in question to the ArbCom mailing list. (I am even using a pseudonym in this forum (which I've also told ArbCom), because otherwise it would be quite apparent about whom I am writing.) Thanks, -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Also see my earlier comments in #Exposing COI versus outing the editor. -- Leo DeVeaux (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think it's hard to say what should happen in a specific situation without knowing anything about it. Clearly at some point, however, discussion of the COI becomes appropriate, whether done by a normal editor or the type contemplated by Crum375. This raises the question to me of why we would say it is always inappropriate, when clearly this is not a matter of any consensus and goes against what is generally done. Mackan79 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's never appropriate to publicly reveal an anonymous editor's personal information, unless perhaps to protect against a potential physical threat to the public. Otherwise, we should always use email, using discretion and common sense. Crum375 (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does one email? Or what if the person doesn't respond? I don't see how a preference for emailing resolves the problem. Mackan79 (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The point of email is to use it when personal information must be revealed to handle a rule violation. The actual personal details don't need to be made public, only the surrounding facts. Established trusted editors, admins and arbs will generally respond fairly quickly to emails. Crum375 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but the problem is that you are demanding a policy which would prevent even admins and "established trusted editors" from ever discussing such a COI on Wikipedia other than in general terms. Again, that clearly isn't general practice or supported by any consensus. Mackan79 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am not demanding anything — simply reminding all that we must conform to our fundamental principle that protects anonymous editing. To do that, we never disclose personal information publicly — whenever we need to relate this information, we send it by email to specific individuals. There is no problem discussing a COI, we can always say User:XXX appears to be an IBM employee. We just can't say publicly that User:XXX is John Smith, residing at 123 Oak St. in Peoria. Crum375 (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand your position on this. As far as I can see you're saying that even if someone admits they are editing material under a clear conflict, then finds out this is strongly discouraged, they could comes back with a different account and we should help them by not acknowledging that it's the same conflicted user. It seems to me that this is stating what you'd like policy to be, rather than acknowledging in a guideline what editors do. I think this is a problem, among other things, in telling editors they have a privilege that WP:COIN clearly shows they don't have. I'm also not sure anyone has shown in answer to Cla68's question where the basic policy is that this refers to. Mackan79 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone admits to a COI and comes back with a new account, and we can prove (e.g. via CU) that it's the same user, we may assume the same COI as before. But having COI per se does not preclude you from editing, unless you are violating the rules. The point is that all this is no reason to publicly divulge an anonymous editor's personal information. The basic policies are WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CIV, WP:BLOCK, etc.. If you adhere to them, you may edit even if you are COI or POV. Crum375 (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a two way conversation is helping, so I'll leave it there for others to comment if they like. The guideline says that discussing identity is always against "basic policy," but nobody has shown which policy this refers to, and clearly editors often do exactly that on WP:COIN. The edit I made to fix this is seen here. Mackan79 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason your edit was reverted is that it removes the established prohibition on publicly revealing editors' personal identity information. The relevant "basic policies" are WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:CIV (which generally allow us to edit as long as we behave properly and the edits meet specific content requirements, not based on who we are), as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, which allows users to edit anonymously if they so choose. Publicly revealing such information is blockable per the WP:BLOCK policy. Crum375 (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

just a heads up....

the above conversation echoes the recent thread here in many ways - it seems to me that quite a few editors at different places mention 'real world' names 'on-wiki' - further, there seem to me to be a few people saying very clearly that this is not allowed, but not really a consensus that this behaviour is against policy... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing personal information is against policy. See Wikipedia:BLOCK#Protection. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand that that is both your position, and likely policy - it does seem sensible to me to ask if posts like this one and this one are a) against policy and b) all that common or not. Ed's post at the thread linked to above seems quite sensible to me, and I thought the thoughts of editors of this page would probably help too! Privatemusings (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not likely policy, PM; WP:BLOCK is policy. :)

In your example above, exactly the same thing would have been achieved by simply saying the user appears to be connected to the topic. Naming people is almost always unnecessary. The only times the particular name might matter is where there's a real-life feud between people, especially anything involving legal action, where one is suing the other, for example. It's then obviously important that Wikipedia not be used as a platform to damage one of the sides. In those cases, it might be appropriate to alert other editors and admins by e-mail, and if necessary ArbCom, to the identity — although, even in those cases, it should be enough to say User:X's edits suggest he might be connected to court case Y, because it's the connection that matters and the nature of the edits, not the name.

I still can't think of an occasion where a name would absolutely have to be disclosed onwiki if the user himself hadn't disclosed it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your view seems to me to be very similar to User:EdJohnston's - who seems to be one of the most active volunteers at the noticeboard - perhaps we should also solicit his views about whether or not anything needs to be done to resolve the mild tension that results between the clear policy statement you link to, and emergent practice (live link to thread with a 'real name') I'm not sure, but I think there may be a use to figuring out how we handle good faith users mentioning 'real world' identities (whether that's a policy, guideline, or just unspoken thing, I'm not sure...) - everyone seems to be taking a very sensible approach, which is cool, but it's also a good time to look for resolution (if it's even needed!) - Privatemusings (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, WP:Block doesn't say what kind of discussion is or isn't justified; it merely says that a block may be appropriate when an editor is outed, which is clearly true. I can't see where a person's identity would absolutely need to be discussed either, but I can see plenty of situations where ignoring it would cause a lot of frustration and confusion, and where this would embarrass Wikipedia where an open secret came to the fore. It's also apparent that users are routinely discussing this, and that it would be a bit ridiculous not to when some editors make it very apparent (without necessarily saying explicitly). The problem is that staying around to prove someone is tendentious enough to be blocked, without reference to the fact that they're clearly conflicted, can take a great deal more energy than most people are willing to invest, even if they knew how to take on such editors. Mackan79 (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is really no conflict, and nothing needs to be resolved. The policies are clear and unambiguous: The Foundation's fundamental privacy policy is protected by the corresponding blocking policy. We may not publicly disclose anonymous editors' private information, period. If we need to identify them for COI or other purposes, we must do so discreetly via email. If someone is not willing to invest the extra effort required to adhere to these policies, they shouldn't be enforcing COI. And if someone persists in violating these policies, they will be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So when are the people cited in thread links above who revealed alleged real names going to get blocked, or at least warned? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The foundation Privacy Policy only applies to information like checkuser and server log data. If someone makes it obvious from their editing who they are, the foundation privacy policy doesn't protect them from someone connecting the dots without Foundation tools and data. WP:BLOCK still applies in a meaningful way. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

You are adding things to the Privacy Policy that are not there. As it stands, we are not allowed to publicly disclose anonymous editors' personal information, and if someone does it, per our blocking policy, they may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum375, could you please quote the part of the privacy policy you're referring to? I don't see anything that would apply here. Mackan79 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This is from the Foundation's Privacy Policy:

The content of this page is an official policy approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects...
* you may choose to publish under a pseudonym...
* Therefore if you are very concerned about privacy, you may wish to log in and publish under a pseudonym...
* Using a user name is a better way of preserving your privacy in this situation.

In addition, en-Wikipedia's blocking policy says:

Protection
A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to: ...
* disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);

This makes it very clear that public disclosure of personal information of an anonymous user is not allowed and any user violating this policy may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see a number of statements about what someone should do to protect their privacy if they are particularly concerned. So then we say that someone picks a user name which suggests a real name tied to an employer, says off Wiki that they're editing an article relating to their employer, edits in and out of an IP of that employer, and does so in a way that persistently promotes the employer's POV. You believe the privacy policy prohibits discussion of any of the former three? I suppose I don't see how advising people on what might do to protect their privacy means they can do one of these things, ignore everything else, and then all editors are still prohibited from discussing it. Mackan79 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the blockquotes provided are not an accurate representation of the text; you have provided ellipses, but you haven't noted the other extents to which the text was modified, for instance by adding bullets to text taken from the middle of paragraphs. Mackan79 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to fix the format of my quotation. The point is simple: the Foundation tells us we may edit anonymously to protect our identity, if we so wish. Wikipedia policy tells us that we must not publicly disclose personal information of an anonymous editor. Editors who violate this policy may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that you still haven't shown how this is true. Which Wikipedia policy tells us we "must not publicly disclose personal information of an anonymous editor"? I would think if we wanted this to be policy, we would say in a relevant policy, "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases impermissible." So far no statement remotely like that has been found in any policy, while this page and WP:COIN show that it happens routinely with editors causing problems relating to clear conflicts of interest. Unfortunately I can't fix the blockquote, since there wasn't anything there to put in a blockquote. Mackan79 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says we may block a user for "disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)." That's clear and unequivocal. Crum375 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clear and unequivocal that someone could be blocked for this, yes, and clearly necessary for that purpose considering that outing can often be a form of harassment. Clear and unequivocal that it is impermissible in all circumstances, no, you'd have to do better. Mackan79 (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Like all our policies, there may be extenuating circumstances and unusual WP:IAR cases. But as it stands, the default position, as stated in the above policies, is that you may not reveal anonymous editors' personal details. If you do that, you may be blocked. Crum375 (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it would only be IAR if you showed the policy that was being ignored. You haven't shown any; rather you're attempting to vastly stretch, if not misstating, what is in those policies. Reverting to these comments about "you may be blocked" is also tendentious, and I'd encourage you again to consider the way you are discussing this. Mackan79 (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The policy says you will be blocked if you reveal an anonymous editor's personal information. I don't see any room for stretching anything. And I encourage you to stick to the message and not the messenger, as I always try to do. Crum375 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Outing people is problematic if it is done to harass editors. When there is a serious COI there is nothing wrong with bringing that to the attention of the community. This of course needs to be done carefully and in good faith. The ArbCom has more or less agreed with this position. See the Agapetos Angel arbitration. There is a serious tension between our COI guidelines and our desire to protect anonymity. We need to exercise reasonable care in balancing them. That means we don't just block people for raising such issues but that doesn't mean that trying to out editors is in general at all acceptable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

well said, Josh - I'd echo your words, except I'd probably downgrade a 'serious tension' to a more mild one... I do also see the merit in Slim's post above saying there might not be a situation where one absolutely has to mention a real name 'on-wiki'. Leaving aside the discussion of whether or not we already have a clear policy (I think the relevant bit is the blocking policy, not the privacy policy - that's just a bit distracting, I reckon, Crum...) - we certainly don't have clear practice, and I guess what I want to say is that I'm not really unhappy with the status quo - that people are enjoined to not mention names, but when good faith editors do, we don't cause a big fuss (or a small one!) - we just take it in our stride and move along... Privatemusings (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) We are not allowed to disclose personal details (such as names or addresses) of anonymous editors. If someone does, they may be blocked. There is no "balancing act". To pursue COI allegations, use the pseudonym — say editor X may be associated with topic Y and may have a COI, and when someone (established editor, admin or arb) legitimately needs more specific details that may invade X's privacy, supply them via email. Crum375 (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, you might like that idea but that's not how we do things. For example if you look at COIN on any given day you'll see people noting that usernames of new editors are the same as the head of a company or is their initials or similar things all the time. That's generally considered acceptable. If we didn't consider that acceptable COIN really wouldn't function at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There are things we do wrong all the time all over WP. That doesn't make them right. Can you provide an example that we can analyze in detail, showing why there was an absolute and unavoidable need to publicly reveal an anonymous user's real name or personal details? I have yet to see such a case. Crum375 (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

josh is right you know Crum - honest! We're in danger of talking past each other here - I don't want to annoy you, but rather than rely on others to explain stuff, consider taking a look through the noticeboard, and understand that what we / I am trying to communicate to you is simply 'hey, people do mention names without getting blocked, or having their posts edited, and it kinda works ok...' - are you happy enough with the status quo too? Privatemusings (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ps - please please please don't go through the noticeboard editing other folk's comments! I think that would be a bad idea - and p'raps I'm being silly for even mentioning it...! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, I'm not asserting that it is always necessary but rather that it is a) sometimes much more efficient and b) regardless it happens frequently when the users are blatant about their COIs. See for example User:Bcamenker who was edit warring on MassResistance which was founded by Brian Camenker. Now, the COI there was pretty obvious and was discussed on Wiki before Bcamenker explicitly said that he was in fact Brian Camenker. Now, there's no community desire to make such discussions not acceptable and frankly it would be ridiculous to say that one couldn't point out on Wiki the striking resemblance of the usernames. One also sees examples all the time where the username seems somewhat connected. See for example Wikipedia:COIN#James_The_Funny_Funny_DJ where no one had any objection to the matter (and that just happens to be the one that is most recent on the bottom of the page). And I scroll up a little bit I find another where it was written by one Sdod2 about ... Stirling Dodd. Scrolling up a few more we come to Wikipedia:COIN#Cardinal_Health where the user in question was Gdowdy and a tiny amount of research found that one vice-president there was named Gary Dowdy. If I wanted to I could easily provide many more examples. The community seems to accept these as necessary. And moreoever, they are necessary for the COIN board to function. If you think that people discussing such matters should be blocked, I suggest you start blocking them and redacting COIN and see if the community supports you. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Joshua, I am not asking for an example where it's easier to handle a COI case by revealing a person's name. I am sure almost every case is like that, just like it's easier (or more "efficient") for law enforcement to ignore the Miranda rule. What I asked for is one single solitary example where it was absolutely necessary to publicly disclose an anonymous editor's personal information in order to pursue the COI case. Note that WP:COI is only a guideline, while WP:BLOCK is policy, as is the Foundation privacy policy. Do you have such an example? Crum375 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If that's your standard I can't help matters. Anything in reality can be done more inefficiently without it being impossible. What you are suggesting would make COIN effectively non-functional due to to the massive inefficiency involved. The community has already made and continues to support the current procedure based on this understanding. This is again a view endorsed by the community and by the ArbCom and reflected in our daily practices. If you disagree I suggest you start blanking comments in COIN and start blocking people there and see what happens. Policy reflects what we do. And what we do is clearly not what you want us to do. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think people on COIN need to be clear that BLOCK trumps COI with respect to revealing anonymous editors' private information. They should learn to find ways to pursue their goals (which we all agree with) with increased sensitivity to people's privacy and greater reliance on email where needed. Perhaps this will be less efficient, but it's correct way of doing it. Crum375 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, apparently you are the only person who thinks this is "correct" and again the community has decided that this isn't helpful or necessary. Indeed, this isn't even reasonably feasible. I suggest you try to spend a little time looking at the COIN board and try to help out there. Then come back in a few weeks if you think this would work at all. We have a massive problem with COIs and we don't need to severely hobble our handling of it because of your personal interpretation of policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy says "A user may be blocked ... in response to ... disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)."

This is not my "personal interpretation," this is what our policy says. WP:COI is not policy, only a guideline (which someone had recently changed to "essay" and I reverted back to guideline because I do think COI is very important.) The point is, you can't enforce the law while breaking it. This is true for Miranda and true here. Crum375 (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum and yet no one else other than you seems to think that this prohibits all discussions of COI. Among other problems with that wording there is that nice little word "may" and there's the fact that the community simply doesn't do this. If you could convince us that the policy as written forced what you want, the community response would be to the change the policy not change our practices. Policies reflect practice not the other way around. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies are both prescriptive and descriptive. In this case, we have a core Foundation policy that tells us that users may edit anonymously, and a Wikipedia policy that says that those publicly revealing an anonymous editor's private information may be blocked. If there is absolutely no other way to pursue a COI allegation without publicly revealing the information, and email cannot be used instead, then there may be a problem, and we may need to modify the policies. But at this point, you have not presented a single example where such problem would exist. Saying that it's less efficient to follow the policies does not trump the policies. Crum375 (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Policies are prescriptive when they accurately describe what the community does, but you still haven't responded in the several times it has been pointed out that WP:Block says editors "may" be blocked for outing, not that discussion of identity is always inappropriate. You also haven't shown how email does anything other than defer the problem. The problem with your method is that it would require editors on a page all to somehow know about a COI and address it, but never to say what it is. Regardless, continuing to say there is no justification for ignoring policy, when no one agrees that your assessment of policy is correct, doesn't get us anywhere. Mackan79 (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You are missing some points. First, we need to pursue COI by using the anonymous handles, while supplying information without disclosing names. For example: "I suspect editor X works for IBM, and his edits are COI, see diffs. Email me if you need more information." Also, the policy does say "may be blocked" not "must be blocked" as it does for virtually any offense. Admins always have discretion for extenuating circumstances. But the basic policy remains that private information may not be disclosed, per above. Crum375 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but your argument still doesn't get the prohibition you're seeking. Where does policy say that discussing identity is always impermissible? You haven't shown this. You have shown a blocking policy that says editors may be blocked for discussing identity, and claimed that it means the former. But of course we all know that editors can be blocked for discussing identity, and nobody disputes this. In many cases such a block would be necessary, and thus it needs to be in the blocking policy. The question here is whether any discussion of COI, acknowledging the identity of an editor who may not explicitly have said it, violates basic policy. To say that the blocking policy is definitive on this is simply incorrect, and obviously so; this is not how a ban on any discussion of an editor's identity would look if we wanted to write one. It's also not where we would place such a prohibition. In this context, the fact that several editors have disagreed with you that there would be any consensus for that position should also be relevant. It seems you could stand to acknowledge some of this. Mackan79 (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The policy tells us that we may block an editor for publicly revealing an anonymous editor's personal information. There are no exceptions mentioned. It does not say that there is a special exclusion if the discussion involves COI. And COI is not even policy. So the situation is clear, and COI discussions, like all discussions, must conform to policy. Crum375 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there aren't exceptions, since all it says is that editors "may" be blocked. For that matter, I don't think anyone would support total immunity for anything relating to COI, or would think COI is the only circumstance where discussing an account's identity might be appropriate. It's hardly a reason to assume a prohibition that still doesn't exist, and wouldn't, since it simply ignores the balance that many editors have discussed as inherent in this guideline. Mackan79 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) An editor may be blocked for:

• persistently making personal attacks;
• making personal, professional or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site);
• performing actions that place users in danger;
• disclosing personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);
• persistently violating copyrights;
• persistently posting material contrary to the biographies of living persons policy;
• accounts that appear to have been compromised, as an emergency measure.

So by your laissez-faire logic, we might as well ignore all of these, and keep on making personal attacks, legal threats, endanger users, and persistently violate copyright and BLPs with impunity, because the operating word was may? Clearly "disclosing personal information" is in the exact same category as all of these offenses, and is prohibited and blockable just the same. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't always block for personal attacks for example. Furthermore, the words "personal information" are presumably relevant; the actual name of an editor with a conflict might be relevant, but for example more personal information such as addresses and phone numbers are clearly never acceptable. But as we've already tried to explain to you if your argument has any validity it is an argument for changing the blocking policy to reflect what we actually do. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem is you're trying to turn WP:Block into our general behavioral guideline, when that's not what it is, and that's not how it is written. In any case, saying an editor may be blocked for something doesn't mean the action is a violation of "basic policy" in every instance; I and others have discussed the difference above. We'd need a lot clearer evidence to say that what goes on at WP:COIN somehow violates basic policy. Mackan79 (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If people violate a policy they are blockable, especially if they justify their violation of a policy by saying it makes enforcing a guideline more effective. Crum375 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Crum, if you think this is blockable then start blocking people. Otherwise stop. This is getting tendentious. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we have probably exhausted the subject. We have a policy and a guideline that clearly say we may not out people, with no exception carved out. Some people do it anyway, and it is in violation of policy and guideline, and blockable. I don't think there is much more to add. Crum375 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:Consensus, Crum. Believing that you alone are right doesn't exactly cut it on a wiki. Mackan79 (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

<-- you're certainly very focused in your discussion, Crum! - and I say that with a smile, because I'm still not sure if we (any of us here) actually disagree on anything at all! - are you unhappy with the way the noticeboard is running? Do you wish to modify any policy or behaviour at all? - maybe we're all signing from the same hymn sheet after all! Privatemusings (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd still like to make the change here, since I don't think the previous version was accurate (or particularly focused). Possibly it isn't important, but I'd think we should want the guidelines to be accurate, and particularly not to say people have privileges when they don't. People who come to edit about their employer, for instance, shouldn't think they'll be entirely protected from discussion that they've done so, and probably Wikipedia shouldn't advertise a policy of disregarding that kind of thing. Mackan79 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed change to a guideline would contradict policy, so you'd need to change policy first. Specifically here, no one is saying that COI is acceptable. This is why we have the COI guideline. All we are saying is that we must pursue COI allegations without publicly revealing personal details of anonymous editors. Crum375 (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My edit removed a statement about basic policy which hasn't been supported here, and which the talk page shows lacks consensus. Even if the statement did have consensus, my change couldn't have contradicted anything since all I did was remove the statement. In terms of all we are saying, I think this is discussed above. My concern remains that it misstates policy as well as general practice. Mackan79 (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but it's wrong. Both guideline and policy are correct. Crum375 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In the nicest possible way, Crum - there is another explanation! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

betwixt black, white; the big grey mushy bit

following the above, I thought I'd point folks at this recent thread, which I reckon illustrates quite nicely the grey areas involved in pinning this stuff down. I reckon it might be very helpful to be very concise, and just say whether or not we think this sort of post is ok, or not. I'm not 100% certain, but I think it probably is. Privatemusings (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

context, and a suggestion....

to offer a bit of context - the specific wording of the section below doesn't really matter all that much to me - I'm not really sure that people read these things all that thoroughly, and generally just adopt a common sense / someone will tell me if I make a mistake approach. I mean this as a call for calm, because of course it doesn't mean we shouldn't try and have a clear a guideline as possible! Here's my idea;

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Editors and admins may act in conflict of interest situations as in any case of point of view pushing. You can also file a case at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia, which is prohibited, as it exacerbates the situation.

thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ps. on review I've taken out "(with very few exceptions)" from the final sentence.... that clause may be the total of our disagreement! - Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

pps. happy to drop the final clause (after the ,) too - which may be contentious / redundant.... Privatemusings (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be closer to practice, but still states that what is done at WP:COIN is prohibited. I'll suggest another version for comment, which would be:

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN. However, using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is strongly discouraged.

This makes a bit clearer that harassment is one of the main concerns, while staying within general practice. Mackan79 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

taking about 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other.. hows about;

Dealing with suspected conflicted editors

The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban.

keeps the prevention language strong, and offers useful ways forward? - Privatemusings (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brought up on block policy talk page.

Given the concerns above I've brought the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy. Presumably BLOCK should be clarified to unambiguously reflect consensus and practice. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

off topic...

but this edit summary did tickle me! - p'raps we need a category for 'johnny-come-lately guidelines' - tee hee! - Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Page protected

Since there was an active edit war, I have protected the page for 48 hours. I know that some of the participants are admins and don't have to honor the protection, but I am asking you to please abide by it. Please work things out here at talk, thanks. --Elonka 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current discussion boils down to consideration of these two sentences; "Remember, conflicted editors do not lose their privileges to edit Wikipedia pseudonymously. Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." - I'm not sure that either is particularly helpful, and think they might cause more harm than good. Per the above, we seem to have a particular issue with the second sentence not really reflecting current practice...... thoughts? Privatemusings (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very much against both policy and current practice. I don't know why you would think outing people was suddenly acceptable, because there's a strong consensus against it. All the editors who think it's okay to out people might want to start the ball rolling by outing themselves. :-) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Possibly we should say something about private discussion being required for long term editors, which I think is where harassment would be most significant. However, WP:COIN makes pretty clear that new editors who show a conflict can't exactly expect protection, whether we think they should have it or not. It's not that I disagree that this is a concern, but that even so, the statement isn't the right way to say this. Mackan79 (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we've hit the nail on the head of the disagreement here - a conflation between noticing that at the conflict of interest noticeboard people tend to mention names, and a position that 'outing' is ok. My feeling is that the noticeboard is kinda working ok - that the experienced editors there seem to be handling it all quite well, and posts like the one I mentioned above (this one) actually help grease the wheels of the wiki. Harassing people is wrong, and must be strongly sanctioned, especially if that harassment takes the form of aggressive 'outing' - but I also see it as a different thing to saying that the noticeboard has some mentions of names which actually kinda help.... hope this helps explain my perspective... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

or to put it really simply; does behaviour at the noticeboard need to change? Privatemusings (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is working fine. If someone appears to out someone gratuitously on COI, admins there can take action if they feel it's warranted. Perhaps we could add a note to the top of the page saying that naming people who have not named themselves should be avoided wherever possible.

Imagine if I were now to use everything I know about you to find out who you are. I then went through all your contribs from your different accounts, and I found something where you had been editing just a little close to the bone, and I used that as an excuse to out you on COIN. Would you support that? I'm assuming not, as you seemed very upset when your previous user names were posted without your permission.

This is a situation where we need to do as we would be done by. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think one requirement should be that any conflict is only raised as a current issue. I also agree with a "least intrusive means" approach. The problem is only with saying that this is always against policy, if people do often discuss this without complaint. Mackan79 (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

it's cool to see that you feel the current situation is working fine - I largely agree with you, so we've got some common ground. I'll happily talk about my editing history until the cows come home too, but here's probably not a good spot! - my talk page is always open...

I reckon that the conversation about changing this guideline relates to the sense that if the current system is working ok, then the guideline shouldn't appear to prohibit it! - You mightn't agree that such a tension exists, or needs to be dealt with explicitly, (or that the guideline or noticeboard say any such thing) but I'm pretty sure that's where most recent participants on this talk page are coming from..... and I reckon we're actually making progress through pretty difficult ground... Privatemusings (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PM, you didn't answer my question, and I'd really appreciate a reply. It was: Imagine if I were now to use everything I know about you to find out who you are. I then went through all your contribs from your different accounts, and I found something where you had been editing just a little close to the bone, and I used that as an excuse to out you on COIN. Would you support my right to out you in that way? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've raised the recent events for discussion on AN/I here, as I don't believe these recent reversions are how discussion on a policy page are supposed to take place. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember a case where the anti-creationist cabal here at wikipedia outed an anon for being the wife of the creationist whose article she was editing (Durova was also involved). I remember numerous anons being outed as being Jon Awbrey (a banned editor). We out all the time and always have. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing articles that were totally POV, violating NPOV. And ones which had no sources, and poor sources, violating V and NOR. I remember seeing editors using despicable language towards each other, violating CIV. In fact, all these egregious policy violations, and many more, are going on every day here. So should we throw away all our policies because they are being violated all the time? Crum375 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My examples are of policy being followed. Your examples are of policy not being followed. The point is that outing when it improves the encyclopedia is policy and always has been. You and Slim out all the time yourselves when you think some anon editor is the enemy. But the enemy of wikipedia is POV, not any specific persons. And COI is the mother of POV editing. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's put this in the open

There seem to be a variety of issues here which aren't be stated explicitly so lets put them out in the open. Some of this discussion is occurring due to the Wordbomb matter. Crum edit warred (and was blocked) on the RfAr page about material related to outing, claims related to which SV blocked Wordbomb for posting in the first place. Some editors may be attempting to phrase things in a way that justifies Crum's edit warring while others may be doing what they are doing so they will be in a position to claim that SV's block of Wordbomb was justified. Both of these goals miss the real point; first, no one can say that SV didn't act in a reasonable fashion given the situation. Even if the community attitudes have changed about precisely what outings are considered acceptable, SV's blocking of Wordbomb would likely be considered ok given that he had been told to stop and to email the claims. Furthermore, even if the block would not have occured under current understanding, that was then and this was now. To accuse someone of bad-faith in such circumstances is about as unreasonable as to complain if someone violated 3RR before 3RR was established or to block people who uploaded images with copyrights that were acceptable at the time but are no longer acceptable. Let's try to make this guideline and the block policy actually reflect what we do and what the community considers acceptable and not try not to use Wikipedia policies and guidelines as pawns in personal vendettas. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)