User talk:Atsme/Canine notability/Archive 2

essay versions

two existing versions in Atsme's user space now

• this on
• 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)

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)

@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)

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.

The FDA is subservient to the White House, which is not an independent scientific organization. It takes money from the pharma industry = not independent. Examples from: FORBES and Harvard

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:

1. If it look like a duck and quacks like a Duck, it probably is a duck
2. 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.
3. 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)

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:

• @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)

--Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Moving forward

It 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)

I've never been one to drop a project before it was given a chance. I am also not one who submits to bullying and withdraws. I believe that as long as I'm following PAGs and that what I'm doing will prove helpful there is no reason to stop. If for any reason the project itself changes its course of direction and openly accepts paid editing and advocacy as standard practices then my position will change. Until such time and as long as the abuses are evident, I will continue doing what I can to help find remedies. You can call me an advocate of WP:PAG but if you think that makes me a problematic editor we will probably continue to disagree. No editor should have to endure any kind of abuse but unfortunately, that is what anonymity brings to the table. Considering the size and scope of WP, we will always have our share of bullies and rude editors but that can be remedied with clear and precise policies accompanied by remedial action. I believe issues can become even bigger problems when teams are involved. Teams change the landscape and turn it into a numbers game which clearly gives them an advantage, and helps explain how they get their POV pushed through. I cannot overemphasize the importance of having NPOV reviewers/overseers/admins who are not so busy they don't have time to analyze a situation. That's where a designated task force would be quite useful. I also attribute the lack of clarity in many of our PAGs as the main culprit in disputes. The purpose of the essay was to help bring clarity and prevent behavioral issues. I apologize for my failure in accomplishing that goal. It was never my intention to cause an uproar. In some cases, misapprehension contributed to the resulting upheaval. Conclusions were based incorrectly on preconceived notions and individual assumptions which are rarely productive.

In summation, based on the responses from editors whose opinions I trust most, it appears the essay needs further evaluation and a great deal more discussion. I did not realize some editors would actually relate to the essay in such a defensive manner or take offense; for that I blame the MfD. There were so many other options available to resolve some of the problems with the essay, beginning with discussion. Instead, we heard what sounded like quacking and that only caused further disruption. In light of all the derogatory comments and PAs that were aimed at Petrarchan47 and I, it appears rather obvious that we have a major problem which needs resolve. Unfortunately many of the criticisms resulted from some of the same editors she and I have had our respective disagreements with in the past and were probably more or less expected. Thankfully there were several comments regarding the essay that were intelligible and constructive. If there is further interest in collaborating to make it better, please let me know by adding your user name below. Atsme☯^Consult 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

there is a huge difference between being outside of WP:CONSENSUS (which is the very heart of this place) and being bullied. failing to follow consensus, and calling the consensus, bullying, is just bad thinking. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• @AlbinoFerret: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." I appreciate your concern. Much work was put into the essay and it deserves a fair hearing. I believe 7 days typically pass before Judgment per WP:MfD, and the complaint was raised on 02:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC), so I believe we have until approximately 02:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC). Posts were made in a number of places about the MfD (See here) and many voices have trickled in and many more might show up on this extremely important issue. So, let's try to be optimistic and continue to give the essay and Atme's work the proper defense it deserves in front of the wide audience the essay is getting.

That said, regardless of the fate of the essay and its content revisions, the COI Duck problem will not go away even the essay is retained or pruned. We can indeed talk about other kinds of work related to that concurrent to the MfD and after it ends, such as SlimVirgin's suggestion that concerns about the misuse of MEDRS or Fringe might be bifurcated (handled separately) from the COI Duck essay. Also, there is a discussion taking place a COI talk page here also initiated by SlimVirgin that could probably use our input. The same is true of the discussion on Jimbo's page here about the WifiOne case and how to address COI issues. David Tornheim (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

David, I think Atsme's has tried to address a difficult topic. I mean no disrespect saying I think its going to be deleted. But I have started closing RFC's and if I were to close it (I know I cant because I am involved and not an admin, and this closing will need an admin) I would say the consensus at this point is to delete. That may change, but thats no reason to put off planning what to do if in fact it is deleted. AlbinoFerret 15:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, I can certainly understand your skepticism. If I had experienced what you've been through, I may have adopted the same perspective. HOWEVER, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. I just participated in an AfD wherein the closer's decision was no consensus based on results that demonstrated 15 KEEPs and 5 DELETEs. Another RfC I was involved in also did not count votes, and determined that the substantive arguments outweighed the numbers, the latter being one of the reasons I still maintain faith in WP closers/admins/reviewers. Even if it does end up being deleted, keep in mind that my perspective of impossible is that it's just going to take longer to fix. Think different - think positive. Atsme☯^Consult 22:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

^Exactly. I will write up an example of a Real Life Experience where a lost cause was won. David Tornheim (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that "the fat lady has sung", we can talk more seriously about next steps. It is sad at the loss of the published essay, but the Closer correctly identified it as a "good faith" effort, allowing the essay to remain in user space. I really appreciate the respectful way that Atsme treated the Closer's decision. There is discussion going on at Jimbo's page which is also productive being advocated by @Jusdafax:. David Tornheim (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Very interesting section on Jimbo's page. I would also like to see a essay on the topic go forward. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

^You want to volunteer for that? You saw how much fun it was for Atsme. :-) If we have learned one thing, it is to not publish before the critics have had a chance to go crazy on an essay. I think we might want to break the essay down, to list every sentence, concept or phrase in the essay and invite the critics to explain what they object to--or try to figure it out by their responses to the MfD and correct the specific problems. I tried repeatedly during the MfD to get them to be very specific about their objections, but they frequently had broad brush objections that seemed to have no substance to them other than saying without any evidence that the essay promotes "battleground" behavior. I'm not sure how we can address such naysayers, who function more like obstructionists. Any thoughts on what to do about that? AlbinoFerret: I did promise you a real life (non-Wiki) story about a lost cause winning. It is a very good story (actually I had more than one), which I don't mind being in the public realm for people who want to make the world a better place and see how government works, and which I wanted to share, but I had second thoughts about how the COI Ducks--who watch everything I do, looking for the slightest mis-step--might use it to try to cause me trouble. I can send it to you or anyone else who is not a COI Duck via private email if you like. David Tornheim (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

i would be interested in reading that. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Hills Have Eyes" based on the 1977 version. LOL. David Tornheim (talk) 22:30, 12 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)

Sorry, I didn't mean a post-mortem which sounds very negative. I was thinking more of identifying what portions/concepts that are safe from attack and are easy to create consensus around, and what sections/concepts have objections that must be addressed, so as to avoid a similar fate if a later publication is to take place. I think we need to find ways to get those who voted DELETE to be convinced that a future version deserves a KEEP (i.e. swing votes). I agree an open discussion is important and the swing votes must be heard. Does that contrast with your ideas for improving the essay?

Absolutely! Same page. I also thought about possibly changing the page title since the essay actually involves more than just COI behavior. Keep the intriguing ideas flowing. They are being stored in some of the vast hollows of my cerebellum which have become storage space from lack of utility due to my rather stationary position at the computer. It's a little like a redirect.

I think COI is a narrow view on advocacy. As explained above and in a few places, COI is almost impossible to prove. I also think that the biggest complaint, that it teaches to ABF, needs to be addressed somehow. AlbinoFerret 23:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It was a concern of mine when I first saw the essay. I did understand the title "COI ducks" was using the logic "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...it probably is a duck". This logic comes from and follows the Aristotelian way of categorizing reality into objects that have essential properties (see for example this or this). The problem is that if the definition of COI Duck means paid (or has direct or indirect financial relationship through family, friends or employment or other close relationship), then this last "essential property" can not be definitely proven by editing behavior alone. And, in fact, there are other explanations for such behavior. So perhaps a major objection to the essay is that readers believed the essay was saying that one should assume that if the editing looked liked paid editing then it was paid editing (something I think even ArbCom had to struggle with and avoided as well). If so, I agree that it is a problem. Let's look at BP: It was possible pro-industry material was inserted not because of paid editing, but because the editors were BP fans, hate environmentalist, are very conservative, etc. But these editors who add pro-industry slant and delete damaging criticism are still just as damaging to the encyclopedia as those being paid to do the same work, so if those who edit AS IF they are being paid are included in the "COI Duck" definition, then the logic is okay. But the confusion is understandable and I was never sure what a COI Duck really is/was. I think the solution is to find a new term that clearly includes those that are not paid, but who act as if they are, that include someone like WifiOne. -David Tornheim (talk) 03:44, 13 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 -

1. what the issue is, that you want to address; and
2. what gap among current essays you think is missing - if you look at

• Wikipedia:Advocacy
• WP:GANG
• Wikipedia:List_of_cabals#Medicine_Cabal (a bunch of you seem to have a problem with MEDRS and have somehow mooshed that into COI issues, for some reason that I cannot understand)
• Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing
• WP:COI

what is missing? Jytdog (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Ill take a crack at the MEDRS concern. The problem isnt the guideline. Thats not noticing the forest for the tree. The problem as I see it is persistently using any guideline to the exclusion of others. That can be an indication of possible advocacy, and advocacy to me is the main problem that COI is just one example of. Policies and guidelines dont exist in a vacuum by themselves. AlbinoFerret 00:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think it may be a good idea to add a comment on misapplying policy and guidelines as a possible indication of advocacy/COI. By the way, thanks for the link to Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing, I had not seen that essay. AlbinoFerret 03:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

you are welcome, albino. The application of PAG in content disputes, is something the community works out through the consensus building and dispute resolution processes. Each one of you in your own way on your own issues, has advocated for a stance in a content dispute that the community doesn't accept. Continuing to cast consensus as conspiracy (make that paid COI or unpaid advocacy) will only drive you further away from the community on these issues. And as long as the essay casts, or aims to cast, consensus as conspiracy and the "signs" of advocacy are actually signs of consensus, it is going to be rejected by the community. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that section will need some work, but I think diving into the whole essay at once is a mistake. I also think its possible that consensus can be gamed by a group of editors that consistently shows up out of the blue. But I am not sure of the wording at this point. I believe that starting out with focusing on individual editors at this point is probably a good idea. AlbinoFerret 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

sure, groups of editors with common interests often move together - these groups can be informal or formal. as an example of an informal group, each of you reliably show up at any ANI against me regardless of the issue. you have certain aspects of WP:GANG behavior in that regard. more formally, there are WikiProjects that exist by consensus of the community, like WikiProject Medicine or the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force, that often work together to advance their community-blessed goals; i believe part of what the original essay did was depict ProjectMedicine as a GANG, which wasn't legitimate due to Project Medicine's status as a WIkiProject and a well-respected one at that. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont know about the others, but I find some of the sections on AN/I interesting, so its on my watchlist. That may be whats happening with others. But I think its best to start out with individual editors. Jumping from one thing to the other may not be efficient. AlbinoFerret 12:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)]

I hear you Albino, but WP:GANG is about behavior as demonstrated by edits; motivation doesn't come into it. i am not saying you all are acting as a GANG - what i wrote was you have certain aspects of GANG behavior. that's all. anyway, back to the questions? what is the problem a new essay would address, and what gap in the existing set of essays would it fill? Jytdog (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Im sure everyone involved has ideas on what is missing from current essays. Im sure those things will come out during the editing process ahead. At this point, we really havent even started. AlbinoFerret 17:32, 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)

I cant talk for everyone, but the goal and hole seem to be about the same to me. To provide an essay that is easy for new users to understand that compliments existing ones and covers some areas that the existing ones may not cover completely or are not easy to understand. AlbinoFerret 17:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Collaborators

• Atsme☯^Consult 13:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• David Tornheim (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• petrarchan47tc 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward: Suggestions on how to accomplish the task

I 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)

^I agree this is a good idea. David Tornheim (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Advocacy Quacks

New 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)

I have placed warnings on the essay, the essay talk page and with the user for taking credit for work created by you as if the user had created it him- or herself. David Tornheim (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 deleted it. Atsme☯^Consult 12:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE - there is a discussion at Zad68's TP now regarding comments made by Roxy the dog, so I am now thinking an ANI may be in order. Atsme☯^Consult 13:03, 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)

atsme it is parody. like this (which as a writer i thought you would enjoy) Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

relaunch of essay

Atsme, 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)

I'll have to give this some further thought. At a glance, it looks pretty similar to what was deleted, but I wasn't even part of this conversation until I closed the MfD, so I'm interested to hear the perspectives of those who were already following closely. If I had been the first to encounter this overall problem of stealth POV-pushing, I probably just would've referred to existing pages like Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and Wikipedia:Gaming the system, though I understand the desire to write something new for this specific situation. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks. should be deleted per G4, like Quackguru's was, per this. I won't tag it, but i believe that is what should happen. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I just tagged it for speedy deletion as it's substantially a recreation of the deleted essay. Ca2james (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And once it's deleted, the redirects to it (Wikipedia:Advocacy duck, Wikipedia:COIducks, and Wikipedia:ADVODUCK) will have to be tagged as well. Atsme, please don't recreate the essay in Wikipedia space again until after it has received substantial revision in user space. Like it or not, consensus is against this essay being in Wikipedia space so keep it in your user space until it's been reworked. Ca2james (talk) 16:36, 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)

atsme at some point you are going to have to deal with the fact that you are standing outside the consensus of wikipedia on some things. you and i generally had different perspectives on content at Griffin and i have been on the consensus side there, and you have not. I did say that your proposed draft of the lead was pretty good, with regard to laetrile. With regard to the essay, i am far from alone in finding that problematic. Right? consensus was "delete". the common element in both situations is that you have been outside consensus. it is true that i do keep trying to talk with you to pull you into the consensus. you could be way more productive and happy if you were to step inside, and instead of remaining outside and pounding your head against the wall. Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I would like to politely request that you discontinue personalizing this issue with Atsme. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

please note that i posted the above to atsme's Talk page. Not here. She cut it from there and she copied it here. as far as i am concerned, i am talking with her, on her talk page.

Atsme's comments directly above mine, were about my motivations (talk about personalization); i responded to that. so that is what is going on here. and bobo your request should have been both of us, if to any one of us.

i am happy to talk about the essay here. Jytdog (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Project space vs. userspace

One 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)

Had this essay been kept in user space and reworked there I wouldn't have tagged it. I would still tag the redirects for deletion, however, because consensus was to delete the wikipedia space essay. If the essay doesn't belong in wikipedia space, then to me redirects towards a substantially the same user space version don't belong in wikipedia space, either. Ca2james (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

New rough draft

Because 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 MEDRS WikiProject Medicine on health claims in matters related to pharma or biotech or food.

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))

I am currently working on a section on MEDRS based on this comment and related discussion from Sarah's talk page [19]. The pharma/biotech clarification stems from concerns related to mistakenly assuming COI in those areas, which were raised during WP:ANI discussion which inspired the essay [20].--BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is Atsme's user space, so the final decision should be hers, but I think it might be beneficial to limit this initial collaboration in Atsme's user space, to those who have been in favor of such an essay actually existing on Wikipedia, rather than those who have voted to salt the entire topic. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

bobo, what i voted to salt was the COIDUck title. "salt" means it cannot be re-created without admin approval. that doesn't mean it could never be recreated; it does mean it a relaunch would be done with care. i have opposed linking DUCK to COI and will continue to look for folks doing that, to see how carefully it is handled. biggest picture, i have never said i was opposed to providing more guidance to the community about identifying editors with a COI and indeed i support there being better guidance. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would add a couple of similar points

• First and foremost, the essay inappropriately limits the concept of POV pushing and COI to edits that are "favorable to various businesses or industries", when both of these behaviors are agnostic to POV with respect to industry. One of the most infamous examples of POV/COI editing that I have encountered here at Wikipedia was the complete takeover of the Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin articles by individuals engaged in litigation against the manufacturers from 2009-2011. At one point the entire suite of fluoroquinolone-related articles had largely been re-written by the President of the Fluoroquinolone Toxicity Research Foundation, an organization whose self-described purpose was to "assist people seeking financial compensation from the manufacturers of fluorquinolone antibiotics". I believe people died as a result of stopping their antibiotic treatment after encountering this group's effort to influence the jury pool.
• The essay states that "COI ducks' can be identified by their behavior of "POV pushing in favor of pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries". However, the example above shows that serious POV pushing in either direction can be a sign of COI or advocacy.
• "tagteams of ducks may use that method to maintain ownership of articles." - do you have examples of this in which a neutral group such as COIN has determined that a COI actually exists. Most of the COI editing that I see is by individuals acting alone. Similar comments were made during the deletion discussion by one of the most involved editors at the COIN board. Again, this looks like the essays is confusing consensus with conspiracy.

Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 14:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• POV editing for a cause is in my opinion the most intractable, because when you are dealing with groups of zealots, there is no way of getting them to stop. There is no way of convincing them, and they generally have an endurance much longer than any uninvolved editor. They do not generally fall into the definitions of sock- or even meat-puppettry, for they are multiple genuine people who share the same opinion, and often operate independently, but in the same direction. They're present in all imaginable areas, with the absolutely most unstoppable being the nationalists of various political stripes, but the discussions here of biomedical topics is also subject to them. There is genuine fear, which I to some extent share, that the purpose of this guideline and its associated activity is specifically to enable them. (Needless to say, they will be quite convinced that what they are trying to do is justified, in order to stop a steam-roller big business effort to silence them--and this has been true here also, and will remain a problem. But in the present WP environment, I suspect the corporations will be the more easily embarrassed at being detected, which is the principle restraint upon their PR efforts here and elsewhere.)

For POV editing intended to promote the economic interests of an organization or a person, I do not think financial and internet corporations are the worst of it, though they are currently the center of attention. All businesses will have the same self-interest here, along with a similar sense of their own value to the world. Consumer industries are usually able to at least technically satisfy the GNG, because of available consumer-oriented reviews; business-to-business concerns have a greater problem because such sources as there are are not easily visible to most of us. And there are other organizations enterprises that we do not normally think of as businesses: schools, hospitals, charities of all sorts, community organizations. They rely in public funding and visibility, and their articles here show it. Then there is the whole range of the performing and creative arts. Although there is the added complication of edits from devoted fans, most articles in these fields show considerable COI input, ranging up to very frequent direct writing by press agents, who see us as just another appropriate medium. (After all, these are mostly areas where agents are an indispensable necessity for making a living in the field) . Professionals also: physicians especially in fields involving elective surgery; lawyers; educators (my own speciality is trying to remove the usually extensive university press agent contribution to articles on truly notable faculty).

The tendency of WP will always be to degenerate into promotionalism and downright advertising. There is no solution; there will always be the need for continuing effort. The most obvious steps to take at the present are in my opinion to enforce the Terms of Use, with respect to paid contributions without disclosure, to monitor paid editing with disclosure, and all editing in susceptible fields, and perhaps even to raise the notability requirements in the most susceptible areas. (To the extent we do such limitation, there will be fewer article to monitor and more people interested in monitoring them.

But frankly, I consider the present attempt contaminated by the origins of it in an anti-establishment medicine POV. The best way of freeing it from this influence is just like other promotional editing, to start over. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

DGG, it saddens me to think the original essay was contaminated as an anti-establishment medicine POV. That was never my intention. I will take the time necessary to dispel such a notion and prevent my user name from being branded by it. I have a pretty good idea how that hot iron was applied to my essay. My interest in writing the essay actually peaked in response to a TB proposal on ANI which caused me to investigate some of the diffs used against an editor. I was left with the impression that MEDRS was being abused. [21], [22], March 11, 2015. Then came the false allegation against me claiming the Griffin article was the reason I wrote the essay. It was a total misrepresentation of my concerns over the use of contentious material in a BLP and censorship of biographical material regarding the author's fringe views on the topic of amygdalin (B17, laetrile) and medical freedom to choose. My focus was on writing a BLP and getting it ready for a DYK and GA review. However, because the guy is notable for writing about controversial topics, the wind blew and the poop flew. [23] Mercy me! The whole essay discussion began and evolved at the TP of SlimVirgin. It went on for a long time before I wrote the first essay that was unjustly branded as anti-establishment medicine. Following is the wind down of the week long exchanges: Atsme responds to MastCell, MastCell responds to Atsme, Bobmeowcat responds to MastCell, Petra responds, and the finalé MastCell to Bobomeowcat. Atsme☯^Consult 03:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

perhaps I am too much influenced by my own background in bioscience, but I would not word something as "the topic of amygdalin (B17, laetrile) and medical freedom to choose." "Medical freedom to choose" is a deliberately misleading catch phrase; no one has the freedom to poison their neighbors by encouraging their delusion that they are thus striking a blow against over-paternalistic government. If you did not realize the significance of what you said, then their double-speak has been successful. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but are you suggesting that we not write anything biographical about why the author wrote the book, and just describe him as a quack and a conspiracy theorist, and let it go at that? Atsme☯^Consult 04:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I never believed that Atme's original essay or her visions or BoboMeowCat's new version are to push or enable an "anti-establishment medicine POV". I saw it addressing the concerns of dealing with editors like WifiOne who abuse the system to push a POV that appears to be COI driven and get other editors into trouble and banned from the articles they WP:OWN, if their ownership and POV is threatened. That includes [[WP:GANG]|gangs]] of editors. As I say below, although I have seen abuse of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE by POV pushers, including those who act as if they have a COI, I think that issue should be bifurcated (separated) into a separate essay. I do agree that there is a difference between emotionally/ideologically involved editors (e.g. zealots) and COI-like editors, and that the essay--from my perspective--only has the purpose to address the COI-like editors like WifiOne, not the advocates. I'm not saying the zealot-like editors are not a problem, but they are a different kind of problem (also they may not be breaking the rules, whereas there is no question that undisclosed COI editors are, right?) I think there should be a separate essay for each type of behavior. I am more interested in addressing the WifiOne type of Wiki-white-collar-criminal, but I see no problem with someone like Formerly98 making his/her own essay about the problem s/he sees as a bigger issue. David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• @BoboMeowCat: I'm okay with the new draft. I still believe we have to make a clear list of what the concerns are that got the first essay deleted and address them point by point. We should also seek improvement and involvement from those who were open to changes and those who wanted the essay userfied. We should listen to concerns of those who categorically rejected the essay(s), but keep in mind they probably can never be satisfied, so not get too bogged down in arguing with them, as it is a waste time. Unless there is more buy-in and old concerns are not addressed, they will simply be reasserted and no progress will have been made. So as before I suggest we break it down, both the criticism and the concepts in the essay into digestible parts and seek consensus on each part. That's the only way I see to move forward. I don't think complete rewrites are going to help much, but I appreciate your efforts. David Tornheim (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DUCK

as 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

I completely agree with this statement. DUCK already has a clear and commonly-used definition on Wikipedia and using it in this other context is confusing and inaccurate. Saying "COI duck" on Wikipedia translates into "COI sock-puppet" which is not the intended meaning, I don't think. I strongly urge editors working on this essay to find another term that isn't already in use on Wikipedia. Ca2james (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That might be interesting, but The use of ducks in the context of proving something is the same is age old. I have also recommended moving away from COI as its just one form of advocacy and near impossible to prove. Focusing in on advocacy would also get COI without specifically having to prove there is a COI since a major problem with COI is advocacy. AlbinoFerret

it has a specific meaning in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The idea of ducks may be age-old, but here on Wikipedia duck means sock-puppet and to go against that previously-established and commonly-accepted meaning is very confusing. The same is true with COI; it may mean something else on other sites but it has an accepted definition on Wikipedia. By using these term in a different way than is accepted, the essay misleads and confuses the reader. The key is that when you're writing for Wikipedia, you need to work witin the existing framework and use terms the way consensus has defined them. I think the problem you're attempting to address isn't so much COI as Wikipedia defines it but ADVOCACY. Instead of trying to force the rest of Wikipedia to accept your revised definitions, better to accept that the consensus re: these terms and their definitions is against you there and find new words to describe what you're saying. Yes, you'll lose the "quack quack" part of the essay but that was a bit derogatory and bad-faith anyways. Ca2james (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

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 useful

I 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:

• looking at editor's overall activity
• brand new account, but editor is very familiar with editing (article springs out of no where fully formed with refs, etc, with no evidence of exploring how to edit)
• WP:SPA focused only on one subject, which is generally a specific person, company, or product

• looking at actual edits to articles
• puffery
• no negative content
• bad sourcing, or unsourced, and even fake sources
• copying content about that subject into several articles, often with UNDUE weight

• looking at Talk activity and edit notes
• doesn't use Talk at all, or uses it rarely (not interested in interacting with the community - WP:NOTHERE)
• doesn't take time to learn to sign posts and indent (I know this is petty, but it really is a tell)
• reacts aggressively to changes to content, and to nomination of article being deleted.
• does not respond directly to questions asked about COI

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)

In accord with my comments above, I think these criteria could be genericized. We've definitely had examples of people involved in litigation editing the fluoroquinolone articles, and there are strong signs of the same on the isotretinoin, paroxetine, and other articles. There are scores if not hundreds of ip addresses whose edit histories consist entirely of adding poorly sourced negative information about a single drug for which there was ongoing litigation. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 15:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just made a BOLD addition to the COI guideline. We'll see how that goes. See here. Jytdog (talk) 15:46, 15 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. 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 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. --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. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

the signs are not meant to "prove" anything - the text explicitly 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. Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested review of deletion of Advocacy and COI ducks

Wikipedia: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)

It actually took longer to delete than I expected as my (admittedly limited) experience has been that speedy deletions are carried out within a few hours of tagging. Speedy deletions are carried out without a notice or anything and the tag gives the reason for deletion. At least now you know how it works in case a page you've created is tagged for speedy deletion again. Ca2james (talk) 05:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that that last sentence could be misconstrued. To clarify, I meant it in the "lesson learned" way; I was trying to find a silver lining in the dark cloud of having your work deleted. I didn't mean that your work will necessarily be deleted again or that it's a foregone conclusion that you'll have to repeat this experience. I hope that the next essay will stay because I do think it's an important topic. I apologize for being unclear. Ca2james (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't take it the wrong way so no need to apologize. We never stop learning. What I want to learn is how to stop a speedy delete that is based on misinformation, and to remember to keep a copy of my work in a back-up Word doc. I believe this entire matter needs fresh eyes on it because of the circumstances leading it up to it, the plagiarism in between, and what it is happening now with another proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#New_section which is void of my collaboration or involvement immediately after the speedy delete. Seems rather odd to me and why I believe it needs fresh eyes on it with further table column comparisons of the differences. The speedy delete was disruptive and totally inconsiderate of the ongoing discussions at the TP of the admin BDD who made the original delete. Atsme☯^Consult 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. BDD or another editor aside from the essay's contributors could have removed the speedy tag if they felt that the essay didn't meet the G4 criteria. No one did that which I read as tacit agreement with the tag.

I object to your characterisation of the speedy delete as "based in misinformation". I read both essays and after comparing the two, I found them to be much the same. That's not misinformation; it's my conclusion, which is shared with the deleting admin and at least one other editor. I was also within guidelines to tag it for deletion based on those conclusions whether or not discussions were ongoing.

Honestly, I'm baffled by your assertions that the two versions of the essay were substantially different. If the first essay was a reliable source and the second essay was the text added to an article, that text would be a copyright violation for too close paraphrasing.

I also don't understand your objections to other editors working on a similar essay (aside from that parody essay, of course). None of us own our work or ideas here and this is definitely an essay that needs writing. If others can write it, isn't that a good thing? Ca2james (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't provide further evidence to prove the two are not the same because the new essay was deleted and I don't have a saved copy. What I do know is the fact I wrote both of them and know the differences and the changes I made so I don't understand why you concluded they were similar. I even provided a table with side by side columns showing the stark differences which clearly disputed what you are claiming. I do not have a copy of the new essay therefore unable to bring forth the table for comparison purposes. I have requested a text copy, and it should be forthcoming. Based on my recollection, the greatest differences between the two follow:

1. The first indication of the change is seen in the title which was changed from COIducks to Advocacy and COI ducks
2. The focus of the new essay was changed to include advocacy behavior with an entirely different approach to identifying and dealing with overzealous COI ducks and aggressive advocacies
3. The prior focus on medical articles was removed and more emphasis was placed in support of MEDRS and adherence to WP:PAG
4. The new focus covered a much broader range of topics where advocacies and COI ducks might be problematic including undisclosed paid editing of articles regarding corporations, industry, politics, etc.
5. More emphases was placed on the behavior of overzealous advocacy and aggressive behavior and better ways to respond to them
6. More emphasis was placed on self-analysis, and a stand down approach, AGF
7. There was a text box demonstrating the difference between GF COI declarations and undisclosed COI paid editing
8. More emphasis was placed on COIN
9. More emphasis was placed on the steps to resolve which included TP discussions, 3rd opinion, single admin approach, RfC, etc.

The only similarities I can recall are:

1. Overall format with images, categories, the list of related projects and a few of the duck terms.
2. Paraphrased WP:PAG which is unavoidable

When Stifle sends me a text copy, it will be included as Userfy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 16:34, 16 April 2015

Poopers and my apologies. I hope Dispenser can fix the sig reminder script he's been working on at my request cuz I really need it. Atsme☯^Consult 17:23, 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]:

"First, the (original) essay doesn't distinguish, perhaps deliberately, between advocacy and COI. A COI is not just about beliefs and desires. A COI is when an external relationship undermines an editor's role on Wikipedia. A book author has a COI in relation to articles about her books, but an editor who likes those books does not have a COI just because she likes them, even if those feelings might lead to NPOV violations.

If you want to argue that there is no functional difference between advocacy based on likes and dislikes, and COI, that's fine, but it's an argument that has to be made. The equivalence argument ignores that COI editors are unlikely to change their minds about an issue even in the face of strong evidence, particularly if paid. It also underestimates the damage to public confidence caused by COI editing."

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)

Here is my reasoning, COI is just one form of advocacy, a very hard to prove one that has specific requirements. Half of the objections vanish if it focuses on advocacy instead of or includes COI. A advocacy essay will still apply to COI violators and will be easier to prove. This is because the main problem with COI is they are advocates. Lets not get hung up on words. AlbinoFerret 22:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To show what I am talking about here is an example, Bob owns the Foo Widget Company. He ses an article about the company and makes a WP account.

1. In this example Bob edits the page but relies on RS, VER and keeps a NPOV. Just corrects the spelling on the towns name the plant is located in and adds the year the plant opened referenced to a newspaper.
2. In this example Bob adds puffed up claims, says they make the best widgets in the world, sources the claims to the company website and his brothers blog.

Are we ever going to prove COI in 1? Not unless he admits it. Are ever going to prove he owns the company? Not unless he is foolish and admits it or brags about it online linking his WP account to the edits. Whats more likely to happen is that he is spotted as an advocate in example 2 and his advocacy becomes the focus, not COI, even though he has one. So whats easier to prove? What should we be looking for as editors? Something we cant prove, or something easy to prove? AlbinoFerret 23:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

^Agree with this analysis! However, I have no objection to COI being a subset of advocacy as @Atsme: started to do in her "Advocacy and COI Ducks" revised essay. I think there are three major concerns Atsme was working on with both essays:

1. COI-like advocacy (such as WifiOne's) of slanting articles to favor articles about X, X's promoters/leaders/founders and X's products; and disfavor X's competitors, critics and products; and similar editing that ends up white-washing everything that has to do with X and bashing, deleting, dismissing and minimizing everything contrary or critical of X's agenda and PR program.
2. Ownership and Gangs that do (1)
3. Misuse of WP:Fringe and WP:MEDRS to have the effect of (1)

I have seen where those three things do correlate on a number of different articles. I do not think she was trying to tackle the bigger problem of ALL advocacy, and I think the essay would be less effective to lose focus and try to handle any and all advocacy. Besides, issues of all advocacy in general is probably handled elsewhere. Of course, the difficulty with the focus of Atmse's work is that anyone whose edits fit the description of such behavior will vigorously object to their behavior being identified as a "problem". -David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Advocates can gang up, and WifiOne's case was found out through advocacy. Ownership is another byproduct of advocacy. I just think having a focus on COI will distract from what I hope is the goal of finding editors that cause problems, also to me at least, I could care less what the motivation for advocacy is, be it a COI or just because the person believes the company makes the best widgets. Lastly, it will not take any extra work to make the focus advocacy because all advocates, regardless of COI or not, do the same types of things. AlbinoFerret 00:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that all advocates act alike. As SlimV said above, "COI editors are unlikely to change their minds about an issue even in the face of strong evidence, particularly if paid." Paid undisclosed PR advocates have an advantage in resources ($, connections, access to information, high speed computers, knowledge of Wikipedia manipulation strategies and PR training) over disparate honest volunteers with strong feelings on a subject. Those resources and team work make undisclosed COI's particularly difficult to hold accountable in comparison to a disparate group of people with strong feelings that are more likely to act quite unreasonably in the face of strong evidence that challenges their strongly held beliefs. This second kind of advocacy is a different issue and should be treated differently, as the first is primarily financial, and the second is emotional and ideological. However, sometimes it is not easy to distinguish which is actually going on and undisclosed PR people may disguise themselves as ideologues or have a combination of both qualities. David Tornheim (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

All it takes is a few people, with like mind, to do the same thing as well paid COIs. Members of a church could do this when dealing with things that go against its teaching. The problem is, there is no way to spot any of them except through advocacy. I also think the battle of getting a COI based essay into wikipedia space is going to be hard. When if the focus was not specifically on COI it would eliminate a lot of the points that have been brought up. I dont think a few years of battle and delay tactics to get it not included is worth the narrow focus. AlbinoFerret 02:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Answer to Above Question: Both -- As I say above, the focus should be on Advocacy that looks like COI, but for which there is no external evidence of COI, only the edits (e.g. WifiOne). If we had a name for that, that's is what the essay should be about--what I described in (1) especially, and the problems with (2) and possibly with (3). However, I think (3) should be a separate essay because that will draw its own set of objectors who vigorously defend their ability to use WP:Fringe and WP:MEDRS however they see fit to push their Skeptic agenda. And the separate essay--if eventually sactioned--would then be referred to in this essay. This essay would take priority over and essay about (3). Based on issues of outing (based on what I have read, especially TimidGuy arbcom case), I would avoid any suggestions that editors should research anonymous editors off-Wiki. Whether they should be reported to COI/N, I'm not sure of that either (for the reasons AlbinoFerret mentioned)--it seems NPOV might be the better place to report. Perhaps there should be a special NB for whitewashing? Maybe we could call them Whitewashing Ducks? -David Tornheim (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• 5 things

1) please stop discussing proving anything. If you drive the essay toward OUTING it will be another deletion fest. You must respect OUTING and the absolute fact that you cannot PROVE anything about anyone's real life identity that they themselves do not disclose on Wikipedia.. By ignoring this you are missing the difficulty of dealing with COI in Wikipedia, by miles.

2) you must keep AGF in mind. If the essay again assumes that one already "knows" that a person, or people, with whom one is having a content dispute is/are "corrupt", the essay will again go down in flames for violating AGF. You have to deal with the ambiguity that 1) causes. You must.

3) David, you have nailed it - well done. For a wifione, all you can go on, is the long-term pattern of POV editing. Please note that wifione's behavior involved attacking opponents/competitors and whitewashing his subject. Some editors only do one or other; there are editors who only write negative stuff. An example was the Novartis article - an editor came and was dumping tons of negative content into the article; i started a real discussion of the edits (not the editor) on the Talk page, and in the back and forth that followed (all civil and not personalized) she disclosed that she was in a lawsuit against them. Things got simple after that. It never has to get personalized. Never.

4) following on that example, and generalizing. It is amazing how when you just talk to people, in a human way, they will say what is going on with them. This happens all the time in my work at COIN, when I ask editors what is going on. Sometimes they get all offended, sometimes they ignore it, but more often than that, they disclose their COI and agree to follow the guidelines. COIN is full of this, and becoming increasingly more so as I reach out to folks and try to really bring them into the community, following the ToU and COI guidelines (not editing directly). You all talk about COI editors like they are monsters and you dehumanize them. They are just people. Often confused. There are cases like Wifione yes. But you cannot paint the whole issue under that color.

5) one of the thing it takes to be part of the consensus here and to be respected by the community, is to show self-awareness. DGG made it clear above, and i have too, that most of the editors here have come together in opposition to Project Medicine and/or me, in articles touching on health. You are getting (and consolidating) reputations as advocates for an anti-establishment medicine POV. You should be writing with some awareness of that, if you don't want to create another essay that is all darkly conspiratorial. that will lead to its getting deleted yet again, and nobody, including you, needs all that drama. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC) (struck and restate below Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC))

Just addressing #1 "prove", since I am suggesting removing COI from the essay, "OUTING" has no application. Advocacy can be proven by actions. You objections appear to be a strawman. AlbinoFerret 11:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

yes you have backed off saying anything about proving COI, which is great, and my original statement left off "about COI", so I struck it (too confusing to REDACT). no one can prove COI in WP without explicit statements from the editor. A longterm pattern of POV editng can be demonstrated. yes. happy to correct that. Jytdog (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never suggested that COI is provable by editors, and if you read my comments to this page, you will see I have been suggesting dropping the COI part for some time. After all the problem is advocacy even if looked at from a COI perspective, if a COI did not show advocacy I doubt we would be looking at it as a problem, but thats just my personal opinion. If its still unclear what I mean by not a problem, look at my example 1 in this section. AlbinoFerret 17:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

yes, editing under a COI is a form of advocacy. above, you wrote "COI is just one form of advocacy, a very hard to prove one..." and yesterday you wrote, about the proposed "signs" in the COI guideline: "I think it will be near impossible to prove COI with the added section. ... I dont think its provable as a COI indicator". I get it that your thinking on this is developing and that you know we cannot prove COI with behavior; that the only proofof COI is a disclosure from the editor; and that outside of that, any "signs" are just suggestive, not definitive. that is a good thing. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

My thinking on this is not evolving, but my wording on that page was not the best or easiest to understand. I do agree that proving COI by editors based on actions is impossible. Advocacy is, and its the main problem with COI. You dont need to prove COI to stop the main problem. AlbinoFerret 18:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Both with caveat - COIDucks as a subset of Advocacy ducks. The use of "ducks" allows us to describe behaviour. Treading into official COI territory means we need to have a copy of someone's paycheck. The reason this essay caused so much upheaval, IMO, is that describing behaviour is a much better way to address the problem and like WifiOne, can lead to stopping it. I fully support all of AlbinoFerret's statements above about the direction of the essay. I have stated from the beginning, if this is a COI conversation, I want no part of it. I am more qualified to look at edits and behaviour, including patterns of behaviour, than to uncover someone's real life employment and somehow prove that without being banned myself - and I think that's the case for the majority of us. petrarchan47คุก 17:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

• Advocacy or POV-editing for several reasons. First, I see COI editing - defined on WP as editing for financial gain - as separate but related to advocacy or POV editing. An editor can have a COI and turn out an NPOV article, and an editor can have no COI and turn out a POV-pushing article. Second, it's impossible to determine who has a COI because we are not allowed to OUT anyone. The only way to find COI editors who aren't writing NPOV articles is via their behaviour, and that behaviour is pretty well indistinguishable from and is as unwelcome as anyone who edits in a non-NPOV way. Finally, I think that a focus on COI means focusing on the editor themselves because it's the editor, not the edits, that has the COI. In contrast, focusing on advocacy or POV-editing means that the focus is on the edits and behaviour, not the editor themselves. I think looking at POV-editing is assuming better faith of other editors than looking for a COI.

I see that instead of rewriting the essay as was strongly suggested at the MfD close, Atsme is ignoring this discussion and is editing the latest version of it. Atsme, it seems that you do not actually want to collaborate with other editors on this and that's bad because your essay is fatally flawed. At its core, it encourages readers to assume bad faith of other editors (and of course there's the misuse of the duck term, which contributes to the assumption of bad faith). It needs to be rewritten from scratch through collaboration with editors who aren't anti-Project Medicine or anti-MEDRS. It needs to be written with an underlying goal of actually dealing with the problem instead of the current apparent goal if providing editors who disagree with MEDRS or RS guidelines a way of discounting their opponents. No one editor can do that on their own, and they most definitely can't do it if they start by assuming bad faith. Ca2james (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I agree with much of what you say. I don't think Atsme has refused to collaborate, but I agree more collaboration will need to take place to get a revised essay published. I dislike the continued assertions that it must be completely rewritten. That leads to the unreasonable suggestion that there is nothing salvageable of the essay and/or that there is nothing worthwhile about it. Collaboration is not about rejecting the entirety of the essay but working on what is good and addressing what needs to be corrected. Doing the same with BoboMeowCat's revised essay is no more helpful. Black/White assertions are not helpful in this regard. Specific criticisms, evidence for them, and proposals to correct them are collaborative. Blanket rejections are not helpful. David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

David Tornheim, we're all here talking and developing a consensus while Atsme has rewritten her essay yet again without engaging here. She's also questioned the motives behind anyone else writing a similar essay. Between those two facts, I think it's fair to say that she has so far refused to collaborate.

Atsme's third essay is better than the first two but it still has issues with negative tone and the "duck" theme. It isn't that there's nothing worth saving; it's that not enough assumptions of bad faith are being discarded. It is still much too easy to imagine an anti-MEDRS editor reading that essay and using it against editors who are attempting to apply MEDRS. Yes, there are cautions against assuming bad faith in there but that's not enough. Ca2james (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Progress - We seem to have a consensus on one thing: The essay should not be about COI to the extent of advocating outing or research with that in mind to prove a COI. Is there any objection to my claim we have a consensus on that? If you have a better way of stating this, please offer it below. David Tornheim (talk) 00:52, 18 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)