Mpdehnel

Conflict of interest

Moved from Talk:Tamarin Prover

At least one major contributor to this article appears to have a close personal or professional connection to the topic, and thus to have a conflict of interest. Conflict-of-interest editors are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, but are always welcome to propose changes on the talk page (i.e., here). You can attract the attention of other editors by putting {{request edit}} (exactly so, with the curly parentheses) at the beginning of your request, or by clicking the link on the lowest yellow notice above. Requests that are not supported by independent reliable sources are unlikely to be accepted.

Please also note that our Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." An editor who contributes as part of his or her paid employment is required to disclose that fact. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Response

I have responded to Justlettersandnumbers fully on their talk page 5 days ago, but received no reply. As such, I am a) re-posting my reply below as well, so that future editors can see that I do not have a conflict of interest, and b) notifying anyone that I'm adding back in the content which Justlettersandnumbers erroneously removed, as it is fully cited and not in any way subjective content, nor anything that can be considered advertising or promotional.

Statement of Interest (and lack of conflict) in the Tamarin Prover tool:

I have used Tamarin, but I'm not an author of the Tamarin tool, nor have I made any code-contributions to the tool. It is not part of my job to maintain, edit, or write code or documentation for the tool. I have written one academic paper that happens to use the tool (which is cited in this article), but nothing further -- I am a Tamarin user or practitioner, who finds the tool very useful, and my aim is to create a wikipedia page for other people who might also find it useful. My PhD supervisor (Cas Cremers) is one of the listed authors of the tool, but as you can see from the list of members of the team I'm not a member of the project. I'm happy for anyone to remove his edits as there is perhaps a COI there, but I do not believe there is in my case. The removal of the Applications section and all the linked examples of Tamarin's use was un-necessary -- I had added citations for literally every single bullet point, many of which are papers by people with no connection to Tamarin at all, nor any connection to any of the authors of Tamarin (further adding to the notability requirements). If you or anyone else takes issue with any of the content (or if any of it isn't cited properly), please feel free to delete it based upon its specific merits. Otherwise, please at least give me a chance to build the basis of a working article for this before deciding whether or not to delete content from it.

I am a PhD student at the University of Oxford, and I have long stated this affiliation openly on my user page. I am a) not employed (as I am a PhD student, not an employee) and b) I do not nor will I ever receive any compensation directly or indirectly for editing this or any other page. My status as a PhD student gives me a good understanding and knowledge of the project, but it is not remotely part of my PhD (or any semblance of 'job' or similar) to edit this page. I therefore do not believe I have a conflict of interest with this page. As described before, I am a user or practitioner of Tamarin, not an editor, maintainer, developer, or anything else. As such, I firmly believe I am not violating any of the COI guidelines, given I clearly state my affiliation on my user page; please let me know how I am violating them if I am.

Mpdehnel (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Mpdehnel, you've done what I had intended (but obviously had forgotten) to do – bring this to the talk page. I think that I may have been hasty in reverting some recent additions; I saw edits made by two editors apparently also authors of the references cited, and thought that inappropriate. Citing yourself is not as far as I know not disallowed here, but it certainly is not a great idea. As I see it, there are two conflicting ways of looking at this:

• First, and most important, Wikipedia encourages and welcomes contributions from expert and academic editors, people who (unlike me, for example) actually know and understand the topic
• On the other hand, editors with a close personal or professional connection to a topic are strongly discouraged from editing the article directly, and are invited instead to propose changes on the talk-page. They are also expected to declare any conflict of interest; I note that you have not made any {{connected contributor}} declaration at Talk:Cas Cremers, for example

I don't know how to balance those two in this case, so am inviting all previous (human) contributors to the page for input: @Jytdog, Cascremers, Hut 8.5, DGG, Cwmhiraeth, Narky Blert, Kel-nage, and Zackmann08:. Since I'm here: Wikipedia is built on independent reliable sources. Those don't usually include original publications of theories, hypotheses and the like, but do include papers by other, independent authors who discuss the original theory. I'm not sure how many of the sources currently in the article are independent of the authors of the software; those that are not should probably be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Justlettersandnumbers: thanks for your comments and reply! I really appreciate it. (Sorry, I'm not sure what the etiquette is, whether I should reply to this on your talk page, or just stay here?). Thanks for pointing out the {{connected contributor}} template -- I wasn't aware that existed; I will add that shortly. As you will see from my user page, I have publicly stated that Cas Cremers is my supervisor for a long time (since January 2015!), and I definitely wasn't trying to hide it. I appreciate that edits from people with a close personal or professional connection are 'strongly discouraged', but no-one else was contributing to editing the page (as while I believe the project to be notable, it hasn't gained attention from other people to help build the page yet). As these edits are only 'strongly discouraged' I don't think it's necessarily fair to insta-revert any changes made by someone in this situation, so thank you for your comments. As I say, I am, of course, more than happy for any other (neutral) editors to check and verify any and all edits and contributions that I make. I believe I have tried hard to stick closely to the COI guidelines for editing, so please do let me know if there's anything further I can do.

The purpose of adding the applications (and their citations) was partially to show notability (this is where the independent sources clearly come in), but also to show that it has been used for major real-world projects, which were then published in top conferences (this more applies to the ones where the authors were also members of the Tamarin project). It seems sensible to me to list real-world applications and uses of Tamarin (even if they were not done independently of the project), as e.g. the fix of TLS 1.3 found by use of Tamarin (cited in the relevant paper) has directly had a major impact on all devices that implement TLS 1.3 -- i.e. (very soon), most internet connected devices on the planet. Please let me know if you disagree! Separately, as a way to demonstrate independent notability, please note that (I believe) none of the authors of references 7, 8, 9, and 12 are on or related to the Tamarin development team. That said, I believe all of the currently listed applications are worth keeping (even non-independent ones), as they are not there solely to establish notability, but instead to illustrate an accurate representation of the sorts of protocols that Tamarin has been used for to date.

I would really love to do what I can to make this an excellent article, so thank you for your help and response. Mpdehnel (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. This discussion does not belong at the article talk page. The article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. User talk pages, like this one, are for discussing issues about editors. So I moved it back here in the prior diff.

Thanks for disclosing relationships you have relevant to the Tamarind Power article. What we ask for, is disclosure of relationships. The analysis of whether those relationships create any sort of conflict of interest, is not something for the individual with those relationships to conduct, nor how any determination of conflict of interest should be managed. Independent people do that.

Conflict of interest arise from structures -- from relationships. They have nothing to do, necessarily, with the conscious intentions of the people involved. Most concerns about COI have to do with the underlying bias they usually create, which is not a conscious thing, necessarily. Sometimes of course people are very aware that they are in a conflicts of interest situation and very consciously act in ways harmful to one of the parties with whom they are in a relationship, and in favor of the party... that is another ball of wax.

Both of them arise from a person being a situation where they are conflicted. Again, it is a structural thing, about relationships with people/organizations in situations where the interests of those people/organizations are not necessarily aligned.

In my view, you are not at all independent of your PhD supervisor; you need your supervisor's support in order to graduate, and you have invested a great deal of time in getting to where you are, and you probably have many plans you want to live out after you graduate, that depend on your getting your PhD.

Further, many PhD students receive free tuition and a stipend from the school. There is usually a direct financial relationship at play, which is part of what makes a PhD student not independent but rather dependent on the school and their PhD supervisor.

On another level, whether or not your work directly involves this tool, it originated from your PhD supervisor, and the higher the reputation of the tool, the higher their reputation, and thus yours, since genealogies are important in academia.

None of that is about your actual motivations, or whether you were instructed to work on this article in WP or not.

In my view, you are very much in a conflict of interest situation.

In Wikipedia, the kind of things that most often happen when people with a COI come and work on a topic where their COI is relevant are:

• they do not take the time to understand WP's policies and guidelines and are not really interested in learning them -- they are not actually here to become part of the community and understand how we build the encyclopedia; they are here to represent their external interest. Sometimes it is very hard just to get them to understand at all that this place is not a wild west, but has policies and guidelines that have made this whole project possible
• they therefore tend to add content to WP that the editing community finds unacceptable as it violates one or more content policies and guidelines
• they therefore tend to behave in ways that the editing community finds unacceptable (for example, they often edit war to try to force the content they want into WP, and get angry with other editors who are trying to remove or fix the content they added)

When I look at your contribs, Mpdehnel, I see you working on subjects that are very close to you (include your PhD supervisor's bio) , adding content that has violated our content policies to the extent it has been deleted from the encyclopedia (not just the surface, but from the underlying database), etc. Your remark here is very typical of a conflicted editor. The content you had added was removed because it was problematic, but no where did you ask what was wrong with it.

So I too would have asked you about what external relationships you had if I had been in the situation of justlettersandnumbers, and your disclosure of relationships makes it clear that you are indeed too close to the subject matter - that conflict of interest is at play, as we think about that in Wikipedia.

Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Jytdog:, thanks for taking the time to reply to me, for taking the time to explain my conflict of interest, and the situation as a whole. What you have said does make complete sense. I really appreciate you doing this, as (acting in naïve, but good faith) I did not intend to violate the principle of COI editing; given that you took the time to explain this to me, I now completely see your point: thank you for doing this. I have always tried to be transparent, and have never intended to hide any relationship. I now understand that (according to wikipedia's guidelines) my professional relationship with my supervisor puts me in a COI, and I am very happy to accept that. Likewise, thank you for explaining that it is as much about structures rather than motivation: this makes a lot of sense! As I said to Justlettersandnumbers above, I never intended to hide it, and have listed that relationship with my supervisor publicly on my user page since January 2015.

I absolutely add content related to my subject expertise and knowledge, as this seems to be beneficial to Wikipedia! I did also create my supervisor's page, as at the time I was not aware at the time of the concept of COI editing; sorry for that. Please (obviously!) feel free to check any and all content within it for factual accuracy and citations.

The only reason that (I believe) any content I have ever added was deleted was from the Tamarin Prover page (copyright problem / removed from the database), and was due to misunderstanding a technicality of licensing: I was under the (genuinely mistaken) impression that the content from the Tamarin Prover manual was completely open-sourced, and therefore compatible with Wikipedia. I was not aware of the specific requirements of Wikipedia's licensing, and it turns out that the content was CC BY-NC-SA, which is technically incompatible with wikipedia as Justlettersandnumbers correctly pointed out; I know and appreciate that wikipedia has to be especially careful when it comes to copyright issues, but, as I knew it was otherwise under an open-source/CC licence, I was acting in good faith -- I hope you can see that it was a genuine mistake when it comes to the minutiae of different open source licenses. Sorry for the mistake.

You say:

Your remark here is very typical of a conflicted editor. The content you had added was removed because it was problematic, but no where did you ask what was wrong with it.

That is a fair comment, inasmuch as I did not ask what was wrong with it; the reason for not asking was that I thought (based upon the comments that Justlettersandnumbers made) that the issue wasn't with the content itself, but with whether I was a COI editor or not; I stated how (at the time) I believed I wasn't a COI editor, because I had no indication that there was anything wrong with the content from its own merits; I believed (and still believe) that the content is largely factual, cited, objective, and defensible, but that it was the fact that a potentially COI editor had added it -- that was why I didn't ask why it had been removed, because I thought the reason had clearly been stated, and I was attempting to show that the reason was invalid. I now see that I was wrong, and that your assessment of me as a COI editor is justified.

WRT the applications section, (and as I said above, to Justlettersandnumbers):

The purpose of adding the applications (and their citations) was partially to show notability (this is where the independent sources clearly come in), but also to show that it has been used for major real-world projects, which were then published in top conferences (this more applies to the ones where the authors were also members of the Tamarin project). It seems sensible to me to list real-world applications and uses of Tamarin (even if they were not done independently of the project), as e.g. the fix of TLS 1.3 found by use of Tamarin (cited in the relevant paper by my supervisor) has directly had a major impact on all devices that implement TLS 1.3 -- i.e. (very soon), most internet connected devices on the planet. Please let me know if you disagree! Separately, as a way to demonstrate independent notability, please note that (I believe) none of the authors of references 7, 8, 9, and 12 are on or related to the Tamarin development team. That said, I believe all of the currently listed applications are worth keeping (even non-independent ones), as they are not there solely to establish notability, but instead to illustrate an accurate representation of the sorts of protocols that Tamarin has been used for to date.

If these aren't correct reasons for content to be added, or are not sufficient, or need further work, then please let me know!

What can I do to help make this article better? It is my belief that there are a lot of interesting and useful things to be said about this topic, as it is major tool within the world of Computer Security (and has gained a lot of use within academia and industry, with implications and applications to the real world), and I would love to be able to help demonstrate that.

Thanks, Mpdehnel (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Like many editors driven by an external relationship, even at this stage of the discussion, you remain completely focused on the content you want to add. But we are not there yet.

So.. let's finish.

Management of conflict of interest in Wikipedia has two steps. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review.

This "peer review" piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no actual peer review or "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to battles with other editors.

What we ask editors to do who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page (you only have to do that once); and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section, put the proposed content there, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) please the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission, and the policies and guidelines through which the Wikipedia editing community realizes the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where a company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Jytdog:, that makes a lot of sense. I absolutely get what you're saying and, now that you've taken the time to explain them, I understand the reasons behind these policies; I agree to abide by these policies, especially wrt. COI editing, and will add content to the Tamarin Prover page in future via the Talk page and a {{request edit}} -- I was just worried that no-one would read them or act upon them! :-( All best wishes, Mpdehnel (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

ok, great, pleaes do have a read of WP:EXPERT, as i mentioned below, and please do review User:Jytdog/How which will help you better understand what Wikipedia is and is not, how this place actually works, and why it works that way. A lot of stuff will seem bizarre or arbitrary at first, but as you get more and more grounded it will all start to make much more sense. Please make sure you ask a lot of questions while you are learning! Good luck. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. This was a discussion about the content added to/removed from our article Tamarin Prover. The right place for that discussion is Talk:Tamarin Prover, which is where it was until Jytdog moved it here. I don't know why that was thought necessary, but what's done is done. Mpdehnel, please add a suitable COI declaration to Talk:Cas Cremers (a {{connected contributor}} template would do fine). Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers thanks for your tolerance. This turned out to be mostly about the user... Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC) I'm literally, right here, and you're talking about me on my own talk page, sarcastic ellipses notwithstanding. :-) Mpdehnel (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Thanks -- I have already added them to the Talk:Tamarin Prover page, and have added them for my supervisor and another PhD colleague as well (with their permission).

Working in Wikipedia

Please see WP:EXPERT. The content you added here is very typical of academic writing, generating a literature review, but that is not what we do here. We summarize existing literature reviews here in WP. I described this briefly on the talk page here: Talk:Tamarin_Prover#applications_section. I am writing this note here, because this is about you learning how WP works... happy to discuss this further once we finish the discussion above... Jytdog (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)