Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 5

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

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)


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." [1]

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)

  • 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)
  • 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[2]. 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. DurovaCharge! 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. DurovaCharge! 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):
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:
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)