Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 (talk | contribs) |
Undid revision 656995232 by Formerly 98 (talk) removing post on personal user page and editwarring, not using Talk page |
||
Line 342: | Line 342: | ||
::::::just want to point out that the addition I made was removed from the guideline (not a big surprise) and is getting pummelled at Talk: [[Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#new_section]], You can see that even ''mild'' attempts to address this "duck" thing are very controversial. There is no way in hell the COIDucks essay was going to fly in the wider community. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
::::::just want to point out that the addition I made was removed from the guideline (not a big surprise) and is getting pummelled at Talk: [[Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#new_section]], You can see that even ''mild'' attempts to address this "duck" thing are very controversial. There is no way in hell the COIDucks essay was going to fly in the wider community. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
::::::: No way in hell ? Strong words of derision. And what exemplary [[WP:SYNTH]] ! What does the reversion of your completely empiric list, no not an essay, but a "mild attempt to address COI in the COI guideline", have to do with {{u|atsme}}'s ''deleted'' and not just 'mildly' reverted essay? Nothing. It could not possibly predict what coulda woulda happened. I find, you are not using this space to discuss. you are using it to be polemic and to promote yourself/ your brand of COI. I find your hyperactive posts (that are immediately corrected and corrected again and again) confuse casual readers. I find they inhibit that the "wider community", as you call it, might even get involved. Under this premise I find your oft invoked "community consensus" sounds like a hollow phrase. Cheering at people who agree with you, as you did on the COI talk page last, and biting Atsme and others who signed up for the essay project, is cheap, if not immature. You are not acting neutral, not detached and not civil. Looks to me like they hit your nerve. --[[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]] ([[User talk:Wuerzele|talk]]) 05:10, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I made a comment on the COI page that is relevant here: I think it will be near impossible to prove COI with the added section. But if for some reason it is accepted, the line "Copying content about that subject into several articles, often with undue weight" could be used as an attempt to justify removal by a advocate/COI to remove referenced information from multiple sites that deals with a common problem they all have. I dont think its provable as a COI indicator, and if others think it is I would change it to "Copying content or removing similar content about a subject on several articles, often with undue weight or misuse of policy and guidelines to justify the actions. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 93%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
I made a comment on the COI page that is relevant here: I think it will be near impossible to prove COI with the added section. But if for some reason it is accepted, the line "Copying content about that subject into several articles, often with undue weight" could be used as an attempt to justify removal by a advocate/COI to remove referenced information from multiple sites that deals with a common problem they all have. I dont think its provable as a COI indicator, and if others think it is I would change it to "Copying content or removing similar content about a subject on several articles, often with undue weight or misuse of policy and guidelines to justify the actions. [[User:AlbinoFerret|<span style="color:white; background-color:#534545; font-weight: bold; font-size: 93%;">AlbinoFerret</span>]] 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
||
:: the signs are not meant to "prove" anything - the text <u>explicitly</u> says that the only proof of COI is a declaration by the editor. albinoferret, dealing with COI means you have to think carefully about OUTING and AGF; if you think someone might have a COI, and you approach them, it needs to be done in a way that not only doesn't violate OUTING and AGF, but actually ''respects'' them. Respects them. Please think about that. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
:: the signs are not meant to "prove" anything - the text <u>explicitly</u> says that the only proof of COI is a declaration by the editor. albinoferret, dealing with COI means you have to think carefully about OUTING and AGF; if you think someone might have a COI, and you approach them, it needs to be done in a way that not only doesn't violate OUTING and AGF, but actually ''respects'' them. Respects them. Please think about that. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 22:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:14, 18 April 2015
essay versions
two existing versions in Atsme's user space now
- this one
- the one that was last deleted, which is here: User:Atsme/sandbox Advocacy and COI ducks
as of now, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- And now there's three: User:Atsme/sandbox_Adovacy_ducks Ca2james (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if you find this confusing. The deleted essays are just that - deleted - gone in a haze
. The only live essay now is User:Atsme/sandbox_Adovacy_ducks. Please resume all discussions on the TP of that essay. Thank you. Atsme☯Consult 04:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry if you find this confusing. The deleted essays are just that - deleted - gone in a haze
Thanks
Thanks Atsme, for starting this :) Some ideas I have for this essay actually came out of the recent ANI discussions regarding COI. [1], [2] Specifically things that suggest COIDuck such as violations of multiple policies and guidelines such as WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE, while editing with a pro-industry POV.
Additionally, things that do not suggest COIDuckery such as an editor simply having substantial scientific knowledge; an editor adding reliably sourced information that is favorable toward a corporation, pesticide, or drug company or an editor removing poorly sourced content that is critical of such. Additionally, appearing to have a pro-industry POV, while not engaging in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:CHERRYPICK, WP:SYTNTH, WP:BULLY, WP:TAGTEAM, WP:BITE etc is not COIDuckery, COIDucks are disruptive and attempt to run editors with different POV off articles they attempt to WP:OWN. [3]. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
potential remedies
Hi Atsme, You mentioned lack of any potential remedy on SV’s talk page. It seems to me that one potential remedy would be to encourage those concerned about COIducdery to add ANI to their watchlist, and when they see editors are calling for a block or topic ban, read the difs provided and the relevant talk pages/article histories to see if they really seem to support such action. Chime in if they do not because tagteams of ducks/advociates will sometimes use that method to maintain ownership of articles.
Other remedies might include things such as if you notice a brand new editor being bitten by a duck, reach out to them to welcome them on their talk page. Direct them to the Teahouse and dispute resolution etc. Advise them that no matter how unreasonable the duck or duckteam seems to get, do not become uncivil with them, as this will be used against you.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I like this very much. petrarchan47tc 22:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- BoboMeowCat yes, agree with Petrarchan47 i like this too, the latter is what i do.
- but as for the first remedy adding ANI to one's watchlist and watching is not practical for most, so many changes to sift. I've unlisted many times, because it leaves me no time to write and to watch and water the articles Ive written/helped grow.--Wuerzele (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, BoboMeowCat. I actually have welcomed a few new editors and offered my help. How does one go about signing up for the "welcoming committee" if there is such a thing? I also was hoping Doc_James would provide input about the essay. The more eyes we can get on it, the better. Petrarchan47, thank you for all you do. I truly appreciate our communications and hope our efforts will be productive in making WP a much better experience for all. Don't hesitate to modify, shorten, tweak, add, or whatever else you think will improve the article. Happy editing!
Atsme☯Consult 14:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am beyond grateful that you exist, and that you, along with your obvious abundance of brain cells, have tons of free time - cuz we need you here. I'm so glad you have connected with folks who know how WP works, and I am so excited to see where all of this leads. Don't be afraid to speak your truth, but at the same time, this is a chess game. I suck at chess, and am sinking back into my peaceful state of retirement (I hope...). Do feel free to email me whenever you think I can be of any help. petrarchan47tc 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words, Petra. You can count on getting emails from me.
Atsme☯Consult 06:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the kind words, Petra. You can count on getting emails from me.
- @Atsme:I agree with nearly everything BoboMeowCat said. I think more remedies are needed: It's not enough to know or suspect that you or others are the victim of COIDuckery (based on the symptoms listed in the essay), you also have to be empowered to address it with concrete remedies. I do like the WP:3O suggestion that is in the current draft. I would be more cautious with advocating WP:DR if that means AN/I, especially for new users, because of the danger of Boomerang for a new user who brings an action with too little evidence of foul play and totally botches the complaint out of ignorance of Wiki-law and lack of a good Wiki-lawyer for advice. Experienced COIDucks may have top notch Wiki-lawyer experience (and no protection from anti-SLAPP laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation) on Wikipedia) and victims could use a good Wiki-lawyer to help them draft a proper complaint and/or defense. Consider WifiOne's Wiki-lawyer experience. Also, I personally think ANI and should be reserved for when things have really gotten out of control, and ideally a neutral 3rd party has had a chance to try to mediate first. I personally think punishments are too easily obtained for GF behavior, which is what allows the COIDucks to rule. I might also recommend users who feel a victim of COIDuckery to read the WikiOne case (from Jimbo's page starting here) as an example of a COIDuck who was caught and to assemble evidence (diffs) similar to what was presented by Vejvančický in that case when direct evidence of paid editing may be impossible to obtain due to user anonymity. David Tornheim (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am beyond grateful that you exist, and that you, along with your obvious abundance of brain cells, have tons of free time - cuz we need you here. I'm so glad you have connected with folks who know how WP works, and I am so excited to see where all of this leads. Don't be afraid to speak your truth, but at the same time, this is a chess game. I suck at chess, and am sinking back into my peaceful state of retirement (I hope...). Do feel free to email me whenever you think I can be of any help. petrarchan47tc 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, BoboMeowCat. I actually have welcomed a few new editors and offered my help. How does one go about signing up for the "welcoming committee" if there is such a thing? I also was hoping Doc_James would provide input about the essay. The more eyes we can get on it, the better. Petrarchan47, thank you for all you do. I truly appreciate our communications and hope our efforts will be productive in making WP a much better experience for all. Don't hesitate to modify, shorten, tweak, add, or whatever else you think will improve the article. Happy editing!
The quote box which begins "The most egregious COI editing..." could be problematic. COI is narrowly defined and requires hard proof of current employment, from what I understand. COIDuckery is a new, more expansive and common-sense approach to the problem of spin-doctoring, and includes those pro-industry POV editors whose impetus is some personal passion or well-hidden agenda. The second way I see COIDuckery as distinct from COI is that it is viewed from the article level - as was raised in a recent COI-related ANI - "what about the quality of the edits?" The recent discussions about COI and MEDRS, and the impetus for this essay, stemmed from this ANI and this most important question. Article content is the only thing that matters to readers. Looking at edits, patterns of behaviour, and atmosphere amongst the editors can alone prove COIDuckery. COI requires a frigging miracle to prove. Would you consider swapping these terms? petrarchan47tc 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- And I say in response to you, Petrarchan47, jump in the duck blind, fire up your keyboard, and pull the delete key wherever you think it needs pulling. Loosen up those fingers, and type away. And while you're there, enjoy the pictures!!! Atsme☯Consult 01:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
comments
- gets lost a bit in its own metaphors. it is really unclear what kind of practical advice you are giving when you write: "It may be time to sit quietly in the duck blind and practice your best duck call." First, the hunting metaphor is really infelicitous, and I don't know what you are advising editors to do, with "practice your best call".
- what is the basis for your claim that "Some of the most egregious COI editing appears to arise most often from articles associated with the biotech, pharmaceutical and medical industries, corporate articles, government agencies and universities which may support, be supported by, or have a COI with a particular advocacy, including BLPs ranging anywhere from politicians to medical practitioners to fringe authors.?" As SlimVigin wrote, the high standards WikiProject Medicine maintains for sourcing, keeps a lot of COI editing at bay. In my experience, we get the most COI editing with a) BLP articles; b) articles about companies and products, especially in the software space (which makes sense, with WP being an internet reference) and where sources are less anchored in scientific/academic literature but are more in the popular media. I also keep coming across clear COI editing about universities, which has surprised me. (there is an an essay on it, even)
- the tying-in of MEDRS with the concept of "COI quackery" is unfortunate and a distraction. I would suggest taking that stuff out. Which seemed to be what SV was urging as well, in the comment to which I linked above Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- so you put the content in my 2nd bullet in a quote box. it discredits the essay more loudly. folks who know about COI editing, know that is just wrong. As you will, of course. Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- We are certainly on the same page here... But as I say below, I'm pretty critical of the whole thing... Gandydancer (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Copy edit
@BoboMeowCat:, @Petrarchan47:, @Doc James:, @Gandydancer:, and whoever else wants to chime in. I revamped the essay, will be changing name to COI ducks. Would like to get some input. Atsme☯Consult 23:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any evidence for this "Some of the most egregious COI editing appears to arise at articles associated with big pharma"? From my experience it is not try. Do not think the essay is useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
If looked at with a truly neutral eye, from the viewpoint of one who loves an encyclopedia (whilst removing the medi/pharma industry hat for a moment), the topic of this essay - COIDuck editing - is evidenced below. One of the most prolific editors in the pharma articles, who has taken it upon himself to revamp the website as it pertains to his field, visited my talk page. Here is the conversation: petrarchan47tc 21:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Petra: I thoroughly skimmed your edits to the Antidepressant article, though this is just one example of an article that your work has "spun". I would say that approx. 85% of your contributions are tendentious. Roughly 15% were neutral or edits I would support.
- You whitewash by using overly-technical language * *,
- overuse non-neutral, non-independent government sources such as the FDA and NICE *
- to whitewash information about serious side-effects * *.
- You use packet inserts * from drug companies as a reference.
- You remove large sections of negative information citing RS problems *, and leave the reader with muddled text supposedly saying the same thing, but actually devoid of readable content, except to a scientist *.
- You removed negative info about Abilify, and the link to List of largest pharmaceutical settlements with the edit summary "Aripiprazole - not an antidepressant" *.
- You seem to be removing links to people who don't hold your views: "neither Kramer's view nor those of Breggin/Healy POV is mainstream. Undue wt to outlying viewpoints" * You admit you are wrong *, but a month later you remove them anyway with the edit summary "adjust per WP:ELPOV" *.
- You say nothing to correct Jytdog when he removes from the article any mention of "withdrawl", opting for industry speak, "Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and forgoing an introductory sentence altogether *.
- You remove* the fact that 80% of each drug passes through the body without being broken down, saying that it was not in the refs cited, yet I find in the citation: The use of antidepressants has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, says Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello. Around 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down, and so they are present in waste water.*.
- You remove the arguments of opponents, saying "This is just a letter to the editor" *.
- You removed this saying, "Fluoxetine is exceted from humans unchanged or as glucuronide" - cited ref doesn't say that, and package insert contradicts this statement". The first sentence of the cited ref says Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant and high-prescription-volume drug, is excreted unchanged or as a glucuronide from the human organism. You are corrected here *, and decide to spin it, imo, here adding this source.
- And no one is checking on any of this. You have asked at least twice for immunity from oversight/questioning, and the fact that you weren't laughed off the stage, so to speak, shows me just how far Wikipedia has sunk. Petrarchan47 21:43, 19 March 2015
- Formerly98 Well, I guess that if you consider the FDA and NICE "non-neutral, non-independent" we're not going to agree on much of anything. Have a nice day anyway! - Formerly98 22:36, 19 March 2015
- Petra No. This is serious. You are using a strawman to distract from your extremely biased editing which I have touched on above. And I did not claim that the FDA couldn't be used at all, but it was used in one case to change "Antidepressants cause suicidal ideation" to "Antidepressants cause suicidal ideation...within the first few months of use", using only the FDA as a source for the added caveat. This addition implies that any use after the first few months carries with it no chance of SI. For this you would need multiple sources, and if you had them, I would say nothing about the FDA addition. However, this is by no means a widely held view (and one I've never heard, though this is my field) and you were unable to find much to support it. So now Wikipedia is telling all of its readers that they are safe from SI (potential for death) if they have taken antidepressants for longer than 2 months based on a non-independent source only. That is a dangerous assertion if there is any chance that it is untrue, and this is exactly what MEDRS is meant to guard against. This editing is not meant to protect the readers, but the pharmaceutical industry.
- And again from Harvard:
- "The forthcoming article in JLME also presents systematic, quantitative evidence that since the industry started making large contributions to the FDA for reviewing its drugs, as it makes large contributions to Congressmen who have promoted this substitution for publicly funded regulation, the FDA has sped up the review process with the result that drugs approved are significantly more likely to cause serious harm, hospitalizations, and deaths. New FDA policies are likely to increase the epidemic of harms. This will increase costs for insurers but increase revenues for providers.
- "This evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government “do something” about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA. Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what “safe” and “effective” mean. The FDA routinely approves scores of new minor variations each year, with minimal evidence about risks of harm. Then very effective mass marketing takes over, and the FDA devotes only a small percent of its budget to protect physicians or patients from receiving biased or untruthful information The further corruption of medical knowledge through company-funded teams that craft the published literature to overstate benefits and understate harms, unmonitored by the FDA, leaves good physicians with corrupted knowledge. Patients are the innocent victims.
Criticism by Gandydancer
Of course I feel very bad to have to say this, but I just do not care for it at all. I dislike it so much that it's hard for me to even criticize it. I'll copy the opening here and criticize it.
This page in a nutshell: Loud quacking indicates a possible COI, and so does waddling around in circles to maintain the status quo, but when feathers start flying... It looks like a duck to me
I just don't get the metaphor use here at all. Plus, "when the feathers start to fly" is about chickens, not ducks. Chickens fight with talon-like feet and feathers really can fly - I've never actually seen ducks fight at all.
The first para:
Conflict of interest ducks can be rather difficult to identify at first which is why it is always better to assume good faith, and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. However, if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics in the editing behavior of one or more editors, and have also noticed or experienced recurring disputes by those same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they waddle around a target like ducks on a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks. This essay will attempt to help you identify them. Sorry, but WP does not offer any virus software or duck blinds to protect against them. You're on your own, but don't despair. We are here to help.
"they waddle around a target like ducks on a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks." Again, just don't get this, also no idea what the June bug mention means. Next, "duck blinds to protect against them" - what does that mean and how is it connected to virus software? (For anyone that doesn't know it, the hunter puts his/her decoys out in the water and sits in the blind waiting for a flock of ducks to come within range.)
Perhaps this all sounds pretty nitpicky, but to start out so muddled is a bad way to start if one wants to present some sound information/advice, IMO. I hope that you all understand how hard it is for me to be so critical of another's work. I'll stop here for now. I understand what this is getting at, but IMO it's not getting there... Gandydancer (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think the essay really picks up steam at paragraph 3. Then it is very clear. I agree that paragraphs 1-2 could use some work and the metaphor is confusing there. I would like to see more remedies along the lines of what BoboMeowCat said on the essay talk page. I am okay with the Duck metaphor:
- If it look like a duck and quacks like a Duck, it probably is a duck
- Ducks quack. And the stuff the COIDuck does will indeed involved a lot of quacking/squawking especially towards users who disagree with the COIDuck's COI agenda.
- WifiOne was taken down by (1) rather than proof of COI.
- Thanks for doing this Atsme. I really appreciate it. Please don't give up and let criticism get to you! As Noam Chomsky said early in the documentary Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media "if I didn't get this kind of criticism, I would be worried I wasn't doing my job." He says something like that at 5 minutes into the documentary that can be viewed free here. David Tornheim (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, David - I appreciate the input. I also realize we all don't live in the country so it may be hard for some to visualize ducks doing their thang, like chasing a June bug, pecking at each other, or chasing off an intruder. It's quite the experience to be chased by a duck, or a goose, a rooster with long spurs, a billy goat, a Brahma bull, a potbellied pig, or had a June bug get tangled up in your hair.
Atsme☯Consult 02:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, David - I appreciate the input. I also realize we all don't live in the country so it may be hard for some to visualize ducks doing their thang, like chasing a June bug, pecking at each other, or chasing off an intruder. It's quite the experience to be chased by a duck, or a goose, a rooster with long spurs, a billy goat, a Brahma bull, a potbellied pig, or had a June bug get tangled up in your hair.
- Your rewrite of the first two paragraphs is much much better! Now if all those seeking deletion would say what it is they would correct and how to address the COI problems you point out... Also, I do think the various places where we talk about the essay should be consolidated either here or to the essay talk page. Even though I know where they are, it's very confusing. David Tornheim (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Not ready for mainspace?
This is a continuation of the discussion started on Sarah (SV)'s talk page [4] which Atsme requested be moved here. As I mentioned over there, I’m concerned that edits to substantially improve the essay might not help at this point, because so many people have already voted on the initial version, and they may not update their vote based on the improvements. I’m wondering if it would be best to again work on it in user/draft space I think the Wifione case highlights the need for such an essay and also the need to be proactive about this issue in general, but I think we need to be very careful not to in any way imply that editors who adhere to wp:medrs or wp:fringe are doing something wrong, because when those guidelines are properly utilized, they are of clear benefit to WP. It is misuse of policies and guidelines to push POV with the perversion of consensus, gaming the system, wp:own, etc that are of concern, not requiring quality sources. I think the essay may have been read and interpreted in ways other than intended. As suggested by Coretheapple [5], pinging those who expressed support for keeping such an essay on WP to request further input here regarding ways to improve it: David Tornheim, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Redddbaron, Bus stop, Pekay2, Hroðulf, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate,groupuscule --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I agree that simply adhering to wp:medrs or wp:fringe isnt a problem. Its misusing WP policy, no matter what that policy may be, to further advocacy/COI. Its not an easy thing to spot, especially when new editors are confronted by someone with a long editing history and knowledge of policy. It may take a serious study of editing patterns to find, and by those that have more understanding of policy. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bobo. Below is the post I made on SV's page on my concerns regarding the essay:
- Thanks for the ping. I agree that simply adhering to wp:medrs or wp:fringe isnt a problem. Its misusing WP policy, no matter what that policy may be, to further advocacy/COI. Its not an easy thing to spot, especially when new editors are confronted by someone with a long editing history and knowledge of policy. It may take a serious study of editing patterns to find, and by those that have more understanding of policy. AlbinoFerret 16:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Atsme: Reading through the essay again, what troubles me about it remains: you talk a lot about COI, but you fail to establish in any convincing way how the behavior that you describe is reflective of a COI. Most of what you discuss is already prohibited by a bunch of policies and guidelines, such as WP:OWN. I'm not sure you even can make such a tie-in; it might be a "mission impossible" situation. That is why I believe that your best bet is to take a focused, narrow look at one particular issue that you feel is rife with COI, and build a focused essay around that. I think you may be spinning wheels with this essay, over and above the fact that it seems to be headed for deletion. For example, MEDRS abuse. Maybe an essay along the lines of "MEDRS is a hammer not an anvil" or something to that effect, if indeed there is abuse of MEDRS. By the way, I'm not saying there is abuse of MEDRS. I'm just saying that if you feel that MEDRS is being abused, then you should focus on that.
- There may be a way of determining COI based solely upon edits, but apart from obvious cases it's really not easy to do. That is why I personally would prefer to spend my time dealing with cases that stink to high heaven of COI but that simply can be dealt with through ordinary editing. Look at my recent contributions and you can see I've been focusing on a couple of really blatantly bad articles where I suspect COI editing, but in which I haven't alleged it because 1) it's not necessary and would be pointless 2) I am not sure. I suspect there might be connected contributors in one instance, and might raise that at an appropriate time, but even if there are, it's not all that important. Our COI rules are weak so even if there is a COI, so what? Not much you can do about it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps the title, or focus should shift a little. Instead of COI, perhaps focus in on OWN or Advocacy for the ducks? AlbinoFerret 17:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Advocacy Ducks" makes good sense to me. petrarchan47tc 17:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think Advocacy Ducks makes sense as advocacy is easier to prove than COI. Also COI editors are involved in advocacy. There are good suggestions on the deletion page, and perhaps some of them can be included in the wording. I do think we should somehow focus less on specific edits and take a broader look at the editing history as a way of spotting the problem. AlbinoFerret 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I generally agree, but it would have to be distinct from WP:ADVOCACY. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- The difference I am thinking about is that the WP:ADVOCACY page deals with newer editors and how to spot them. I think there is potential to address advocacy in editors that have been editing for some time. AlbinoFerret 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I would be very interested in seeing if such an essay could be constructed. I'd love to see it, but I'm dubious. My experience is that even when you have "as obvious as the nose on your face" COI situations, such as a couple of articles I've explored recently, even knowing there is a COI situation doesn't amount to much in terms of how it's dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is, the more accurately you describe certain problematic behaviour, the bigger the backlash. If we are describing advocacy editing as it pertains to special interests, or those areas of the Pedia most likely to be skewed in favor of monied interests, we are targeting a group of people with resources and power behind them that will eviscerate threats to their system with mind-blowing speed. Some would call this a conspiracy theory, but those folks are showing limited grasp on the reality of spindoctoring and the value of a Wikipedia page, or displaying their own bias, in which case they should be ignored. So - if one can logically expect such a backlash, it makes sense to discuss solutions for that, too. petrarchan47tc 21:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Coretheapple I think Atsme wants to wait for the end of the current delete discussion before moving forward on a new essay or a rewrite of the old one. So it looks like its on hold for the moment. AlbinoFerret 14:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I would be very interested in seeing if such an essay could be constructed. I'd love to see it, but I'm dubious. My experience is that even when you have "as obvious as the nose on your face" COI situations, such as a couple of articles I've explored recently, even knowing there is a COI situation doesn't amount to much in terms of how it's dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- The difference I am thinking about is that the WP:ADVOCACY page deals with newer editors and how to spot them. I think there is potential to address advocacy in editors that have been editing for some time. AlbinoFerret 20:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I generally agree, but it would have to be distinct from WP:ADVOCACY. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think Advocacy Ducks makes sense as advocacy is easier to prove than COI. Also COI editors are involved in advocacy. There are good suggestions on the deletion page, and perhaps some of them can be included in the wording. I do think we should somehow focus less on specific edits and take a broader look at the editing history as a way of spotting the problem. AlbinoFerret 20:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me. A few minutes ago @Formerly 98: posted a rewrite proposal that puts my thoughts about COI ducks much better than I could: [6] (though we don't need another essay about advocates, especially one that says they should be treated softly softly.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ask yourselves one question - what would a response to the essay look like if it was from a COI duck? Atsme☯Consult 18:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Atsme, maybe you should read the many, many "delete" !votes from very experienced, uninvolved editors here and take them at face value, and apply Occam's Razor (they are good faith editors, responding in good faith based on their experience with this place), instead of spinning conspiracy theories. It was gutsy to offer to draft this, given your relative inexperience in WP overall, and your real lack of experience dealing with COI here in WP. Refusing to see the community's overwhelming rejection and even spinning that into bad faith, is something else. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Let's please focus on improving the essay/draft here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Atsme - exactly that. petrarchan47tc 21:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- There seems to be little doubt that this essay is going to be deleted, so it doesn't seem right to beat up on Atsme. He seems to be relatively new and he's trying to make sense of our complex, contradictory rules and the general chaos. Coretheapple (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Let's please focus on improving the essay/draft here. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Atsme, maybe you should read the many, many "delete" !votes from very experienced, uninvolved editors here and take them at face value, and apply Occam's Razor (they are good faith editors, responding in good faith based on their experience with this place), instead of spinning conspiracy theories. It was gutsy to offer to draft this, given your relative inexperience in WP overall, and your real lack of experience dealing with COI here in WP. Refusing to see the community's overwhelming rejection and even spinning that into bad faith, is something else. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ask yourselves one question - what would a response to the essay look like if it was from a COI duck? Atsme☯Consult 18:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pinging me too. I am glad we are having the discussion here. I need to catch up before replying completely. My tentative response: I definitely agree with your assessment: "I’m concerned that edits to substantially improve the essay might not help at this point, because so many people have already voted on the initial version, and they may not update their vote based on the improvements." I regret the essay was published before problems were worked out, despite the strong need for the essay and now we have the problem that we don't know if the iVotes were based on the draft Formerly98 objected to or a more recent draft. One question: Userfy might be a compromise, which is why I waivered on whether to suggest that direction. Is there a way to get all those who already iVoted to consider supporting that as a compromise? If not, I'm unclear on whether it helps. Almost all votes were black/white: Keep or Delete. Perhaps if Atsme agreed to do it, the MfD goes away, but I don't know the policy well enough. Is there Policy/Guideline that talk about userfying an essay? David Tornheim (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- David, the "userfy" thing was a bit off target. The essay started here in Atsme's sandbox, and this userpage still exists. I don't think folks who !voted userfy knew this still existed. Because it does, all it means is that Atsme should copy the essay there (it has changed since she first created the essay) and paste it back here, before it is deleted. The closer will need to deal with whether this essay page should be deleted too.Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jytdog:, I've read the comments to delete. They are general statements, and not convincing - most of them sound angry. Others accuse me while others criticize the essay for not addressing the issues which makes no sense. I removed the list of potential edit summaries, and removed the problematic box that attempted to list some of the areas of known COI which seemed to cause a stir. I think if some of the Delete positions came back and read the modifications, they may have a change of heart. I can certainly understand why an editor who has a COI statement would oppose it, and I'm really trying to come up with a solution for that because I do not want to create issues when I'm trying to resolve them. I made some clarification regarding COI statements at the essay in a talkquote box, but perhaps it needs more. I think the essay covers most of the bases that deal with behavior, but like any starter article, the essay can always be improved. If you believe more could be added, please, please add it. I've already invited you to do so. Atsme☯Consult 21:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- mostly WP:IDHT, with some conspiracy theorizing mixed in. saying that you withdrew the "quote" about pharma articles being the most conflicted b/c that "seemed to cause a stir" is just so head-in-the-sand. the quote caused a stir because it was not an actual quote, and because almost no experienced editor would agree with it, yet you highlighted it. just argh. what almost every experienced editor wrote, is that essay is an incoherent mess, that mashes up COI/GANG/DUCK with a disrespect of PAG. anyway, it is your WP:HOLE to dig. (NB, i provided some more feedback on the actual essay talkpage this AM) Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- It was my essay, my inadvertent quote...I have since figured out how to get rid of the quotation marks. How many articles have you created Jytdog, aside from the Monsanto lawsuit one? Enough to have been able to help me with a simple quote box, or not enough that all you can do is criticize me? Why are you so critical and harsh? Do you think you are gaining something from it? I think it's sad and rather bad boyish. The only incoherent mess is your interpretation of it. Btw - you are exhibiting some of the COI duck behaviors which may explain why don't like the essay, yes? Either way, I find the behavior interesting. Atsme☯Consult 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) (was just rewriting the comment above. here is where i ended up) let me try this differently. Atsme, I care a lot about COI issues in WP. I work with people who have conflicts of interest as part of my day job (with the actual conflicted people, as my realworld self, and with people who are concerned about other people's conflicts), and i spend a lot of my time in WP working on it. The issues are not easy, and it takes a lot of thought - clear thinking - and care to address them, in both contexts. Working on them in WP is even harder, since we have this deep commitment to anonymity in WP, and working on COI runs smack up against that. so it takes even more care and clear thinking to address it here in WP.
- I have objected to the mashup of DUCK and COI since it was proposed, and I walk through some of my thinking about that here. This essay not only does that mashup, but it also mashes in WP:GANG, a whole different set of problems. you and i have had a little back and forth on that here. it is really clear to me that a lot of the GANG stuff comes from your frustration of having consensus go against you while editing. I understand that frustration (and you express it very clearly in the essay) but that is what brings the essay down - what makes it not all about identifying conflicted editors.
- Atsme you were bold in offering to draft the essay, but it really is... a mess. That is the overwhelming !vote of the experienced editors who weighed in. It doesn't provide useful guidance, and it will lead editors astray. I know it is hard to hear feedback, but that is what the !delete votes are saying. Trying to dismiss that by finding a conspiracy in it... it is neither wise nor Wikipedian, the essence of which is listening to consensus. As i said when I started this, i really care about COI in WP. this essay is not going to make things better. i really don't think you have the experience, at this point in your WP career, to be making generalizations about COI much less trying to write guidance for the community on it. There is wisdom in knowing your current limitations, and courage in being able to say, "well, that didn't work out" and letting something go and moving on. That is what you should do here. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- It was my essay, my inadvertent quote...I have since figured out how to get rid of the quotation marks. How many articles have you created Jytdog, aside from the Monsanto lawsuit one? Enough to have been able to help me with a simple quote box, or not enough that all you can do is criticize me? Why are you so critical and harsh? Do you think you are gaining something from it? I think it's sad and rather bad boyish. The only incoherent mess is your interpretation of it. Btw - you are exhibiting some of the COI duck behaviors which may explain why don't like the essay, yes? Either way, I find the behavior interesting. Atsme☯Consult 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why so harsh? Why the angry and critical remarks on the deletion page? Because your essay is harsh and unkind. Almost every senior editor who commented on the deletion page has repeatedly removed badly sourced material from articles that was posted by people trying to push a POV, and you called every one of them a "COI Duck". Almost everyone of them has had the experience of a POV pusher attempting to edit war badly sourced content into the article, and required the assistance of other experienced editors to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, and you called them all tag team COI editors who are "experts at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition". It wasn't kind, diplomatic, or wise. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- ach formerly! atsme asked what i thought was a real question... at the same time that i was re-writing my initial comment to try to really talk. i am hoping atsme can hear. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- It wasn't a warm and fuzzy response, but it was the one that needed to be heard. If you run around impugning people's motives, they won't like you and they are not going to treat you warmly. And that is the central lesson that needs to come out of this. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 00:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Jytdog, you voted to wp:salt the essay [7], which indicates no interest in improving it, but this section is for improving the essay/draft. A personalized exchange with Atsme would seem better carried out elsewhere.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bobo. I think the mashup of COI + DUCK is a bad idea, and will continue to argue against it. I'm happy to make comments more general going forward. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Good luck trying to remove something from the internet. Atsme could also save the page as a text file on their computer for future personal use or if they are a Linux user install a copy of the mediawiki locally with 5 clicks. AlbinoFerret 09:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- i said nothing about any thing outside of WP. Jytdog (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Good luck trying to remove something from the internet. Atsme could also save the page as a text file on their computer for future personal use or if they are a Linux user install a copy of the mediawiki locally with 5 clicks. AlbinoFerret 09:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Bobo. I think the mashup of COI + DUCK is a bad idea, and will continue to argue against it. I'm happy to make comments more general going forward. Jytdog (talk) 08:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- ach formerly! atsme asked what i thought was a real question... at the same time that i was re-writing my initial comment to try to really talk. i am hoping atsme can hear. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why so harsh? Why the angry and critical remarks on the deletion page? Because your essay is harsh and unkind. Almost every senior editor who commented on the deletion page has repeatedly removed badly sourced material from articles that was posted by people trying to push a POV, and you called every one of them a "COI Duck". Almost everyone of them has had the experience of a POV pusher attempting to edit war badly sourced content into the article, and required the assistance of other experienced editors to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia, and you called them all tag team COI editors who are "experts at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition". It wasn't kind, diplomatic, or wise. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Moving forwardIt looks like the COI Ducks essay is going to be deleted. This section is to discuss a possible next essay. I suggest a new page that only deals with that essay. Talk on that page should be about a new essay. What do you say Atsme, do you want to move forward? AlbinoFerret 00:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
David Tornheim while your intentions are certainly noble, I don't think PMs are the way to go. We need open discussion regarding the ways we can improve the essay. Atsme☯Consult 22:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
the close was really clear: "There's consensus that this essay recommends attitudes and actions which run directly contrary to Wikipedia policies, best practices, and tradition. I can appreciate the difficulty of dealing with editors who attempt to game the system or take advantage of our principles of civility and good faith, as should we all. But this essay's recommendations seem to jettison those principles in order to stop such editors." And please note that closer advised you to "start anew". In other words, tweaking will not get you there. I don't know - and I really don't know -
what is missing? Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
i agree - i'm just asking folks what the goal is and what the hole is. can't get started without that... Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Collaborators
Moving forward: Suggestions on how to accomplish the taskI suggest the idea of making a new page, copying a section from the top and addressing concerns of that section. When that section is done we can add the next and address it. This will also help with sections added later as discussions of issues from previous sections should make it easier to address them in later sections. But this is only a suggestion, perhaps others can come up with a better way. AlbinoFerret 12:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Advocacy QuacksNew essay looks like plagiarism: Advocacy Quacks. Can't say I have ever seen plagiarism of a Wikipedian by a Wikipedian, especially of a deleted essay! David Tornheim (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Somebody should get a whale slap for plagiarizing the work of others. I consider it unconscionable and the same applies to those who support it. It happened to me twice in my professional career. The old adage, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery doesn't extend to plagiarism. Found the following on the internet [8]. Granted, WP is open access and our work is a free for all, but that doesn't include a work in progress. Being the target of such a transgression by a so-called colleague makes it even worse...but then who are these people anyway? Atsme☯Consult 16:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
relaunch of essayAtsme, you launched Wikipedia:Advocacy and COI ducks directly in Wikipedia space, which in my view goes pretty clearly against the close at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks. BDD, would you please have a look, and give your thoughts? thanks. am putting notice of this at WIkiProject Medicine as well. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, unless you have a specific paragraph or sentence you disprove in the new essay, your generalities are unwarranted. Rather than generalize, please articulate what you see as problematic by quoting specific passages. The layout looks a little like the original but the prose is different and far more focused on behavior as the civility template demonstrates. Did you bother to read the essay before you pinged an admin to suggest a speedy delete? The G4 deleted essay that was plagiarized and turned into a parody by QG [9]. I consider it to be a PA against me per Wikipedia:Humor and WP:CIVILITY, and do not appreciate being ridiculed or made the brunt of jokes after my hard work was deleted. It is insensitive and clearly actionable misbehavior. Perhaps now that you've pinged BDD he will investigate it further: [10], [11]. What now appears to be a relentless attack on my work is turning into a behavioral issue somewhat like what is described in the new essay rather than a content issue that can be resolved with some GF editing. Perhaps I've misjudged, but it appears to stem from a sort of skeptic advocacy base which some of my diffs below will help demonstrate. When my essay was deleted, I stood down only to be humiliated by having my work plagiarized and made the brunt of a very distasteful joke. My efforts to create an essay in GF was an effort to help other editors, especially relatively new editors regarding what to expect and how to respond. I fail to see how it could be considered anything less than helpful, but I have always remained open to suggestions to improve the essay. What you just proposed was neither productive nor what I consider to be helpful collaboration. My concern now is what appears to be your patternistic dislike for anything and everything I write or attempt to write as demonstrated by your actions and the following diffs: January 10, 2015, [12], [13], [14]. Your criticisms of me and other editors are further demonstrated here: [15] [16]. Add to that, your strike-thrus for things you regretted saying as sampled here: [17], but the behavior continues. Be advised that I am moving this discussion to User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery where it belongs, so please respond there and not on my Talk Page. Atsme☯Consult 16:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Project space vs. userspaceOne way forward here might be to keep the essay in userspace. Generally, userspace essays are allowed more latitude than project-space ones. You might lose the project-space redirects; sometimes such redirects to userspace are deleted, and sometimes they stay. Were the essay in userspace, I doubt arguments to delete could succeed. On the other hand, editors would generally afford it less weight. Just an idea I thought worth bringing up as I continue to try to referee here. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
New rough draftBecause the previous relaunch attempt was deleted as a recreation of the past essay, despite the changes, I started a brand new significantly different rough draft [18]. Those of you who have supported WP hosting an essay on this topic, please provide feedback, edit to help improve, etc so we can continue moving forward. Atsme, considering this is in your user space, please feel free to significantly edit or even completely delete. I won't be offended. Pinging those who have expressed support for an essay on this topic:Coretheapple, SlimVirgin, Atsme, David Tornheim, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Redddbaron, Bus stop, Pekay2, Hroðulf, AlbinoFerret, A1candidate. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC) [[]]== Comments on draft, and on selection of collaborators == fwiw, the draft is better, but remains overly focused on biotech and pharma. and also fwiw, from what i can gather (and this is very much my perspective which is of course limited), most of the collaborators pinged here, have one thing in common - they have tangled with me and other members of if you want to benefit the community, i urge you to depersonalize this from your own content disputes in WP and the editors with whom you have tangled, and broaden this. people experienced in dealing with COI have said consistently that most COI editing is about companies and BLPs and many of them are in software or financial industries (not to mention entertainment, etc etc). And the key example you bring - wifione - had nothing to do with biotech or pharma. Pinging Smallbones, DGG, and Ronz to provide broader perspective on the fields/subjects in which COI shows itself most often in WP in their experience. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC) (corrected stupid mistake above Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC))
DUCKas i have written before, i think bringing DUCK into COI matters is really a bad idea. DUCK is used at SPI, the most controlled context in WP, where we have checkusers empowered to explore editors RW identities. and behavior tests are used alongside that to determine if someone is a sock or not. DUCK just summarizes the careful behavioral explorations done there. That behavioral examination is done carefully, and sloppy work will get you nothing, and maybe even dinged yourself. And a finding of DUCK leads to action. It is really, really inappropriate to bring DUCK into the wider community as proposed here. COI charges are already flung way too readily in content disputes, when editors personalize them. This would just enable that already too-common tendency. And on top of that, my sense is that those pushing for the application of DUCK to COI would expect the community to take action based on their DUCK claim. I see almost no chance of that happening, as the context is so different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) April 15, 2015
another note on this. to be really clear, to "get" anybody - to have action taken, is going to be very different than you all appear to be thinking. At SPI, all they are doing, is comparing two or more versions of something (editing histories of the master and of the socks) to see if they match or not. The content under discussion is really irrelevant. The behaviors/edits of socks are very obvious because mostly it is crazy people who go back to exact same article and make the exact same comments and the exact same edits. You are comparing two or more different accounts to see if they are the same or not. Very identifiable at a high level - you can literally find identical phrasing.
With advocates, though, it is completely different. You are not comparing two existing things. Instead, you are comparing one editor's content changes, against a (nonexistent) standard of NPOV edits. The standard itself is something that is often argued (the question comes up all the time, "what is NPOV in this instance?"). Right? So one of the things being compared, is not clear at all. And advocates are all over the place, doing all kinds of things. Some of them tear down X and build up X-prime: others just build up X-prime; others just tear down X-prime. Showing a pattern of NPOV editing is not going to be "quacks like a duck" in any way. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC) What would be usefulI agree that pointing out typical behaviors of conflicted editors would be useful. Most appropriately, content should be drafted and added to the COI guideline that points out behaviors, and only if that fails to gain consensus, a new essay could be written. With respect to a typical paid editor who is socking (not a wifione), those behaviors include:
And it is the constellation of all that - you have to apply some careful judgement. I made a mistake a week or two ago in bringing questions about COI to an editor; the mistake was not seeing the long history of contributions here including plenty of Talk discussion, leading me to think the editor had a new account and was a SPA and didn't use Talk (I looked at the first page of contribs and missed that there were many, many more. If i had not made that specific mistake, i woudn't have raised COI questions with the editor) You can also look at behaviors that are identified in the WP:ADVOCACY article. Some of those apply as well. The sign of a Wifione who is long term conflicted editor, and straight up lies about having no COI, and never slips and discloses it, is one thing, and one thing only - a long term pattern of edits that violate NPOV - which can be adding positive content and removing negative content about the subject of the conflict, and doing the opposite to articles about opponents of the subject. That's all you can go on, in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I made a comment on the COI page that is relevant here: I think it will be near impossible to prove COI with the added section. But if for some reason it is accepted, the line "Copying content about that subject into several articles, often with undue weight" could be used as an attempt to justify removal by a advocate/COI to remove referenced information from multiple sites that deals with a common problem they all have. I dont think its provable as a COI indicator, and if others think it is I would change it to "Copying content or removing similar content about a subject on several articles, often with undue weight or misuse of policy and guidelines to justify the actions. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Requested review of deletion of Advocacy and COI ducksWikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_15#Advocacy_and_COI_ducks Atsme☯Consult 18:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC) Just to let you know - I was not prepared for the new essay to be deleted as quickly as it was without a summary or notice - so I didn't get a chance to save it or the TP. I asked about getting a copy of the TP so I could at least use the Table to show the major differences between the old and new but no response there or at the TP of the editor who deleted it. Atsme☯Consult 05:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Should essay focus on COI, advocacy, or both?Should the essay focus on COI, advocacy, or both? I tend to think the essay should primarily focus on disruptive editing and disruptive behavior which is perceived to be indicative of COI, but is problematic to the encyclopedia regardless of the underlying cause, acknowledging that in an anonymous editing environment, COI is often impossible to prove or disprove. I've added a rough draft example of a potential starting point to continue moving forward: [24]. The previous essay did not distinguish between COI and advocacy, and I think Sarah(SV)'s comments on her talk page regarding this lack of distinction seem important to consider [25]:
For these reasons, I believe the essay should focus primarily on COI. I'm interested in others views on this, particularly AlbinoFerret who has argued for an advocacy focused essay. Pinging additional collaborators who have supported the existence of an essay on this topic. Coretheapple, Atsme, David Tornheim, DrChrissy, Petrarchan47, Bus stop, Pekay2,Smallbones, A1candidate,Ca2james. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
|
Please resume this discussion to the TP of the new essay, User:Atsme/sandbox_Adovacy_ducks. I am about to archive this page. Thank you!! Atsme☯Consult 04:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)