Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:48, 6 July 2014 editAlanscottwalker (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers74,748 edits →Self-disclosure at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest: re← Previous edit Revision as of 17:34, 6 July 2014 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Self-disclosure at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest: proposalNext edit →
Line 230: Line 230:
:::::::Yes, in the form of a ''denial'' that it is paid editing. How can it be disclosure when the user denies that he has anything to disclose? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC) :::::::Yes, in the form of a ''denial'' that it is paid editing. How can it be disclosure when the user denies that he has anything to disclose? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 16:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Anyone reviewing that can decide for themselves - they have the information the guideline seeks. ] (]) 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC) ::::::::Anyone reviewing that can decide for themselves - they have the information the guideline seeks. ] (]) 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

{{od}} we are approaching a rough consensus that TP's paid editing history is sufficiently disclosed in the discussion and that it is pointless to try to get {{u|TParis}} to actively comply. As for me I am not comfortable with the disclosure being both done by a second party and buried deep in a section about something else. I would like to implement my suggestion that we have a perma-section on WT:COI for disclosure of past or current paid editing. Here is a draft. Can everybody live with this? (specifically, the main disputants here: {{u|TParis}}, {{u|Smallbones}}, {{u|Coretheapple}}, and {{u|Figureofnine}}?) Again I am looking for a way to lay this to bed so everybody can move forward.

===Draft section for WT:COI: "Participants in this discussion who have been or are paid editors"===
(use "do not archive" tag here)

Here is a list of participants in discussion of the guideline, who have been or are paid editors. The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be '''definitive''' and not speculative, and ], ], and ] are enforced here as everywhere.

This list is '''not here''' to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation in ] that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages."

Again, '''this list is not here to promote ] or ], but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants.'''

Those who disagree with the obligation to disclose should open discussions about changing that elsewhere. If the guideline is changed, the invisible "do not archive" tag can be deleted.

Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure:

* {{u|CorporateM}}: disclosure is ]
* {{u|TParis}}: disclosure is and .



End of list. ] (]) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

===Thoughts on draft section?===

Revision as of 17:34, 6 July 2014

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice.
    • The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}.
    • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request:
    1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}.
    2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed.
    3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days.
    • Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Paint_and_Sip_Industry

    In the interest of full disclosure, I work for Painting with a Twist, who is also featured in this article. However, it appears that someone from one of our competitors, Pinot's Palette, is editing this page, as well as creating a Pinot's Palette article, for the purpose of promoting their business. I think references to industry awards (the Entrepreneur Magazine reference) as well as the promotional image including the Pinot's Palette logo have no place in this entry.

    Yelp, Inc.

    I started working on this article following COI best practices about one year ago. It is the only article where I have a COI, and which clearly has enough source material to qualify for "Good Article" status, but for which I have not been able to bring up to GA while also following WP:COI, which prohibits me from making bold edits. This is because there has been so little consensus even over mundane things. For example, I noticed a related disambiguation page attracted edit-warring between user:Keithbob and User:Candleabracadabra.

    Anyways, I abandoned the article for about three months, but I am trying to circle back to some of my COI works to bring more of them up to GA. Over the last three months, out of the editors that were involved in prior discussions on the Yelp page:

    • User:Candleabracadabra was blocked for alleged sock-puppeting not related to the Yelp page
    • user:North8000 has been banned by ArbCom for something un-related
    • user:Keithbob I would be a little uncomfortable with as the primary collaborator, since I have heavily edited pages where he/she allegedly has a COI and I was un-intentionally instrumental in him/her not gaining adminship
    • user:Wikidemon is less bold than the others, is a subject-matter expert and does appear to still be active

    So I thought I would poke at COIN and see if there was anyone interested in putting some renewed, fresh eyes on the page and collaborating in a Bright Line(ish) way to bring the page up to GA. On the other hand, if the community is uncomfortable with me trying to bring the page up to GA, where there are so many un-settled content debates, I can also abstain if requested to avoid any discomfort, controversy, drama, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 16:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

    Well I can look at the page, but I have something of a prejudice, which is that I'm a loyal user of Yelp myself. If that doesn't bother you. Coretheapple (talk) 17:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    In looking at this article, the only red flag I see is the "controversies" section, as controversies sections are not favored. However, it seems otherwise well-balanced and Yelp has had controversies. Why not add what you think is needed for the article on the talk page? Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, it's rated as Start class, but in actuality it is up to B-class standards and just needs a thorough vetting to bring it up to GA. I started a discussion on Talk here regarding the use of double infoboxes to get things started. The Controversy section has some issues as well, but it has been so long I do not remember what they were. I will need to spend some time researching and vetting to see what else is needed to get it GA-ready, but wanted to test the waters to see if my time would be well-spent doing so. CorporateM (Talk) 17:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    I'm expected to do a GA review myself as I was the beneficiary of one, but I'm not sure this is the ideal article for that. There is an immense queue as you know. Also if the article is not stable it will not pass GA for that reason alone. Coretheapple (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    The article is stable - it hasn't changed much in three months. However, I don't think it is all properly-sourced, complete or neutral. It usually takes about 3 months to get a review, but I'm just looking to get it ready for nomination. I could bring the page up to GA myself through bold editing, but on account of following WP:COI, I cannot get much done without a collaborator, so I'm basically just fishing in a very general way for anyone interested in working through improvements. CorporateM (Talk) 23:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Well why not just simply put the changes that you are suggesting on the talk page? Then anyone so inclined can come over and include them, or not as the case may be. Yelp gets a lot of attention and I don't see why this article can't be considerably expanded. Coretheapple (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, that is what I intend to do. I've started the discussion with a very small item about double infoboxes. CorporateM (Talk) 14:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

    Draft

    I've punched out a first-draft/work-in-progress that should be pretty close(ish) GAN-ready version and shared it at Talk:Yelp#Draft. I know it's difficult to compare two versions of an article, especially when the article is already large and has over 100 citations, so I would suggest I propose changes section-by-section, but open to whatever format an editor wants to collaborate in. CorporateM (Talk) 17:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    SAS81, Chopra Foundation, question


    Hello everyone, SAS81 again. I'm here to inquire the best way to approach this. Also, hoping I got the formatting for this COIN correct. I have a lot of content on the Chopra Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by Deepak Chopra and an organization that comes up in nearly every article on Dr Chopra. It seems like the foundation is more than significant and established enough to warrant its own article. I have all the research, sources, and content needed to make a respectable starter article here in my sandbox.

    What I'm not sure I have is the ethical ability to do so. If I wear my Misplaced Pages editor hat, I think it should go up. However wearing my ISHAR hat and our financial relationship since Chopra Foundation has funded us to a degree makes me question this. Therefore I am reaching out for advice and help. I do think this article belongs on Misplaced Pages, but since I'm not going to post it someone else would need to. I'd appreciate any Good Samaritan who wanted to take a look at what I put together in my sandbox, then see if they approved and wanted to post it themselves, obviously with whatever modifications, additions, or subtractions they felt necessary. My understanding of COI rules allows unenforced suggestions of content, if anyone has any evidence showing otherwise please alert me. I'm not intending to violate any COI policy.

    Like I said, I feel like it's a good article, as good as many on Misplaced Pages, but I don't feel comfortable posting it myself. If anyone else does feel comfortable, I hope you'll take a look at what's put together here and judge for yourself whether it belongs on Misplaced Pages. SAS81 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

    Your draft is built on self-published primary sources, and reads like a promotional piece. Unless the topic meets WP:GNG it is not suitable for a WP article (and even it it were, your COI would make you unsuitable as an editor). On a technical note, I don't believe you should be applying categories to drafts in your user space. Alexbrn 10:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    Articles need to built based on credible, independent sources and should use sparingly, if at all, any citations to the org's website. In order to qualify for an article, there must be at least two, in-depth profile stories in credible, independent sources. Contributing with a COI is not forbidden, but it is discouraged, because in almost all cases the editor ends up with a distorted view of what is neutral and notable. CorporateM (Talk) 15:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

    Northwestern Michigan College

    Editor Stevekellman is deleting contributions that I make as an editor to the wiki page for Northwestern Michigan College. He has an employee relationship with the institution that he had not disclosed. I protest that the deletion of my contributions were excessive. My information cited a verifiable source but did not include a link. I'd like to satisfy the need for a link, but have not learned the way to do this yet.

    NMCheadacheNMCheadache (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

    David Chesky

    Oneafw4 appears to be exclusively interested in Chesky Records and its artists (though Kelly Padrick seems to be an exception). Many edits are to add links to Chesky titles listed on HDtracks.com, which - surprise, surprise - is owned by David Chesky. This goes well beyond what might be expected of a keen enthusiast or fan. I'll list this at Misplaced Pages:RSPAM also for obvious reasons. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

    BAYADA Home Health Care

    While looking around on the internet, I came across a specific freelance job website and saw someone wanting to pay money to create an article about a "national home care company HQ in New Jersey" (I have links I can add to this message but am holding off). The posting was on June 20, 2013 (a couple months before the article was officially created). The offering also hinted there was an Articles for Creation page (which has since been deleted because of the age). The job offer also stated that they would give access to a resource list. Also on the offering page, they wanted an editor with a "strong writing background" and experience "submitting successful Misplaced Pages articles". --Bsadowski1 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks for pointing this out. User:Beetstra actually brought this up a few months ago when initiating a notability discussion Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/BAYADA_Home_Health_Care. I created BAYADA's entry after seeing a call for help on the AfC page. If I remember correctly, the original RFC had been rejected for notability reasons. After a few searches, and reading their web site, I felt there were enough reliable sources to substantiate notability. With the original sources I found, plus even more I dug up during the notability defense, the discussion was closed with the decision to keep. I'm proud to have a good eye for content that adds value to Misplaced Pages, but had I seen the ad I probably wouldn't have done the article - nobody wants to be flagged as a hired gun. If you feel the article is in any way advertorial or one-sided, you are welcome to initiate another discussion.Timtempleton (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

    Gold Peak

    User:Capasserby obviously registered from a fixed IP in Hong Kong (where the firm's HQ is located) only to tune the Gold Peak article. He successively deleted most of the content under the heading “Controversy”. He did so in several small bits in order to systematically avoid detection through automated tools. Obviously he accidentally reveals the exactly same IP several times over the course of several months, thereby proving it to be a static IP. A whois query reveals it to be from a Hong Kong IP network provided by CITIC Telecom International CPC Limited.

    Related problems with his edits were noticed earlier.

    I put a note on his talk page that he didn't react to. He keeps putting brand names and unsourced information in the article - the only one he ever touched. Kulandru mor (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

    Capasserby hasn't edited since the 30thApr (2 edits) and didn't login for 12 months before that. I wouldn't read anything into his non-responsiveness to your message. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    The Law of One (The Ra Material)

    Editor is edit warring and continues to propose a specific link to the parent company of the material rather than direct links to the material that are freely provided within copyright.

    Diffs:

    • diff=615493456&oldid=615475868 Comment: "Undid revision 615475868 by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk) no, it conforms to WP:ADV; visitors should have a choice to see the donation & copyright notice"

    Additional diff: &diff=615547319&oldid=615547210 Comment: "Undid revision 615540723 by Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) the one edit warring here is you, "immediate benefit" is quite vague, and can not conflict llresearch's benefits" --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 09:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

    I'm sorry immanuel, but what are you doing here? I guess you will get a training from experienced users here -if they would like to participate in the discussion of course-; good luck anyways. 88.233.224.192 (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
    Additional discussion involving this user's potential conflict of interest: Talk:The_Law_of_One_(The_Ra_Material)#Edit_warring_over_The_Law_of_One_external_links_section --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

    Advisorshares and fund.com

    I strongly believe that employees of Advisorshares, fund.com and/or Arrow Invesment Advisors are editing the “Advisorsshares” and "Fund.com" Misplaced Pages pages. First of all, Advisorshares and Arrow Invesment Advisors are both based in Maryland and there have been an unusual amount of ip edits in the history sections that come from near both firms headquarters in Maryland according to Wikipeida’s suggested geotag sites. In fact one edit on the Fund.com page from March 20, 2014 the ip address 71.178.252.123 traced back to ARROW INVESTMENT ADVISORS using the WHOIS tool. Other IP address from around the firms’ headquarters in Bethesda Maryland, include: 50.242.249.233, 70.192.219.184, 96.231.135.99, 75.103.6.172, 96.231.154.15, 72.83.136.15

    An account with the username “AdvisorShares” made an edit before it was banned on Feb. 14, 2014. There’s a large possibility that this was a paid employee of Advisorshares trying to put an ‘official’ entry, which is just firm marketing material. This account was quickly blocked by IronGargoyle.

    These two usernames seem to be sock puppets of the same user (probably an Advisorshares or fund.com employee): UserNameUnderContruction which edited the “Advisorshares” page and “ETFinvestor” which edited the Fund.com page. They deleted basically the same sentence on May 26 and May 27 respectively. On the Advisorshares history it took away 331 bytes in the history and on the fund.com page it took away 337 bytes. Other possible sock puppets of this same user include, Babylon1894 and Jigsaw574.

    UserNameUnderConstruction has been warned twice on their talk page that if they are a paid employee of a company whose page they are editing, they need to declare it. Both times they avoid answering if they are a paid employee or representative and claim that other users can’t make such assumptions. UserNameUnderConstruction has twice accused use "Sargdub" of being a sockpupppet of ETFCanadian on the talk pages of Advisorshares and fund.com, even though Sargdub has been a user since 2010 and is from New ZealandTempaccount45 (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    Self-disclosure at Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest

    We are currently engaged in very sensitive discussions at Misplaced Pages Talk:COI concerning the amendments to the Terms of Use and whether the current guideline should be superseded by the TOU, or strengthened, or done away with entirely. One of the primary participants in this discussion is User:TParis. Several users have expressed discomfort with TParis' participation because he has declined to make the disclosure that is required in the guideline: "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages."

    The reason for discomfort is this: In November 2013 TParis said that he had engaged in a "form of paid editing," specifically that Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it."

    This issue has been raised on several occasions on the COI talk page and at TParis' user talk page, but that has produced only heat, recriminations and acrimony. TParis adamantly refuses to make a disclosure, and despite veiled references to his paid editing activities from time to time, it does not appear to be widely known. The failure to disclose has arisen because TParis is a leading voice against strengthening of the COI rules, and has edit warred to prevent the guideline from even mentioning the TOU.

    The question is whether TParis should make a disclosure on the COI talk page, in the discussions of COI policy/guideline changes, of the fact that he was paid to write an article, which was published in Misplaced Pages, whether or not he actually used his own account for that purpose. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

    This link above points to a long section on Jimbo's page. Within that section, TP disclosed the work in question first in this dif and in response to request for clarification from Smallbones, TP added further clarification in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks, that helps. If you can fix the article link at the top that would be helpful too. I haven't been able to repair it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    Figureofnine, I recommend that you strike the description of TP's views on what the COI guideline are; it is not relevant to the discussion, is inflammatory and more practically, will lead the discussion off the topic. The question is whether TP "has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages" and thus has an obligation to disclose this in the discussion of the COI guideline. TP was paid to write an article. He has been a paid editor. The fact that he had a third party post the article, instead of posting it himself, simply he means that he followed the COI guideline by not directly editing an article where he has a conflict. Using compliance with the COI guideline as an excuse to say that there was no COI or paid editing, is, to be frank, twisted logic. I am not saying that the logic is intentionally twisted with the intention to deceive anyone, just that it is twisted logic. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)(copyedited as per markup Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC))
    You're right - no point. I deleted it. struck it out, per your talk page suggestion. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    • This is simple. As Figureofnine, Coretheapple, and Smallbones have aptly harassed me on this issue ( ) the result is that there is no practical result of me disclosing at this point. All participants have been suitably notified. So what then purpose does disclosure serve? Simply as a means of power by these three. As Philippe from Wikimedia said the COI guideline is not meant to punish good faith editors. If there are any questions about my good faith participation in this project, the culmination of 25,000 edits, the UTRS system, TPBot, and whatever the hell else I do around here - then please raise them. Otherwise, fuck off. This isn't a matter of elitism, it's a matter of you having 25,000 edits to judge my participation in this project and you hounding me about edits I've never made. I'm not playing your power games. The timing of this report coincides with the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Conflict of interest turning toward an Misplaced Pages-wide RFC on the subject which I have been advocating for. It's retaliatory against me for highlighting the attempts to modify a guideline w/o consensus.--v/r - TP 21:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    TP, I don't like the harassment either, which is why I urged Figureofnine to bring this here instead of continuing to say negative things about you on various Talk pages across the project. I agree 100% that disclosure should not be used as a way to punish anyone and I agree with you 100%, that you have the right to participate in the discussion of the guideline; however for paid editors, that right comes with one simple responsibility - you are obligated to disclose that you have been a paid editor somewhere in the discussion. This COI thread is about you, not them. (You might have grounds for action under WP:HARASS but that would be a separate discussion on a different board; and as you know that would go better for you if your own nose were clean) I actually had no idea that you had done paid editing in the past. So please comply with the guideline. (btw, if you comply, then you take away the only legitimate stick they have been beating you with) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    and btw, I think you meant "amply" and definitely not "aptly"! :) Jytdog (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
    Threads on any boards are not limited to the scope of the OP. See WP:ANI Advice. Complying wouldn't take away any stick at all, it would only empower them further. If the sentence in the guideline, which was passed under the radar by only 10 people w/o community input - once again, had a practical purpose I might comply. For instance, if it said that I had to post on the talk page once, and then only post a reminder each time the existing notification were archived. However, with the number of threads those three open on that talk page, compliance would mean I'd have to repeat myself every 10 lines of text. That's asinine and pointless.--v/r - TP 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    you seem to be not complying to make a WP:POINT. Again I recognize you are angry and frustrated; I have been hounded as you have and acknowledge that it sucks. I did say legitimates stick; if you continue to be hounded after you comply then they become open game for WP:HOUND. In any case, you should still do the right thing. I don't want to beat a horse, so I will stop here and wait to see what others have to say.... best wishes to you, TP. (btw I think your suggestion for how to comply is entirely reasonable; you could also just incorporate a link in your signature, like Alexbrn does, which I find elegant and simple) Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    • TParis has disclosed that he has (once or thereabouts) engaged in paid contributions (not direct article editing). There's no point in asking him to keep repeating it on various pages. SlimVirgin 00:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    So your position is that
    TP acknowledged it elsewhere and you raised it on WT:COI. That's surely enough. SlimVirgin 01:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    respectfully, SlimVirgin, COI says "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages." (emphasis added). I think the trio TP cites went too far and in the wrong way, but the "in the discussion" thing is clear. I had no idea of the disclosure on Jimbo's page (now buried deep in archives) nor what Figureofnine and others were complaining about on WT:COI, which was general indirect about "someone". Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    One of the concerns people have always had with the COI guideline is that it would be used as a bully's charter. That was one of the reasons we could never get it strengthened or bits of it promoted to policy.

    Recent developments are serving to show that those were valid concerns – that people are now expected to say who they work for (including when they're self-employed, which means outing themselves), or have to keep repeating that they were once paid to write an article that someone else posted, even if it was years ago. SlimVirgin 01:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

    But if that is the case, if that is your position, isn't the proper solution to change the guideline rather than just pretend that part of it doesn't exist? I just don't understand the logic of your position. I wasn't privy to the enactment of this particular provision of the COI guideline, but it is clear as a bell as is TParis' attitude toward it, which he states eloquently here as "fuck off." Also I would caution editors to exercise care before swallowing uncritically the "harassment" claim that TParis is making. The diffs he provides are quite clear in being anything but (and none involve me). Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Figureofnine you and Core and Smallbones are part of the problem too. It is good that you brought this COIN but it would have been better had one of you done it much earlier. People get angry when they are hounded. TP is acting smallishly instead of rising above being pissed off but please don't take a stance that the way he has been treated is OK. And please acknowledge that you had a role in this - it was your continuation of it that prompted me to ask you what you were talking about, right? Going to drama boards is meant to be a wake up for everybody. Step back from your dug in positions and change, so we can all move on. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Actually my main problem with TParis, what has bothered me about him, is not this COI issue but his temperament. That I raised with him directly and at length at his administrator review. I didn't even raise the issue of his COI disclosure as I felt it would be fruitless, and also because it was in fact raised at his talk page and the editor who did so was treated roughly and his concerns were treated inadequately and, to be frank, in my opinion not very honestly. I do agree that it should have been brought to this board earlier, and I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't. Perhaps they expected to be told that they could just "fuck off," and that the COI rules don't apply to everybody. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    I don't recall that provision being discussed (much or at all). I think if it's going to be used against good-faith, long-term editors such as TParis, we ought to think about removing it. My understanding is that it helps to prevent people who are only (or mostly) paid editors from swaying policies about paid editing. But we surely don't want long-term contributors being forced to reveal that they were once paid to write something, as though that somehow undermines their views. SlimVirgin 02:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    SlimVirgin To remind you, this obligation became part of the guideline in this dif which was discussed on Talk here - the proposal was somewhat formally "closed". SV you actually !voted for it. I am not trying to pin you to the wall - people's thinking changes constantly. But the obligation to disclose in the discussion is pretty simple and pretty commonsensical. Would you please respond to the "in the discussion" thing? Also, please know that i am very sensitive to the hounding issue, which is why I urged Figureofnine to bring this COIN - to use the process suggested in the guideline instead of hounding. so let's try to make the process actually work. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    As I said, I agree with the provision being used to stop people who are exclusively or to a large extent paid editors from having undue influence over the policies about paid editing. Someone who is here only or mostly to make money is obviously not going to support COI policies. But it ought not to be used to undermine Wikipedians who may have been paid for something once or twice, years ago. Common sense has to kick in. And given that it has now been posted on the talk page that this applies to TParis I can't see what more is needed. SlimVirgin 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Actually what you're referring to doesn't specifically mention him. But let's say it did. Then that page is archived. There is a new discussion. The guideline requires that the editor self-disclose in that discussion. What then? We're back where we're started. That rule says in black and white that something should happen, and it isn't happening. The fact that an administrator is involved makes it an even more high-visibility issue.
    I think that we're stuck between something of a rock and a hard place here, and kicking the can down the road, saying "it's enough," or "let's not be literal," or "he's a good-faith editor and a sweet man so leave him alone" is not going to resolve this matter. We need to either change the rule or it is going to be an ongoing irritant and source of concern and frustration. I was not involved in the drafting of this rule, but its language is broad and sweeping, and I am certain that editors are in good faith going to be raising this issue in the future if there is no compliance. The fact that an administrator is involved only makes the frustration level higher and raises fairness issues. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    My larger concern here is that we all abide by the guideline we have. Core, Figure and Smallbones have blown off the guidance to bring questions to the user's talk page and if they don't get satisfaction, go to COIN. TP has blown off the guidance to disclose past paid editing in the discussion of the guideline And so we end up with a bunch of angry and frustrated people. It doesn't have to be this hard. Bringing this to COIN was the right first step. Now TP should bend and make the disclosure. And Core, figure, and smallbones should lay off. And then we can leave this distraction behind. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    SlimVirgin, if some users are more equal than others there is very little point in having a COI rule in the first place. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 02:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think the rule itself is overkill, and insisting on a literal implementation of it is overkill piled on overkill. When I first started editing here, I removed primary research references regarding in vitro experiments from the Ciprofloxacin article, and was immediately set upon by people demanding to know if I had a COI. I later added a statement to another article showing that a "whistleblower" had been proven wrong, was reverted, and again accused of COI. In a discussion regarding acetominophen and asthma, in which Doc James and I agreed that the overwhelming body of meta analyses suggested no relationship and single editor wanted to quote extensively from a single study suggesting there was a connection, I was dragged into COIN. If Satan can point to a reliable source stating that the atomic weight of carbon is 12, that's good enough for me. And if Mother Theresea quotes a blog stating that the sun rotates around the earth, she's still wrong. I really think we're all better off focusing on the facts and having a reasoned debate, and leaving the witch hunts back in Salem. Apology for pointlessly provocative languageFormerly 98 (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Then perhaps we shouldn't have a COI rule at all. Right now we're discussing a TOU rule that is imperfect but is policy. One alternative that might be presented to the community is to abolish that policy in favor of no rule at all. I think personally that it is better to have no rule than to have one that is not enforced, or enforced unfairly or unequally. If this rule is not enforced against a "good-faith editor," how can it fairly be enforced against a full-time paid editor? By all rights, they should be able to participate in COI policy discussions on an equal, non-disclosing basis. They claim quite emphatically that they are good-faith editors too. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

    too many agendas here that have nothing to do with this topic. I will sit back and wait for other voices to chime in and suggest that you all do the same. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

    I drafted it, although what is now there was modified. My two thoughts 1) sure TParis can just say in that discussion a reference to that past; 2) the point is to just have it out there for things unknown to others, as CorporateM more eloquently said (in the adoption discussion), so if someone else whose interested in it already knows, feel free to link to TParis cmts on his 'form of paid editing' in that discussion (once) and then it's done and done, as far as the guideline being fulfilled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for weighing in, Alanscottwalker. I am uncomfortable posting a disclosure on behalf of someone else, which is why I have been urging TP himself to comply. If you are comfortable with that doing that, please proceed. Then the spirit of the requirement would be met. If you do so, it will be interesting to see if TP will allow it to stand; I hope so. I also wonder if it would make sense to have a persistent section called something like "Editors who have been paid editors who are participating in this discussion" on WT:COI where such postings could be made and would not be archived.... Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    FYI: Ping does not work, if you add it after you sign. As I understand it the links have already been placed on the page, during the discussion and TParis has been identified in relation to those links. As for a section, someone like CorporateM seems to get on well with the light weight approach, of just saying it (it's as simple as saying 'I've been paid' or some such, once). Another editor showed up and did similarly. There should be little dispute that the past three weeks has been one continuous discussion. It would be different if the issues were separated by months, or there was a long break, or something like that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, so you now are saying that it is already sufficiently disclosed at WT:COI, in particular by Figureofnine's link to it in the midst of this section? Thanks. (and thanks for the note about ping) Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    (ec)Belated, not done as easily as it could have been, not optimal, but done. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    (ec)How can this be considered a disclosure of any kind when his user name isn't mentioned? One has to go from link to link to find out what we're talking about.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    I thought the users name is in the next comment right after those links were posted.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, in the form of a denial that it is paid editing. How can it be disclosure when the user denies that he has anything to disclose? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
    Anyone reviewing that can decide for themselves - they have the information the guideline seeks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

    we are approaching a rough consensus that TP's paid editing history is sufficiently disclosed in the discussion and that it is pointless to try to get TParis to actively comply. As for me I am not comfortable with the disclosure being both done by a second party and buried deep in a section about something else. I would like to implement my suggestion that we have a perma-section on WT:COI for disclosure of past or current paid editing. Here is a draft. Can everybody live with this? (specifically, the main disputants here: TParis, Smallbones, Coretheapple, and Figureofnine?) Again I am looking for a way to lay this to bed so everybody can move forward.

    Draft section for WT:COI: "Participants in this discussion who have been or are paid editors"

    (use "do not archive" tag here)

    Here is a list of participants in discussion of the guideline, who have been or are paid editors. The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page. New contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be definitive and not speculative, and WP:OUTING, ], and WP:HARASS are enforced here as everywhere.

    This list is not here to promote personal attacks or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants, but rather to satisfy the obligation in WP:COI that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Misplaced Pages."

    Again, this list is not here to promote personal attacks or harassment, but simply to provide the necessary disclosure to other participants.

    Those who disagree with the obligation to disclose should open discussions about changing that elsewhere. If the guideline is changed, the invisible "do not archive" tag can be deleted.

    Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure:


    End of list. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

    Thoughts on draft section?

    Categories: