Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 19

How to handle conflicts of interest
started a discussion at ANI about How to deal appropriately with COI concerns?.

The guideline has a section on that: Conflict_of_interest

Slimvirgin mentioned some parts that she objects to. This is the place to discuss changes to this guideline...

Pinging editors who have weighed in there:, , , , , , , , Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said there, and have said to you before, the part I object to was added by you in July, namely:


 * "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline.""


 * I recall that you and Kingofaces tried to have EllenCT topic-banned in part because she had raised COI concerns about Kingofaces somewhere other than on his talk page. Regardless of any particular case, it's sometimes important not to interact directly with an editor, especially if that person is being aggressive. We've had cases of stalking and threats, in particular in relation to Gamergate, where it's important to raise issues in a group setting to minimize the personal interaction. I also think the part about "discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI" is too much to ask (and too wordy) and should be simplified. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Might "clearly demonstrates" be replaced with "credible possibility" or something like it? The evidence might be behavioral. Geogene (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you have not read WP:COI and also WP:ADVOCACY, please do read them. COI is about an outside interest (generally financial, but not always) that conflicts with the mission of WP. What kind of "behavioral" evidence do you reckon could distinguish COI from Advocacy?  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The likelihood of there being a pecuniary interest in the subject. Somebody promotes a band, new book, etc.--behavioral evidence of COI. Somebody promotes a bunch of books by the same publisher--COI. Somebody promotes a viewpoint on a social issue--Advocacy. Geogene (talk) 02:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Another possibility of a case of unpaid COI and possible ADVOCACY might be in cases of a cult-like nature, particularly if there have been multiple reliable sources which indicate that a given group might have an extreme level of devotion to their beliefs, possibly even to the level of fanaticism. Granted, this is one of the concerns which prompted me to start User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet, to deal with people whose devotion to a given belief of probably generally a broadly scientific, religious, philosophical, or historical nature, which has been recognized by IRS as having a truly fanatical level of support and advocacy of their position. I would also include anyone who has gone on record in some way in terms of advocating a belief or rejecting one, because in that case their COI of interest might not be on of money, but of personal reputation. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a good start of an answer. In my work at COIN, I use those kind of behavioral cues.  Say someone is spamming books into articles as redundant references, next to existing ones, all by the same publisher.  What I will do, is go to their Talk page, welcome them ( i an often first at the scene), post a COI notice and ask them, simply and directly, if they work for the publisher.  Something like this,  just happened tonight - look at the recent edits to AquaBounty Technologies, look at the Talk page of the user I reverted, and see what happened there.  For the bad way this unfolds,  look at the recent history of Bernie Finn, go to the Talk page of the reverted editor, and see what happened)   But we need stronger language to deal with people who use COI irresponsibly.  These guidelines need to be very clear so that even the ... dimmest among us, know what to do. The EllenCTs in Wikipedia cannot read this and find justification for their behavior in it - they need to find this guidance, telling them not to do what they are doing.  Do you see my point?   So ~if~ we are going to vague-ify the language for what justifies a concern for COI, it needs to come with clear clues to keep people in the ballpark. Jytdog (talk) 03:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I strongly agree that this needs to warn against COI-battlefielding in a clear way, which isn't contradictory to my also supporting SlimVirgin's revision. I don't have a proposed wording at the moment. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * we do have to keep COI and advocacy distinct; this guideline is for COI, and so is COIN., an admin who used to work here a lot, was very good at parsing them. Jytdog (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to simplify that to:

"Consider raising with directly with that editor first" means no one is forced into a direct interaction. And "if you believe that an editor may have a conflict of interest" is more to the point than "if an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates ...," which usually doesn't happen. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * i don't understand SV. How do you "raise it directly with that editor first" with directly interacting? i really don't understand, sorry. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My suggested wording means that an editor suspecting COI doesn't have to go to that person's user talk page. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't undertsand the difference. In either case, you are "directly interacting" with the person.  What is the difference? (real question)    And article talk pages are for dealing with content not contributors which is what both TPG guideline and NPA policy emphasize.  Article talk pages are for content; user Talk pages and notice boards are for dealing with behavior.  Why do you want to open the door to people personalizing content disputes on article Talk pages? (also a real question) Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * would you please answer these questions? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the revision. Sometimes direct confrontation only makes thing worse; belief is a more reasonable criterion than truth. (The matter will ultimately be determined by a neutral party at the Board). (Add by edit required disclosure: I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia.)Geogene (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not support. Since SlimVirgin brought up the EllenCT matter yet again, let me link to it. I'd like to call your attention to the number of times that EllenCT "raised concerns about COI" on an article talk page. There are five diffs alone at the start of the posting, and about six more later, and that is only some of them (really -- I will bring more  if you don't believe me). If you look at those difs, EllenCT was not raising the concern in any kind of civil, clear way in order to "address a concern", but rather was using COI as a cudgel.  This is exactly the kind of behavior that the guidance here should make very clear, is not OK - and is indeed sanctionable. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

If the section is being read as "the only place you can first raise a possible COI is on the editor's talk page," then we have to change it to Sara's version. I don't think we can be so rule-bound as to ban or block people for where the say something on-Wiki. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * two things:
 * 1) the point of the current language in this section is to guide people to dealing with behavioral concerns about COI in an appropriate and civil way. That's the goal.   Article Talk pages are for discussing content.  Of course this guideline wouldn't be used to whack someone on the head for asking, respectfully, one time, about whether another editor has a COI.  ( I have actually never seen it done by the way. Every time I have seen it - and I could provide you lots of diffs - it is done in an ugly way in a dispute over content.)    But we want to guide people away from personalizing content disputes on article Talk pages.  And where things get really ugly, is when people never kick it over to a board but keep on pursuing it, in inappropriate venues.  It should be COIN, but I don't care if is ANI.  But this guideline needs to a) guide people to not personalize content disputes, and have them think before they "go there" on a COI accusation...b) guide them to bringing the concern to the community; and c)  definitely guide them away from harassing other editors over it.
 * 2) the other thing SV's edit changes, is cutting out the beginning: "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use,".... with "If you believe that an editor may have a conflict of interest, " The bar is too high there, I think.   But SV's version is too low.   Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The high bar, which you added, is being used as a weapon. The result is that people don't want to report COI. This is why situations like the one Newsweek recently wrote about continue for so long. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can keep saying "people are scared" and I will keep saying "show some evidence of that" or even bring a reasonable argument. Repeating something does not make it so.  And while it is another rhetorical tool to turn the "weapon" back on me, enforcing community 'policy on NPA is not using policy or a guideline as  weapon. I reject that.  And you continue to condone the behavior!  Terrible.   Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From personal experience, I can vouch for the fact that if one does raise COI concerns with either editors who deny the existence of any COI, honestly or dishonestly, you will have, in raising the question of COI, put them at the top of their hate list and you may face lengthy hounding, possibly to the point of years of it, from those editors because you dared to question their brilliance. John Carter (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing that example John. I was not aware of the reverse problem.... but now that you say that it is not surprising.   But that is not a problem with COIN itself, but with individual editor behavior.  Maybe we need some content about what to do, if someone brings a COIN case against you, and warn against retaliation/hounding in response to cases brought at COIN (with no further hounding on the issue).  Hm.   What I have experienced and seen others subjected to is the opposite - hounding across WP with accusations of COI. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to me we keep having exactly the same discussion over and over again, with the same people pushing for the same wording to be included. (See Archive 18 for direct evidence of this). I realise that there is the theory that consensus can change; however, I find it somewhat disingenuous that the previous request for inclusion of the same wording into the policy isn't being referenced in this new request to do it.  Frankly, in almost every case where I have seen someone accusing another editor of COI on an article talk page, it is being done to deliberately undermine the editor and to change the discussion from the content to the contributor, to distract from the fundamental purpose of the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 04:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Risker, there was consensus for the edit I suggested, but I recall no consensus for the change that Jytdog made in July. Editors who supported, in order: myself,, , . Editors opposed: you and . There's nothing disingenuous about raising it again. The point is that we can't try to force editors to raise their concerns directly with the COI editor. See the discussion on Jimbo's talk page for how the current approach to COI is disastrous in every regard. We have to make it less intimidating for editors to raise these concerns, and this is one tiny step. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * ON the use of COI accusations on article Talk pages, I agree with you. Which is rare for us on COI-related issues. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you point to the consensus for your change in July? Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * sure. it is still there. i didn't edit war over it. Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you link to it, please? Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i mean, the current language is there, in the guideline. a bunch of us were working things out, this is where it ended up. it is not all mine. Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please link to the discussion that led you to add those words to the guideline? I have looked and can't find it, so I would appreciate your help. Sarah (SV) (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * bizarre that you cannot find it, there was a whole section: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_18. Things were also worked out in edit notes. Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

actual current language and alternate proposal
If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline. If the editor does not change his or her behavior to comply with this guideline and/or the Terms of use, create a posting on WP:COIN, following the instructions there. Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with, and the article itself may be tagged with. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.

If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith. Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines, and whether the issue may be advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.

I'd like to call people's attention, again to what the current language actually says. (there are following sections on OUTING, Harassment, and SPA that i have not quoted here).

Please note that there is a 1st paragraph about what to do if there is a very clear COI, and a 2nd paragraph about what to do if you think there ~might~ be a COI. Now, I agree that the 2nd paragraph needs some work. I would support adding to the separate paragraph the same language already in the first paragraph, so that it reads:

"If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith. Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines, and whether the issue may be advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI. After you have considered those options, if you still believe there is a strong likelihood of COI, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline. If the editor does not agree that he or she has a COI, you can create a posting on WP:COIN, following the instructions there."

I would agree to that. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's too wordy and needs to be simplified. I suggest that we return to the pre-July version or the version I suggested above. The latter had consensus in September and appears to have consensus now. Please say what you feel is wrong with it. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * too quick to call consensus, SV. I did say what I object to in your proposal. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't keep doing this. Just say what your objection is. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * doing what? we have about several conversations going on here, and i have directly asked you some questions that you are not responding to. one of them,  is in part of my response to your proposal, just below your quote box. Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd support this version. The main thing to stress is that if someone truly suspects a COI, it needs to be aired out at COIN in a civil manner. Going to the editor's talk page first should be the norm, but the stronger part of this guideline should be going to COIN to figure out if there is truly evidence for a COI. It should be insinuated from the current version, but this definitely helps clarify it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. The language of the add-on is unclear. What does it mean: "After you have considered those options"? Why "if you still believe"? Your belief cannot be a reason for elevating the case. You have to have valid reasons. Three of them are listed. A valid reason is the one which indicated an abuse. Please remember, COI in not evil per se, but because is may lead to abuse. I believe we have forums for all kind of abuse. COIN is a place to deal with an editor where several abuses combine in a nasty way. Any POV-pusher may be accused of COI and just as well may respond with WP:BOOMERANG, thus littering the COIN with irrelevant cases. The order of actions (first talk, then complain) cannot be mandated. If a person behaves rudely and abusively, I doubt it is useful to talk to them in a personal place. If a person is nice or seems to be genuinely confused, you may want to handle the matter delicately first. And so on. In other words, in this place WP:AGF+WP:COMMONSENSE must work, rather than an extra bureaucracy. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * thank you for weighing in! very open to other ideas if you want to propose anything. (the "add on" is to actually suggest what to do  if you don't have real proof (the scenario in the first paragraph), have considered those options, but still think there is some COI.   the 2nd paragraph doesn't say "do X and Y to get your concerns addressed".  it's a bit of a hole. I agree that it would be useful to provide something to validate a belief - like behavioral cues (such as adding badly sourced promotional content to an article and removing negative, well-sourced content).  I would be happy to add something like that to the 2nd paragraph. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand you desire to cover all bases, but IMO if the only argument is your "gut feeling", then the only policy advice possible is "follow your gut feeling". A policy may be written only for well-defined scenarios. Otherwise it is a can of worms. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i appreciate your added content above the possibility that somebody is abrasive; i hear that. So... you would leave the current content about "how to handle a concern" in the COI guideline as is?  (i note there is a proposal above, to simplify it a lot. based on what you have written you may like that one more.) Jytdog (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I dont' want to jump in with any advise without carefully reading both the policy and the talk pages, that's why I'm only jumping in with some criticism. Let me think for a while. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * re: might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions - pardon my stupidity. Either paid editin is a COI or its is not. If it is a COI then why put it in a separate clause? If it is not (i.e., one wants to split hairs between "paid editing" and "paid advocacy"), then why bundle them together without explanation? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use" - A piece of legalese, which I happen to understand (possibly incorrectly) only because I've been lurking around. AFAIU, the "as per" part is related to WP:OUTING, i.e., you cannot prove that you know about person's paid editing from "real life". If I am correct, then you may only refer to the statements of this account. But then it does not matter whether this account disclosed their paid editing "per Terms of Use" or "per slip of tongue". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition, the highly compound sentence looks ambiguous to me: is it "discloses information (that clearly demonstrates COI or has made one edit per ToU) " or "(discloses information that clearly demonstrates COI) or (has made one edit per term ToU)"?  Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * some of what we wrestle with every day with regard to COI, is that all editors are anonymous. (i am going to link to some things as i go here, so you know i am talking actual things that happen...) sometimes an editor write things that are dead giveaways for COI; but sometimes when they do that, they are lying.   sometimes the username is dead giveaway (note the source added there, and the user name), but sometimes what seems a dead giveaway turns out not to be... although my jury is still out on that.  LOTS of times it really hard to sort out advocacy from COI (especially on FRINGE medicine and business based on them)...  my point being, that while sometimes you are blessed with a very clear case of COI, most times it is ambiguous until you draw them out.....  Most times. The anonymity - our ability to actually go check on anybody - is a real issue.  and one that we must respect. (no verifiable sources, here!)  That is what the second paragraph is for (and needed for, in my view) Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I was pinged on this a few days ago and just attempted to wade through all this discussion and bring myself up to date. I favor a return to the pre-July version suggested by SlimVirgin. I see no need for editors to go to a user talk page before coming to COI/N or another pertinent location if they feel there is a COI issue taking place. That being said, editors need to be cautious in alleging COI. It concerns me that editors are getting bogged down in that, and as a result there is drama that is unnecessary. Also I want to examine John Carter's essay referenced above. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I support the version above as well. The main thing I want to see is the latter part saying that if you suspect COI, COIN is the place to go. No casting aspersions about COI, but just go to COIN and present the evidence. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Other issues

 * I encourage folks to read the diffs above in the ANI (here) linked above for a real world example, and then read the whole current section of the COI guideline under discussion. We need to keep a non-toxic editing environment. Where there are concerns about COI, they need to be handled by the community in a clear process - not by vigilantes hounding people.  Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC) (added link to ANI posting since this was separated by a break and much text from earlier post Jytdog (talk))


 * But your aggressive approach to people with COI concerns does create a toxic editing environment, one where people are scared of raising COI. Think about the silliness of that. We are volunteers. We have nothing. But we are sometimes scared (of other editors) when we want to point out that billion-dollar industries are slanting articles that readers believe are written independently. Sarah (SV) (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hounding other editors across Wikipedia Talk pages is aggressive behavior. Again, please read the diffs of what EllenCT actually did.  She did not act at all like a scared bunny.  Posting at COIN in a calm and civil manner - what is threatening about that?  You are not dealing with reality on either side of this.  Really - read what she wrote.  it is just raw personal attack, based on nothing, pounded and pounded and pounded that completely violates AGF and the HARASS.  She "knows" he is a paid editor.  It is terrible.  Corrosive.   Don't cloak personal attack with some kind of self-righteous cloak of fighting corporate corruption.  That is what McCarthy did. That is what David Tornheim is doing.  My calling toxic behavior is not toxicity and I reject that 100%.   Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * @Jytog: Wikipedia is open to all kinds of exploitation and crankery, and people find ways to be objectionable all the time. Others have to be realistic and accept the limitations of the open-editing model. If someone is repeatedly posting unhelpful stuff, that needs to be addressed, however, preventing people from raising possible COI problems would not help the project. I have missed almost all the drama in the recent cases that you have been involved in at ANI, but your enthusiasm for pursuing opponents at ANI is exactly what a person with a conflict of interest would do—that is what is giving life to their claims. People without a COI normally can understand why their opponents are raising the point (perhaps it's ignorance or a tactic), and can react with occasional denials that don't feed drama. Have a look at Talk:Ayurveda to see how good editors are being stymied by proponents of quackery—I mention that to show that you are not alone, and Wikipedia does have problems. My suggestion would be to stick to discussing text and sources, and disregard claims of a COI except with a once-per-week short and simple statement rejecting the claims. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are understanding the context here, Johnuniq. Most of the time when people fling bullshit COI accusations at me, I shrug it off and say "discuss content not contributors".  What is happening now, is that David Tornheim is hounding me across Wikipedia, canvassing, campaigning, you name it, waking up old battles - calling people who hounded me in the past to come back and start again.  It is ugly, McCarthy era stuff.   Jytdog (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the context from ANI. Tweaking a guideline will do nothing to address your concern of hounding. A fact of life is that there would need to be a period of at least a few days where you are not the focus of an ANI thread before the issue of hounding would be likely to get consideration—as it is now, wounded souls from other conflicts, and passers-by, will probably derail the discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not calling for tweaking any guideline. I think the guideline is fine, as is. And I am very unhappy to be so caught up at ANI right now. I have had to deal with two somewhat crazy people, and there is David.  That's it.  This too will pass and I will be able to go back to editing.  In peace, I hope.  Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No comment on a specific event, but I reiterate that I'm absolutely opposed to weaponized COI accusations (the primary hallmark is it being used repeatedly). But I think if more people were more comfortable taking their legitimate concerns to COIN (1) more people would use the right outlet (2) the larger community would be less tolerant of the warriors. I doubt that (3) we'd have less COI but that would also help solve this issue if it were possible. Geogene (talk) 02:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * what is scary about bringing a case to COIN? That is a real question.  Please look at the current COIN page, and at the archives.  What do you see there that is scary for posters?   Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't want to go there. I know of one issue at the moment that I could raise, but I'm choosing not to, because I can predict that there would be an aggressive response (including from you), and I couldn't prove the point without outing. has suggested putting together a group of editors knowledgeable about COI to help people make these cases.  suggested creating a new "COI-like editing" category, so we could say of someone that the editing looks too much like COI to be ignored. I think these ideas need to be explored, because the current situation is making fools of us. Sarah (SV) (talk) 04:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin I have no idea why you are trying to steer things away from bringing problems to the community, instead of personalizing them and carrying them around with you. That is the whole heart of the Wikipedia DR process.  These boards exist to brings things out into daylight, into the community.  Saying that any board is scary is just bizarre.  How does DR work in your universe? I  don't understand.  And if you don't have a case to make on COIN being scary then I don't know why you are weighing in on that.  I really don't.  Jytdog (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please be more clear, SV. Exactly what "current situation" is making fools of us? Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * would you please answer these questions? (how does DR work in your Wikipedia?  and What "current situation?")  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to pull back here. This is the long answer that I mentioned at ANI.    SlimVirgin you said something really important just above.  " I know of one issue at the moment that I could raise, but I'm choosing not to, because I can predict that there would be an aggressive response (including from you), and I couldn't prove the point without outing"  I will ignore the middle part, and want to focus on the beginning and the end.   The real tension here is between what is just a hunch in WP, but what you feel you can prove if you could only violate OUTING.
 * First of all, you should know that there has been an intense RfC at WT:HARASSMENT about exceptions to OUTING for paid editing. You might want to check in on that.  We have been trying to work out a way to be able to submit off-wiki links in order to deal with paid editing.  This is high level stuff, involving Arbcom and the WMF Board.  You should check it out.  There is the division in the community that you would expect there, that we saw in the multiple proposals to ban paid editing.   (I started out supporting the proposal, but i realized that the hole that was proposed was too big, and too easily abused.  But I still want to work toward something there.)
 * Second, you may well be surprised that I agree with you, in part here.  But I frame it differently. I accept the very hard edge that OUTING provides.  You cannot OUT someone, period.  Getting hung up on that, is just banging your head against a wall.
 * I have been thinking a lot about advocacy, and the way that advocates fuck up wikipedia. There used to be an NPOVN board (there is still is, but it is dead as a doornail).  It is really hard to deal with advocacy in WP.  And what I hear in what you are saying, is a concern with consistent POV editing - with advocacy.  That is the on-wikipedia result of a COI, right?  If you cannot prove a COI, you are left with advocacy.  So the thing I have been thinking about, is how can I bring a workable, concise-enough case at ANI, about advocacy.  That is really hard. I have thought about whether people could bring such a case against me, too.  And I will use me as an example, rather than the folks I have in mind.  Someone would have show a consistent refusal on my part to use what are actually reliable sources.  (they could not bring bad sources like naturalnews or the like, and get any where.  they would have to bring actual reliable sources that i actually rejected, with diffs).  They would have to show that when I use reliable sources, I skew the content based on them, to show one particular POV, both in what I write, and in what I revert.  Those are the two main things, right?  Content and sources.  And there would have to be a significant number of diffs - a very clear pattern - to show that this was not just a mistake (we all make mistakes).  Do you see what I mean?  It is a hard thing to do.  It would take a lot of time and work.  I think it is do-able.   and you would have to leave COI the hell out of it, as it would indeed cause all hell to break loose.  But a very solid NPOV case,  is something that even people like  would respect --everybody cares about NPOV.  Everybody.   Does that make sense?
 * And that is why, by the way, the second paragraph in the current Guidance about "what to do" exists. It asks editors to think about whether it is an advocacy/NPOV issue if they cannot actually prove COI.  So there you go.  That is my long answer. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing. In theory, you could get yourself in trouble for outing, just like you could at SPI or elsewhere. Not likely for someone experienced enough to use the board. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have had at least two newbies to COIN violate OUTING at COIN. I removed their posting, got it oversighted, and talked with them about what they did wrong, and had them repost it.  All calmly, no drama.  Jytdog (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know where it comes from but it's a view I often hear in this context, that COIN is a dangerous place. I think it's a step in the right direction to change the wording to not imply that you need to have proof or certainty before bringing something there. Anyway I see some matters at COIN that are there based on reasonable suspicion based on behavioral evidence, and not open admission, and that seems reasonable. Or at least consistent with how, say, sockpuppets are often detected. Geogene (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * yep! but i totally don't get the "dangerous place" thing. I am really curious about where that is coming from!  i don't think anybody who has brought a case that i have worked on (who was reasonable!) found it to be intimidating.  if you could figure out where you have heard that i would appreciate it. Jytdog (talk) 05:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm also not seeing this COIN can be scary type idea. If an apparent COI isn't clear, it's exactly the place for someone to ask, "Hey, I'm not sure if editor X has a COI. Here's are the edits that make me question if there's a COI . . ." The worst that can happen there if the editor brings it forward in a civil manner is that the community says there isn't a COI and everyone continues on. If the editor has been hounding the person being accused of COI or otherwise acting uncivilly, then the community might make note of that, but that's ultimately a matter for ANI. In my relatively short time here compared to other editors, COIN seems to work pretty smoothly with relatively little drama. If someone is really fearing retribution at COIN (though that feels like WP:BEANS to me at this point), that's all the more reason for them to keep their nose clean at the articles in question and when posting the COIN notice. If they're approaching it all civilly, there's nothing to fear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Like most things in life, I think there is a balance to be struck here. We don't want paid editors running amock or to have the encyclopedia's goals subverted by those whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy and righting great wrongs. On the other hand, I think we all agree with the idea that we want to maintain a warm, collegial, and welcoming atmosphere and that diversity of opinion is one of Wikipedia's strengths. No one should have to put up with constant aspersions and insinuations because a vocal minority disagrees with their point of view.

Sarah, what originally motivated me to join Wikipedia was coming across the Levofloxacin article and finding a 120,000 byte article that contained every case report in the literature of anything bad that had ever happened to anyone while taking the drug, and scores of others that were taken from blogs and other unreliable sources. Throughout the article these adverse effects were described as "severe", "life-threatening", and "permanent" though in most cases the underlying source described them as mild and temporary. The drug definitely has some issues but these were overstated to such an extent that I suspect that 5% of patients reading the article stopped taking their prescriptions. This is serious because the main use of Levofloxacin is for community acquired pneumonia. Many studies have shown the importance of rapid and effective treatment in preventing mortality. I believe there is quite literally a body count associated with the unbalanced state this article was in for several years. But I was harrassed and called a shill every step of the way in rewriting it.

While this work was in progress, I found myself in an content dispute with you, which included notes left on my user page threatening me with blocks, accuastions of bad faith editing, and even following me to other articles to revert my "biased" edits. I threw in the towel and began editing under shifting IP addresses for most of a year to make it difficult for you to track me.

I know you are a good and well intentioned person and do not intend to have this type of impact, so I'm taking this occassion to let you know. These attacks are corrosive, unproductive, and do more harm than good. I hope you'll be able to read this in the spirit in which I offer it, which is simply intended to create some understanding of the impact of excessive viligence in pursuing "COI". Sometimes it really is just a difference of opinion. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC). Striking with apologies - see below


 * This isn't the place to discuss particular examples, but if I said I was thinking of blocking, it wasn't a content dispute, so what you say makes no sense to me. Please let me have some links on my talk page. The only editor I can see from the history of Levofloxacin (which I haven't edited) that I discussed COI with was User:Alfred Bertheim, and here is the discussion (it was in relation to another article and there is no mention of blocking). Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have brought up specific examples yourself, SlimVigin (eg EllenCT above). How is this different?  bring them, Formerly, if you like. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Slim, I apologize for the inaccurate remark above. I've reviewed the records of the interaction and there was no threat to block. I do believe that the early and unsupported raising of the issue of COI played a major role in this perception that I was being subjected to a campaign of harassement. I did not raise this issue to "call you out", but to try to make clear how corrosive and negative these types of comments are, and did so only because my many past efforts to explain this do not seem to have resonated with those editors who seem to me fairly quick to raise such questions during a content dispute. But all this being said, I stand corrected and apologize. Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for striking. I've reviewed my edits, and not only was there no threat to block, there were no allegations of bad faith, and absolutely nothing that could be described as harassment. Our interaction was relatively brief and as I recall confined to Pharmaceutical industry (DRN, article talk, user talk). I've asked you to make that clear, but you've declined, so I'm posting it here myself. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WIfone case
It is a bad problem that warrants systemic change that it's extremely, extremely difficult to deal with an FCOI of a skilled dishonest editor. Case in point: Wifione. We need to restore the flexibility that provides multiple ways for it to be dealt with. Flexibility that would mean Wifione wouldn't be as bad if it happened now.--Elvey(t•c) 12:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Great example. Arbcom case is Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione for anybody not familiar with it.  the issues here are really difficult and have convulsed the community several times.  If you are not familiar with the explosion of proposals to ban paid editing following the Wiki-PR scandal, you can find them in the "further reading" section of Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia article, where I put them,  And see also the RfC referenced above.  The tension is between WP:OUTING, which is a passionately held fundamental principle of WP, and passionately held concerns about violations of NPOV (a passionately held fundamental principle of Wikipedia) caused by COI/paid editing.  So far the community has found no way to take a more aggressive stance on paid editing that doesn't run into problems with OUTING.  Nothing in the discussion above threads the needle either.  It is hard. Jytdog (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * and very importantly - if you read the arbom decision, what brought Wifone down was not paid editing, but a strong pattern of violating NPOV. In their "principles" section, they wrote that arbcom has no jurisdiction over enforcing the ToU - that is a very serious thing with regard to this discussion.  It will take community consensus to make it part of their mandate. I will quote that here:


 * "'The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies. The arbitration policy prevents the Committee from creating new policy by fiat. The Committee does have, however, a longstanding mandate to deal with activities often associated with paid editing—POV-pushing, misrepresentation of sources, and sometimes sockpuppetry—through the application of existing policy.'"


 * And paid editing was not mentioned in their findings of fact. It was NPOV that got him.  With regard to NPOV, see my remarks above. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree re: flexibility. The issues aren't difficult. Wikipedia chooses to make them so, in part because paid editors have always been part of the discussion about how to handle COI, so our thinking about it is bogged down. It was obvious for a long time that Wifione had a COI, but it was the usual AGF problem. Had it not been for it might still be going on.


 * We should make it easier to topic ban editors at an early stage when editors in good standing believe there is a COI. I'm not talking about the small fry who create articles about themselves, but about editors acting on behalf of significant financial interests. Perhaps we need to rethink the term "topic ban" to make it less of a stigma. Sarah (SV) (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * the fly in that ointment, is demonstrating that anyone is "acting on behalf of significant financial interests".  Without violating OUTING, what that comes down to is on-wiki evidence of a significant pattern of violating NPOV, per my note above.  Jytdog (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * NO, Jytdog.  What's very important was the horrendous, embarrassingly ridiculous time - multiple YEARS - and and horrendous, embarrassingly ridiculous amount of effort it took to get the issue to be properly addressed.  In hindsight, it looks to me like there was plenty of evidence if more folks had just looked a little harder at the evidence that had been presented many years ago, like in Aug 2010.  What brought Wifone down is probably not to be seen online, but rather is in the evidence that, it's indicated, was submitted privately - probably evidence of paid advocacy editing that OUTING kept under wraps that was even stronger than the behavioral evidence. It was strong enough that it led in 2009 to both an RFM (not accepted - See User_talk:Makrandjoshi.) and an SPI (closed as possible then but in 2015 as likely). What seems very important is understanding and addressing why Wifione was so effective so long in bullying many people into giving up on challenging his bad behavior. e.g. odd reason for a delete instead of a move, but done / upheld!--Elvey(t•c) 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, strongly agree - it's "because paid editors have always been part of the discussion about how to handle COI, so our thinking about it is bogged down". A while ago, I suggested discussions only open to those willing to state they've disclosed any paid editing as a solution to that.  Perhaps in such discussions there would be more traction for ideas like making "topic ban" less of a stigma, User:SlimVirgin.--Elvey(t•c) 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Elvey I agree with you that better action taken earlier could have made a big difference. The first COIN case especially was not followed through on well.   But you both are missing my points.  first, arbcom has made it clear that they are not "going there" on ToU violations on the community provides consensus for them to do so.  second, to get community consensus for that, or any stronger action on ToU enforcement or stronger COI management,  we have to deal with OUTING, and the very strong concern that a significant chunk of the community has for that, and the anonymity of editors, and this whole place being about content and behavior - a whole nexus of things deep in the guts of this place.  That is not going away, and all the Reichstag-climbing and outrage in the world is not going to change that.  And while I reckon that some opposition to stronger COI procedures/policies comes from undisclosed paid editors,  tarring all those who have strong concern to preserve OUTING, as all being paid editors, is going to make any proposal even more of a lead balloon, and really discredits whatever you propose.
 * any proposal to use off-wiki evidence is going to have to be strictly limited .... i do urge you to read the RfC i linked to above. i have floated a balloon there..   would be interested in your thoughts on that. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We can bypass OUTING concerns by making it easier to deal with COI (not only paid editing) using WP:DUCK. If, in addition, we reduce the stigma of topic bans, we'd be closer to finding a solution. The stigma is diminishing as more editors are subjected to them, so perhaps this is a moot point, but I still think a different term would sting less; e.g. a no-fault "topic advisory" where the community asks editors to steer clear of a certain topic for 12 months. Regular editors would edit elsewhere after some grumbling. The serious COI-ers would leave. Problem solved. Sarah (SV) (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion with Geogene above, we use behavior stuff quite a bit at COIN now - there are behaviors that make a COI pretty clear (often the account is SPA and their edits blatantly violate NPOV and other policies and guidelines). That will get you some distance.  At end of the day it takes actual policy violations to get people indeffed  - see this recent case I brought to ANI.  Outside blatant policy violations like that, you are going to need a long term pattern of violating NPOV, as I keep saying, and like what finally brought wifone down.  But I have no idea what you are talking about with "the stigma of topic bans".  If someone wants to edit a topic and gets topic banned, it sucks to be them. But sometimes that has to happen.  Nothing to do with "stigma". Jytdog (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, when you were accused of COI you voluntarily asked for an off-Wiki check that cleared your name. How does such a check work and how could it show that an editor was not being paid for their edits? Gandydancer (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you mean, "the last time the hounding became overwhelming", I can answer you. I get accused of COI all the time. In any case:
 * Via email with an oversighter, I disclosed my real life identity and what i do for a living, my life story, and my work history, and we had some discussion about that. The oversighter with whom I emailed evaluated all that and found no COI for anything related to ag biotech.  I did not mention editing for pay, as I have never done that.  I was not asked if I edit for pay and we did not discuss that.   In case I have never said it before (it is hard to believe I haven't with all the hammering I have gotten):  i have never been paid, or received any consideration of any kind, for anything I do in Wikipedia, nor have I expected to, nor do I expect to, nor have I ever agreed to.  I edit here purely as a volunteer; it has never been, and is not, part of my day job nor any paid work nor any volunteer work i do outside of my day job.  I have tried to make that as broad and clear as possible - I am not a paid editor.  I have no COI for ag biotech.  The story of how i got interested in ag biotech was on an older version of my user page which you can see here  that is the real story. no money in it.   Jytdog (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just copied the second paragraph to my user page, to make it easy for folks to find in the future. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Gandydancer / Jytdog : Link? Is the oversighter someone you're willing to name/authorize to verify the public part of the story you post above? ("Via email with an oversighter, I disclosed my real life identity...") so that your story can be verified?  Also, I don't see a claim that the oversighter was able to verify the key parts of the story.  What makes me skeptical as that I see you grossly substantially misrepresenting what ARBCOM said.    --Elvey(t•c) 01:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * there has been a link to the COIN discussion at the bottom of my user page ever since it happened. How do you think I am grossly misrepresenting what arbom said?  please explain. you really must, since you are getting all suspicious over it.  Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC) (edited)
 * Verified that you contacted oversighter Someguy1221. He doesn't say so but it can be assumed that he verified the identity that you privately claimed. Thanks. Helpful. But you're still misrepresenting what ARBCOM said when you say "arbcom has no jurisdiction over enforcing the ToU." - three + reasons: firstly, that's an overreach AND secondly, ARBCOM was nuts to even say "The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing;" half a dozen respected veteran editors said as much to ARBCOM here and ARBCOM agreed...? -  I'm confused; this doesn't LOOK stricken to me and you quote it, but thirdly, this says it was stricken and User:Smallbones gave seven reasons why it was wrong. WT???   should I ask for a formal clarification? DONE. ISTM this should definitely be stricken ! --Elvey(t•c) 02:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for explaining. OK, so I am actually comfortable with what I wrote. First, please look again at Smallbones request - first, i weighed in on that and supported it to be stricken; and second, it failed with 6 opposed to striking, 4 favoring, and 2 abstaining. Second. please see this post by Doc James, who has been working very hard on paid editing issues and has been talking to Jimbo, WMF, and arbcom. He says the same thing - that arbcom will not touch this. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so my third reason was not valid; sorry for what the incorrect official statements on what was stricken from the arbcom case led me to say about you, incorrectly, Jytdog.  (That doesn't change my view that you're misrepresenting what ARBCOM said when you say "arbcom has no jurisdiction over enforcing the ToU." for the other reasons; they said far less than that.) --Elvey(t•c) 20:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for your note! this is getting pretty fine on the arbcom thing. bottom line is that I believe that this arbcom (future ones, might take different stances) has made it clear that they are not going to act or consider ToU violations or paid editing, until the community provides consensus for them to do so. that is the message they are giving, both in the wifione case and elsewhere. i am comfortable saying that. if you have some diff that contradicts that, I am all ears. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, re: your post above about NPOV, it's a mistake to focus on that, because it might take months or years to become familiar enough with a complex topic to determine what's missing and what has been slanted.

An editor who does little but edit in the interests of a particular industry has an apparent COI by definition. As the guideline says, this can be as damaging as an actual COI, and should be resolved wherever possible. It's particularly damaging when it's a powerful company and the public interest is at stake. We should be able to suggest that that person take time off from the topic, without it being a big deal or something requiring months of volunteer time to propose. I'd encourage you to read some of the academic literature on how damaging actual and apparent COI is. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Focusing on NPOV is the only way (in my opinion) that you are going to get community consensus to do more about COI/paid editing. Everybody agrees on preserving NPOV.
 * I deal with and manage other people's COI every day as part of my RW work. i know about it, I think about it, I live it.
 * Here is what WP:APPARENTCOI actually says (with emphasis added): "An apparent conflict of interest arises when  P does not have a conflict of interest , but someone would be justified in thinking P does. Michael Davis writes that apparent conflicts can be as objectionable as potential or actual conflicts, because they cause suspicion, and should therefore be resolved wherever possible.   What "resolved" means there, if you read Davis, is that the apparent conflict is investigated, and if no conflict is found, the decision is made clear, so that people are not anxious and do not suspect the person anymore .   So your reading of Davis is wrong.  You would cost Wikipedia to lose (possibly) good editors because of something that is not true.
 * Finally, I am being hounded, and you are supporting it, and definitely are not trying to stop it.  You have been the subject of hounding and Arbcom found you to be "an outspoken opponent of any sort of on- or off-wiki harassment or stalking of editors, and has commendably worked to call attention to serious problems in this area, but has sometimes been too ready to accuse editors of this type of misconduct unnecessarily."   What happened to that person?   You are doing the opposite of being "too ready to accuse" others of hounding.   Why are you supporting the hounding of me, and opening the door wide for others to be hounded?  I really mean those questions.  Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to focus on the issue. If you'd like to ask me something about your situation, please post something on your page. I'll look out for it.


 * Back to the point: it's senseless to argue for the status quo when it clearly doesn't work. If someone is in the thick of persistent and serious allegations of COI, they can resolve them by taking the articles off their watchlist for a period. That should be encouraged, just as people are encouraged to recuse in real life, for the sake of public confidence.


 * If they won't, and particularly if it involves a significant external financial interest, there should be an easy way for the community to request a topic ban based on apparent COI, without having to "investigate" people. If we had done that with Wifione, 15,000 students in India wouldn't have lost money, and hundreds (thousands?) of hours of volunteer time wouldn't have been wasted. At the moment we do it when it doesn't matter, we topic-ban the minor vanity writers, etc. What makes no sense is that we require hard evidence when the issue is more serious, but anyone who finds it risks being sanctioned. We need a fresh, "no big deal" approach, as in "this is not your fault, but you would be helping the community if you were to refrain from editing X for 12 months." Sarah (SV) (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * i'l repeat this. you are ignoring the part of  apparent COI that says P does not have a conflict of interest  You appear to be quite willing to have editors who have done nothing wrong be hounded and driven off articles they want to work on - and may be contributing productively to.  That is messed up to me.  I will not support that, and doubt the community will - it will take an RfC to implement your proposal to lower the bar this far.   Let me ask you - how do you prevent your lower bar from being abused by POV-pushers against good editors?  How do you judge if a claim is valid?  Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * additional note. The Wifione case, on its face, was an NPOV-violation case.  The key set of evidence there, was all Feb 2013 and earlier.  So theoretically... the case could have been brought two years ago.  I don't know why it wasn't.  ( I really don't)  And I don't know if the same case would have succeeded two years ago (I really don't). Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No. What's being suggested above is, literally, Ostracism, that an editor that isn't breaking any other policy, and isn't even that likely to have COI, can be voted off the island by a mob of angry editors based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. (After all, if he were breaking some other policy they would have called him in for that, and if he were likely to have COI they'd have taken him to COIN as it is.) This would be the go-to weapon for battlegrounders all across Wikipedia. That's problematic for a lot of reasons, including the fact that it runs against AGF, NOTDEMOCRACY, and other policies. What might make it less distasteful to me would be if you have a set board of uninvolved editors where such a case can be brought, where the disputants don't get to pick the outcome, and where unsuccessful serial accusers would be noticed for intervention. But...don't we already have a place like that? Geogene (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's an example of the focus on NPOV failing. Someone reported Wifione to COIN in January 2010. His response: "When an article (like you have mentioned) contains too many negative issues, then attempting to reach an NPOV state by adding a balancing positive pov appears to be CoI." He then warns the OP about harassment and raises the idea of a block for it. He insists that the OP "treat content disputes the way they should be treated - like content disputes. Please don't harass a fellow editor continuously and so flagrantly."


 * COI editors use our policies and DR as Trojan horses. Even with an article as straightforward as the Wifione one, determining whether it's neutral (including which sources are missing) is very time-consuming. You have to educate yourself about the topic, you have to survive the COI editor's filibustering. With a complex issue, it could take months before you understand enough to be able to tackle it from an NPOV perspective and explain it so that others get it too. Sarah (SV) (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * SV that was a case brought to COIN. It not a case about NPOV on the face of it.  And as I mentioned, I think that COIN case may have been handled too lightly;  I am not sure I would have handled it that way... but I have not dug into the background enough to say for sure.  It would take a lot of work that I am not willing to do now. ( i can symphathize with the "too busy for that" argument, for something that is history)   But yes if you are trying to make an argument about NPOV, there must be actual consideration of whether the edits are NPOV or not.  It cannot be that some POV-pusher who DOESNTLIKEIT attacks the contributor instead of dealing with content, and others act on that, without even understanding the issues.  Is that really what you are proposing?   Jytdog (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You've said that COI editors use our policies as Trojan horses to influence articles, why wouldn't they use this the same way? Remember, the decision about whether an editor should edit an article is a straw poll. Wifione had a sock farm. I don't see how this proposal would stop anyone with any staff. Geogene (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That particular case was not followed up properly because it was lost sight of. Some of it is my fault, because I was aware of it, and intended to follow up, but there is so much coi to work on, that I let this one go. I've noticed tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of coi promotional articles, and managed to get many of them fixed or deleted, and the editors stopped, but unless what I try works at the first instance, I can only follow up a small proportion of them.     There are too few of us who have been caring for this problem, no matter how energetically we act, to do everything. We're not going to fix the problem by acting against the editors with the current methods  available and we cannot wait for the multi-year process of developing a strong enough consensus to change the rules even if we were to find a change with the right balance: we need to do it by acting with respect to the articles. What is needed is more people looking carefully at new articles and listing for deletion, and checking articles merely tagged and considering them for deletion, and commenting at afd where a great many article do not get deleted because nobody bothers to support the nominator. (about 1/4 of those I nominate there do not get deleted, because nobody seems to pay attention, or take the problem seriously.)  DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for writing here . i agree with all that. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Limiting page creation to autoconfirmed users would slow that down tremendously. That's another thing I don't understand. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Noting that I've replied to at WP:AC/CN. --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 03:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not inventing a new field of jurisprudence here. There are multiple analogies to this situation in real life. If you run into someone who you think spends a little too much time at the playground for a guy who does not have kids,


 * It would probably be normal to have some concerns
 * But if you ask them if they are a child molester, they are likely to be angry. All the more so if you do so within the hearing of others
 * If you repeatedly raise the issue within the hearing of others after they have denied it, and in the absence of any real evidence, it is likely that they will eventually file a lawsuit against you for defamation of character.

Put another way, even in the case of child molesting we as a society balance the important task of preventing wrongdoing with the need for people to be free from being continuously hassled by others who may feel they have a basis for concern but who have no real evidence, those who are unrealistically suspicious, and those who use accusations to bully others.

Likewise, I don't think its a very nice thing when someone accuses me of COI in the absence of any evidence other than that I disagree with their own incredibly neutral POV. Accusing me of it repeatedly is even worse, as it insults me, by implication calls me a liar, and has not even a theoretical chance of achieving anything. (I'm certainly not going to "fess up" on the 5ths accusation if I didn't in the first 4. At this point the accusation is clearly being made as a cudgel).

An important problem with the current system is that when a COIN case is filed, there are typically two outcomes. Either COI is established and the editor in question is disciplined, or evidence is not found, and the disagreeing parties go back to the Talk page where the complaintant continues to hurdle the same accusations at the person who just spent several days defending themselves at COIN.

In order to check the potential for abuse, there needs to be one of two things.
 * 1) Some reasonably high standard of evidence, and sanctions for trivial ("he made an edit I disagree with" complaints, or
 * 2) Some reasonable "time out" period during which repeat accusations cannot be made against those who have just been investigated with no fault found.

In the Constitution of the U.S. there is a double jeopardy clause. It is there for a reason. Formerly 98 talk 14:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * YES!! to thing 2, above (where that period is perhaps a month, adjustable by a factor of 2 by an authorized closing investigator). No! to sanctions for raising CoI concern outside of a narrowly prescribed way, no to a narrowly prescribed way.  No to regs that would forbid the bulk of the CoI accusations against Wifione, if they were made tomorrow.--Elvey(t•c) 17:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear support for systemic change because "it's extremely, extremely difficult to deal with an FCOI of a skilled dishonest editor." So I'm thinking that the next time I see such a conflict, I'll ask for a topic ban based on the quite apparent COI rather than seek/wait (forever?) for hard evidence thereof. I think that's what we should plan on. And based on how that goes, consider next steps.--Elvey(t•c) 15:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * i have been thinking about this too. I've been looking for a test case to bring to ANI over COI.  It would need to have the following qualities:
 * a self-disclosure of COI so that it is not ambiguous
 * disruptive-ish behavior but not wildly over the line (if it were way over the line, they would already have been dealt with on that basis, like this case
 * easy-enough-to-discern pattern of POV editing (if it is too technical, the crowd at ANI will not "get it")
 * i am very curious how such a case would go. but i think if you lack any one of those elements, the case will go nowhere and could even boomerang (the lesson of the TimidGuy case) I want to emphasize that without a clear self-disclosure that the editor  is "an FCOI", you have an entirely different situation on your hands.  Without the self-disclosure piece,  in my view bringing COI heavily into the discussion is going to derail it, and you also will need to have much stronger evidence under the other two bullets to get a community decision.  I do  think the community is ripe for cases like this, but each one needs to be done well for it to succeed and others to follow. Badly done, ham-handed cases will not only probably boomerang on the OP, but a series of them will likely start to cause a backlash.  Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How is your case a test case? What does it test that makes it like the WIfone case? I see it as such an entirely different situation that it belongs in a different discussion, so I've added a new header.  In the case you link to, there's a clear ToS violation - clear disclosure of a FCOI, but one that doesn't meet the terms of the ToU.  WIfone never disclosed a COI, let alone a FCOI.  It sounds like you're saying that a case like the Wifione case would go nowhere and could even boomerang.  That's the problem.   It sounds almost like you're saying that a case like the Wifione case should go nowhere. What does "succeed" mean to you? --Elvey(t•c) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * would you please re-read what i wrote? you misinterpreted it. the case i linked to is not the test case, since there was a very clear behavioral violation and it was taken care of on those grounds. i am talking about something different, where an editor does not make egregious behavioral violations. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog, I have re-read what you wrote. I actually think I didn't misinterpret it.  I did not say the case you linked to is the test case.  Let me restate: How is the case (which you say "the community is ripe for) and (which you define as a case "[with] a clear self-disclosure that the editor is "an FCOI") a test case?  What does it test that makes it like the WIfone case?  I don't see it as like the WIfone case, so I put it under a new header, but you reverted me. --Elvey(t•c) 18:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:COI is just a guideline, not a policy. It strongly urges (with bolding even) editors with a COI not to edit articles directly.  I am unaware of any case (there may well be one but I am not aware of it), where an editor with a declared COI insisted on editing an article where they have a COI, directly.  And editing in a somewhat POV-ish way, but not edit warring (or not much), actually bringing sources (but generally bad ones), removing content that others would justifiably keep (but again, not edit warring over it too much), and arguing strongly on the page (but not being wildly uncivil).  In other words, blowing off the COI guideline by directly editing, and editing in pretty clearly POV way... but not so blatantly that they lose their privileges for it quickly (as many of them do).  A somewhat diruptive editor with a declared COI who is blowing off WP:COI.  It would be very interesting  to see if the community would topic ban them.  I don't  know if they would.  I really don't.  There are strong feelings across the board on this. But i would be interesed to see what would happen. I thought i had found it, but the person gave up and went away.  I would bring this case primarily as a violation of the COI guideline.  There would need to be some solid evidence of disruption. I wouldn't bother bringing a COI case to ANI where an editor declared a COI, blew of the guideline and edited directly, but all their edits were wonderful, or they didn't fight back at all if their edits were reverted.  I would bet $100 that such a case would end up with "no consensus" to do anything, and would cause a huge, ugly, unresolvable ruckus.  No point in that.
 * a different case, would be straight down the Wifione path. No declaration of COI, but a very clear long-term pattern of POV editing. I am going to try to bring one of those, in a couple of months. (I have been to ANI too much lately and I need to wait, to let the air clear.) I will probably not mention "COI" at all in either of those, as there is no disclosure of an external relationship by the editor. They will be NPOV cases, not COI cases.  Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * do you see more of what i mean now? 18:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Disclosure of COI at account creation?
Hi, was thinking today. WP is a scholarly project, and as far as I know, most reputable publishers require authors to disclose any COI they have, when they submit a manuscript. (I know this is true in scientific publishing - not so sure about liberal arts.)

So - what if we included a way for editors to disclose COI when they create an account? Something like: "You may have a conflict of interest (COI) with regard to something you want to write about.  Additionally, some people edit Wikipedia as part of their jobs, or as contractors.  Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation for any edits you make in those situations.  We ask editors to disclose any other sort of COI they have as well.  Please disclose any conflicts you have in the box below. Please note that Wikipedia allows editors to be anonymous on Wikipedia, and protects the anonymity of editors via enforcement of the outing policy.  However, you are obligated to disclose "employer, client, and affiliations" for paid edits, and are encouraged to disclose any other COI. The contents of this box will be added to your User Page."

Something like that. This may be a lead balloon, but I wanted to float it, and this seemed to be the place to start. It would of course require an RFC with very wide notification to get anything like this actually done, should the balloon fly here. Thoughts?Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for continuing to grapple with the dilemma that is Wikipedia COI. As you hint, the dilemma especially arises because Wikipedia articles are meant to be presented as a tertiary, independent encyclopedia in the scholarly voice - but autobiographers, nor agents of article subjects, cannot possibly honestly represent their own writing this way.  Then too, many people are unfamiliar with analyzing or dealing with their own COI in written work.  Wikipedia must both request (demand) and educate about dealing with COI.  You present a way to do so but, I wonder whether sign-in is a WMF coding thing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of it (though some of the proposed wording might need adjustment)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see several problems, especially with the wording proposed.
 * firstly you are raising the threshold for creating an account, and those like me who consider that easy account creation is part of Wikipedia's "secret sauce" will oppose that.
 * Secondly we are an encyclopaedia covering everything, so disclosure of all potential COIs is an onerous and undue process, especially when contrasted with the current policy of allowing people to avoid a COI by not editing the article. Taking me as a case in point, when I started editing I might have agreed to disclose who my employer was, but I would not have been allowed by my employer to publicly list on the Internet all the current and potential clients of theirs that I was involved with in my work.
 * Thirdly we have people doing lots of little edits rather than occasionally submitting a whole manuscript. Maintaining a list of potential conflicts of interest that you update every time you submit an edit would be an onerous timesink.
 * Fourthly this approach makes life difficult for those who try to follow the rules, but does nothing to inconvenience those who ignore them. Better in my view to try a completely different approach.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for your thoughts! i completely hear all that, and agree they are problems.  I don't know that they are killer problems but i hear and agree. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I would support some form of disclosure ability at account creation. Needs to be kept short. Likely would also need to be optional with the ability to leave it blank. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Neutral It's an interesting idea. It would help deter some of the good faith COI editors that start accounts to write autobiographies genuinely believing that this is what they're supposed to be doing here. It wouldn't do anything against stealth/bad faith COI and for that reason would not address the community's legitimate concerns about this issue. As was said above it might also deter account creation from editors that have legitimate privacy concerns but who aren't intending to use WP for promotion. It might even be used a cudgel if some editors may have unreasonably expansive views of what constitutes COI, for example, if an attorney should be allowed to write articles about laws or jurisprudence because of broad "professional interest" or something. Geogene (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i hear you on the risks. yep those are all legit, i agree. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The disclose-COI-at-account-creation proposal is in my view a fabulous idea. Note: Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, must disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia. --Elvey(t•c) 15:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support with reservations I think this is a good idea. The issues raised are legitimate and need to be adequately addressed. It should be very brief/non prominent and optional (with the option of leaving blank clearly specified). Not sure how best phrased and placed to prevent a chilling effect due to possible over broad interpretation of COI while still making clear paid editing must be disclosed. I agree super easy account creation is extremely important. I also think the process should remain as welcoming and encouraging as possible. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not support - Nice idea, but that seems about as likely to illicit honest responses as the pop up "click yes if you are over 18 to look at our adult site" will get from a from teenage boy. Plus, except for semi-protected articles, you don't even need an account to edit here. —Мандичка YO 😜 23:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do not support -per reasons stated above, ; it might become useful when many many many more editors would come out with paid advocacy for easier statistical data collection. I consider this unlikely and therefore cant see its use. while I agree with Elveythat everyone here who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, must disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia, it would help those who havent been editing for a longer time. I suggest one brief sentence on the registration page, stating that "every user with a COI (which  must be explained in one line, not the acdaemic def by davis) must declare it on one´s user page".--Wuerzele (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Student editing and COI
and members of Wikiproject Medicine have struggled at times (especially near semester-ends) with classes editing WP as part of their work. Sandy works especially on articles like autism and ADHD which seem to be especially popular as subjects for class work - some of these articles are FA and some are GA, as well.

Issues of COI come into play, on a pretty fundamental level, in these situations, as students perceive themselves - and sometimes actually are - graded for editing WP and they sometimes become quite desperate for their edits to "stick" based on class-imposed deadlines (especially if they have procrastinated, as students are wont to do).

In my view students are often put in a situation where they come to WP with a pretty clear COI - advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia - our core definition of COI.

I can provide you examples, and I am sure Sandy can provide many more, of students editing warring, getting abusive, even begging, to have their edits "stick", at least just for a few days until their instructors can see them and grade them. These are fundamentally WP:NOTHERE behaviors... and in those situations the COI becomes very clear.

More recently, Sandy raised a thread at the Project Education's incident notice board about another kind of COI - professors assigning their own textbooks/articles to classes, and the students then adding content with tons of citations to them, to articles, and laid out my thoughts on that, as far as policy/guideline/essay guidance goes.

I'd like to propose some language about all these issues around student editing for the COI guideline - gentle and welcoming for sure, but also clear on the issues as discussed above. Just wanted to make a note of this. Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The link Jytdog provided above is by no means the most egregious of what I've come across in many years of working with students editing! To find all of the samples indicative of the problems Jytdog raises would take me ... hours of work.  But, yes ... this is a huge problem affecting now the majority of my editing. It SHOULD be covered by WP:MEAT, but the case is not always that clear, and by the time we could do something about MEAT, the students are gone, because They Never Stick Around Beyond Term-End ... and it is the profs that need to understand their COI. A tour through the archives at WP:ENI is instructive (although not comprehensive ... I generally have given up on reporting or attempting solutions to all of it).  As one example, I recalled this incident of a course with extensive copyvio problems, and where the course TA had written her prof's bio on Wikipedia!  (And IIRC, which I may not, the prof had written her husband's bio.)  Because more and more student editing is going "under the radar" (that is, no registered course), the issues are growing and becoming harder to deal with. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for fixing my typo sandy :) yes the MEAT thing too.  I also wanted to add that i have no clue at all, about if editors have experienced similar problems in articles outside health. it may be that there is little problem outside health, and editors who don't work in the health space may be really surprised to hear about this.  if any one is, like i said there are tons of diffs we can provide.  happy to do that, if wanted.  Jytdog (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * All of this seems fair enough, but there are no proposals for any change here. What would be changed?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This issue is having such a huge, negative impact in the biomedical and neuropsych realm that my proposals would be ... perhaps too drastic. So, we need to see what other feedback we have, and whether this is affecting other content areas as badly as it is those I edit.  But, as one example, numerous articles on my watchlist might be protected to try to get profs to register a course, so that we could at least have someone to talk to re training up these enormous blocks of editors hitting every article I edit with almost nothing useful !!  As of now, I am editing against an endless sea of poorly informed students, repeating info to dozens at a time to no avail (since they don't typically engage talk or respond), and doing it in vain since they never return after their term ends ... yet their profs (who typically have never edited Wikipedia) encourage more of same term after term ... we have no opportunity to train them, because the profs don't talk to us, and the students are gone after term-end.  If there is a COI (students editing for a grade, profs pushing an agenda), we should be able to do something (adminly) to try to get them to TALK and at least register a course so we can follow them.   My drastic solution would be blocking them for MEAT (we have seen that work in several cases ... where it was the only thing to get students to stop edit warring and start responding to talk posts ... 3#Time%20for%20an%20RFC sample)  Open to ideas, but this problem has overtaken my area of editing, with just about NO payback in terms of editor retention or article improvement. In another example from this term, it looks to me now that anorexia nervosa is being edited by at least four classes, working at odds with each other, and we have no way of talking to a prof to get the students trained up.  In such a case of MEAT/COI/whatever, why not protect the article to encourage the profs to talk to us, register a course, learn Wikipedia guideline and policy ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * i wrote above that "'d like to propose some language about all these issues around student editing for the COI guideline". I will draft some new language this weekend concerning the COI issues and will propose it here on Talk.  Just wanted to get some initial thoughts to inform the first draft. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem of students who are "desperate for their edits to 'stick'" seems to be an effect of them being marked on work in the mainspace. Like many of the problems in student editing, it could be addressed by better training the profs, then giving them feedback before they move on to teaching. LeadSongDog come howl!  15:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If we can figure out who the profs are, and get them to talk to us! Increasingly, that is not an option for us.  The word is out in academia ... have your students edit Wikipedia, and they get valuable real world lessons, while you (prof) get scores of free TAs, and Wikipedia gets, in my area of editing ... nothing but a drain on established editor time, taking us away from more productive work.  The students find out what happens when they plagiarize, see how to write more effectively (if they bother to check our corrections to their work), understand better research methodology (if they bother to notice and respond when we correct or indicate better sources), and then don't return the favor to Wikipedia via further productive work based on what we spend hours teaching them.  The profs get their pet agenda pushed and free TAs.  We lose all round; I can almost never point to good contributions that result, and I spend most of my time now cleaning up.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * LeadSongDog, been there done that and tried to work with the folks at the Ed Foundation/ProjectEd who are very helpful. We have been working with them a lot.  The point of adding some explicit discussion to the guideline, is to help those folks better explain to teachers what the potential problems are as they set up courses; it is also to provide guidance to the WP community about how to deal with students, in this regard.  it is also so the students see an explanation as well - would help depersonalize things. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

As I saw from my experience with historical articles, a student doing an assignment does not simply change a word here and a phrase there. I guess in order to get a credit, they need something big and visible, so they start rewriting text from scratch, create articles with ridiculous titles, write rambling essay-like texts, i.e., simply transplant college-type essay writing into wikipedia. I don't know elsewhere, but I believe I recognize "student assignment" when I see it right away (when I don't see it, this means good wikipedic work :-). Therefore I would suggest the following: Staszek Lem (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (a) Create a separate "Student Problem" intervention noticeboard WP:AN/S to handle the issues (and they are plenty)
 * (b) Once a problematic StuAssgnmt is recognized, move their (version of) article in their workspace to finish their work there
 * (c) Move back into main space only after the corresponding prof vetoes the changes (thus removing the "freebie TA" issue)
 * (d) If the account refuses/neglects to communicate, give a couple of "uw-st1" ("userWarning-student") warnings, and block/revert, without wasting much time.


 * Thanks actually the WPEducation Incident board is a great place to go - that is where Sandy and I go.  Part of the content I would include would be a link to that board.  And for those broader issues you raise (which I hear you on, and we have talk about a lot at the education indident board).. i don't know if that is stuff i would want to get into, in this addition to the COI guideline.  This just seemed an appropriate place to deal with one crux of the student editing problem (and i really think that COI is the heart of the issue with the problems we run into with student editors) Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how COI policy can help. I didn't know about WPEdu incident board, but is you discuss them already there extensively, this means this kind of editors is somehow disclosed already and this issues is very specific and narrow to be handled by its own specifically tailored policy. This COI page is primarily about promotional POV pushing. Student's "egotistic" POV is something quite different. I will not go into detail, I am sure you know better. As for an example that some professor's book becomes "unduly" overweight, IMO it is just student's laziness rather than POV, and must be adequately covered in WPEdu "rules of engagement". We must be very conservative in expanding WP:COI, because the next step is to restrict fans editing their favorite videogames or pop idols, because they probably have the most strong, highly emotional POV/COI, albeit entirely altruistic. :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem, i agree with everything you said.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree that this COI guideline (not just a page) is about promotional POV pushing. It is about all kinds of COI in Wikipedia, which includes anti-promotional (let's just say "negative") POV pushing - it is about any outside interest an editor brings that conflicts with Wikipedia's mission to provide the public with a crowd-sourced source of NPOV, reliable information. A student here to get a grade, is a great example of how a COI can mess up the encyclopedia, without promoting a product, company, or person. Respectfully, Staszek, while it seems you have dealt with student editing it sounds like you haven't thought much about the broader issues before now. Please take it slow while you dig in, and i would encourage you to read past discussions we've had with the education folks at their notice and incident boards. thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is WP:ENB and WP:ENI, and actually, since few folks "hang out" on those boards, it is rare to get the kind of adminly intervention there that is frequently needed. The boards are frequented by the core of us who are confronting student editing problems daily (including but not limited to COI), and by Wiki Ed staff.  We need a policy/guideline description of the COI issues to a) minimize personalization, b) guide students and profs, and c) give admins something enforceable in those rare cases where admin action might be helpful.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, my a-b-c-d above was a suggestion in this direction, but Jytdog's answer gave an impression that you already have a place/tools to handle the issues. If my interpretation was wrong, then of course I am not against expanding this guideline, according to our tradition of doing this whenever a problem is identified and nailed down. At the same time, I would like to follow the way how WP:NOTABILITY was evolved: to create separate subpolicies for special cases which require lost of text. So far we had only "Paid Advocacy" hard case, and it got sptinkled throughout the whole WP:COI page. Therefore IMO it is time to split into 3 pages: COI/GENERAL, COI/PAID, COI/STUDENT. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I see some low hanging fruit. Surely we can reach consensus on wording so that WP:COI states something to the effect that: Due to the inherent CoI present, students are not to cite the works of their professors.. Perhaps something more general: Due to the inherent CoI present, editors are not to cite the works of their employers/supervisors/professors/teachers. Yes? --Elvey(t•c) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * that is half of it, yes. it misses the other half. i wanted to draft a bit of text explaining this, b/c the idea that a student would have a COI editing WP for a class, can look just kind of bizarre on the face of it. i get a lot of wha?? when i first say it. but if you stop and let what is going on sink in, you see it -  "oh yeah... the conflicting interest, is the grade they are trying to get - just like a paid editor is here to get a paycheck". that needs a bit of explaining. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This would only be a problem if the students were graded with respect to how successfully they presented a slanted POV, and then somehow managed to get that slanted POV to stick. Such grading criteria seems unlikely.  Also, it seems most school/university settings would be focused on reliable sources and not fringe sources or POV pushing that favors specific business or industry.  While Elvey's suggestion regarding stating student's shouldn't be promoting their professors work seems somewhat reasonable, student editing seems minor COI concern at most.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * BMC, I have most certainly run across more than one situation where that appeared to be precisely the case (presenting a slanted POV, and working together ala MEAT to get it to stick). And, we don't know what is being said in the classroom or anywhere off Wiki, since increasingly the classes are unregistered.  That this is a "minor COI" is not the case, in my experience.  As in all COI situations, we don't "prevent" per se anything, rather strongly encourage editors to disclose their COI and discuss their proposed edits on talk.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Having a non-COI page for students, which alerts the students to our policies and guidelines, and alerts them to MEDRS etc seems reasonable. However, defining student editing as COI seems problematic. Discouraging student editing seems contrary to our best interests.  A lot of these students will stick around after the class, and the more honest good faith editors we have the better.  More honest editors helps to balance the much more serious problem of editors paid by business or industries to promote points of views.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I understand from the above discussion, the problematic students do not stay around to edit after they've finished their classes. I think describing those ones - who edit only for credit and don't care about the quality of their edits as much as getting a grade for having made those edits - as having a COI is accurate. I don't know how they could be identified or dealt with, however, given that we can't OUT them. Maybe adding flagged revisions to pages where problems have been identified? (if that's possible) Ca2james (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to OUT them, WP:COI has a procedure in place already: you apply WP:DUCK, then ask politely, then report to the WP:AN/S board. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. If the professor in question is an expert in the field, it is absurd to ban citing him for any nonencyclopedic reasons. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek, my sense is you shooting from the hip here. Sandy described classes spamming old textbooks into WP which is disruptive editing. I provided a link above to my thoughts about why having classes use prof's textbook in the course is problematic per COI short version is "WP:SELFCITE by proxy"). Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody suggested me to read around before speaking up. Regarding WP:SELFCITE, did you do what was advised to me? I just did, and I see that unlike the discussed suggestion, SELFCITE does not expressly forbid selfciting. On the other hand I agree that "SELFCITE_BYPROXY" may be a reasonable item in COI/STUDENT, i.e.,
 * Due to the inherent CoI present, students are not to cite the works of their professors exclusively and are to draw information from a broader range of sources.
 * Two improvements: (1) non-all-banning and (2) positive advice added. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek, the optimal way to discuss policy and guideline proposals is to, well ... discuss them ... rather than entering declarations of support or opposition before any sort of consensus or proposal or wording or idea has even been formed. I haven't even begun to lay out the scores of examples of where this has been a problem ... mostly because they are so numerous that sorting through them all would be a huge effort.  Before opining here, perhaps a thorough review of all of the archives at WP:ENI and WP:ENB would help illustrate the breadth and depth of issues, and lend to better proposed solutions.   I cannot imagine we would prevent a student from citing his prof, but we would all benefit by helping them to understand how and why citing their prof is a COI that they should disclose and discuss on talk. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't patronize me. I explained clearly why I oppose: the reason to exclude quotations of a respectable professor are blatantly nonencycliopedic, i.e., irrelevant to article content. It is one thing to explain a student to draw from broad source, it is totally different to forbid him/her to cite a scholar work. It is not student's guilt that some topics are underdescribed. Students "spamming old textbooks" into wikipedia are not worse than random wikipedians spamming newspaper sensationalism into wikipedia instead of scholarly sources. Article content must be judged by its merits. I do not deny that there may be a COI of a student citing their professor, but unconditional ban of doing so is IMO unacceptable. If the issue is an "old textbook", then we have Reliable Sources Noticeboard. If the issue is a professor overcited by his zealot, then we I suggested to have "Student Problem" Intervention Noticeboard WP:AN/S, and so on. By the way: re the optimal way to discuss policy and guideline proposals is to, well ... discuss them - how about discussing by specific suggestions of WP:AN/S and "uw-st1" which are aimed at solving the mentioned problems in a non-draconian (and in our standard) way? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I've taught university classes on Wikipedia editing, where students have made valuable impovemnts (and sometimes cited their professors) and there has been no problem with the edits, which remain in articles to this day. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the purpose of this discussion as I understand it: to figure out how to handle COI/STUDENT in a "nondestructive" way. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am suspicious of the generic labeling of student COI, and oppose it. First, to prove a COI in a student is in my opinion no less difficult to prove than in paid advocacy. Second, the categorical description is discriminatory. -Whats next ? COI while black, red, Catholic, above a certain age... etc? Third, my experience with students editing environmental health related pages is different from User:SandyGeorgia's ("huge, negative impact"). I have actually enjoyed collaborating with most students. As with all learners patience and feedback work wonders. As far as "editing against an endless sea of poorly informed students, repeating info to dozens at a time to no avail (since they don't typically engage talk or respond)": I think a COI policy would be inappropriate besides being uselss. The appropriate thing to do is what you do anywhere else, revert blatant WP rule infractions like the egregious copyvio examples, appeal to fellow eitors to help or do teh best you can with discussions on the article talk page.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Having been involved in many of the early initiatives around the Education Program and student editing I have always resisted the idea that Wikipedia should treat students as a different class of editor subject to separate guidance and rules. If any class of editor should be singled out and highly regulated, it is, in my opinion the anonymous or IP editors, but that is a different topic. Any editor can and probably has conflicts of interest taken in the broadest sense when editing WP and I’ve always found that COI accusations more often than not are a weapon used by zealous editors to suppress contributions, rather than judiciously used when absolutely necessary to protect the credibility of WP. You can see that theme throughout the discussion above. The other arguments in this student editing discussion that I find problematic are those that cite a few scenarios when student editing has caused serious disruption within the community and then claim that all student editing is equally bad or disruptive therefore we must regulate it out of existence. We are approaching 5 million articles. Even if a conscientious editor who might have 2000 articles on their watch list and comes across problematic student editing on some percentage of those articles is only dealing with fractions of a percentage point of the total number of articles in the encyclopedia. For that editor, the problems are real, but in the total scheme of things, one or two editors’ problem with student editing can’t possibly justify tar and feathering an entire class of editor. If it can, then we should ban IP editing immediately because that causes far more disruption to the encyclopedia and the community than any student editing ever has. Editors above have also lamented the fact that increasingly student editing is “unregistered” or “under the radar”. It might be useful for some soul searching here. In the early days of the education program, professors were encouraged to participate and register classes as a way for them and their students to learn WP ways. We've now created elaborate processes to track classes and student edits. However, once learned such registration and “calling attention” to themselves served little purpose because WP notice boards and projects like this really weren’t as welcoming and helpful as they should have been. Any professor that wants his students to participate in WP and knows how that should be done consistent with WP norms gains very little by calling attention to it within the WP Education Program. Painting student editors as a separate class of editor, in any manner, is a very slippery slope that will provide zero benefit to WP. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed content
here is a draft Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Student editing
Some classes in schools use Wikipedia editing as a teaching tool, sometimes though the Wikipedia Education Program and sometimes outside the Education Program. Some teachers grade their students based on the student's Wikipedia edits, and student editors often think their grade depends on their edits, even if it doesn't. The Education Program discourages this. Students who edit Wikipedia as part of a class have a conflict of interest; the student's "outside interest" is the grade that they will receive for the course, and the grading criteria may or may not be aligned with the mission of WIkipedia. While many students contribute productively to Wikipedia in the course of fulfilling their assignments, the COI can lead to disruptive behavior, especially when students edit under time pressure, in order to meet a class deadline. The Education Program maintains an incident noticeboard, where editors can seek help from Education Program employees and volunteers.

Even though students editing Wikipedia as part of a class have a COI, the community welcomes direct article editing from student editors who respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. We do ask students to be mindful that their need to get a grade is distinct from the mission of Wikipedia to provide a reliable, neutral, and free source of information to the public, and that Wikipedia has no deadlines.

An additional issue that arises, is use by students of textbooks or articles written by their teachers. COI issues within schools concerning professors requiring students to buy and use the professor's own books/works are well known; but when instructors assign students to edit Wikipedia using their own works, an additional level of COI occurs. Per the self-citing section of this guideline, editors are generally advised not to cite their own work; the last bullet in our essay on experts also discusses this. When students edit using their teachers' works (with the additional confusing levels of not wanting to disappoint the teacher by not citing the work, or wanting to please the teacher by liberally citing the work) the risk of overemphasis on those sources arises; this is WP:SELFCITE by proxy. (note, added underlined content in response to helpful and valid objections Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC))

discussion
What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the grounds that this an absurd tar and feathering of student editors. The literal interpretation of the suggested language can mean only one thing.  Students who edit Wikipedia as part of a class have a conflict of interest; the student's "outside interest" is the grade that they will receive for the course, and the grading criteria may or may not be aligned with the mission of WIkipedia. + (from the guideline) COI editing is strongly discouraged. equals unequivocally "Student editing is strongly discouraged".  If this makes the guideline, we will have now armed the COI zealots with a weapon to discourage and disrupt any contributor who might be a "student editor".  The message will be clear, if you are a student editor, your contributions will not be welcome at WP because you have a COI.  --Mike Cline (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Holy cow are you misinterpreting me. But I do see how you could go there.  My intention was not 'at all to ban student editing but rather to state and clarify the COI issues involved.  I will add some content to make this more clear.  Thanks. I am not a "COI zealot" - please don't make some kind of monster.   I do think it is important to make students and editors aware of COI issues involved in student editing, so we can all think and act more clearly.   Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no misinterpretation of you involved at all. I merely interpreted the language you proposed and the construct in that language was clear.  If WP considers student editing a COI (for whatever reason), then WP is strongly discouraging student edits (as it strongly discourages any COI editing in the COI guideline). All your additional language merely exempts one type of COI from the guideline.  Wouldn't it just be better to say "COI editing is strongly discouraged (except student editing). (Probably won't fly either because then every class of editor will want exemption from COI).  I don't consider you a COI zealot, but in my many years of editing WP, I am well aware of the "blood in the water" nature of those who relish in suppressing contributions on the basis of COI.  In my opinion, labeling anything to do with routine student editing as COI is really bad for WP. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for recognizing that my intention is not to suppress student editing. I know that we have a whole foundation built to encourage it, and that it is a source of new editors and content, and can be a good thing. i also know that we cannot stop it.  i am interested in things being more clear.  i am surprised that you say that discussing student editing in the COI guideline would be used to suppress student editing, especially with the added language saying that this is not the purpose.  (i hope you also know that reverting an edit on the basis of COI alone is not a valid revert and can be, and sometimes is, reverted over because of that.   can you really not see the COI involved?  (the payoff here is not money, but a grade.  just like if you are in litigation, but the payoff may not be money, but whatever the object of the litigation is)  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Mike Cline. Please move these discussions regarding improving student editing away from COI and to the talk pages of WP:STUDENT or WP:ASSIGN and return focus on industry and business COI as illustrated by recent Wifione case. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * did you read what Sandy and I wrote above? (real question) There are many kinds of COI and they all can be disruptive and/or damaging.  have you ever interacted with a student editing under a deadline? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. If you read above you'll see I also participated in that discussion. If your goal is to improve student editing and address concerns regarding disruptive student editing, please move that to the talk pages of WP:STUDENT or WP:ASSIGN.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * my goal is to help everybody understand that students are in a difficult place. understanding context is very helpful - when i have desperate students trying to drive their edits in to get a grade, and I tell them that they need to let their teacher know that the student has a conflict of interest, it has often alleviated things dramatically.   without understanding that WP doesn't exist to be a grading platform (which is how students and teachers end up treating it, you end up in a bad situation with students demanding to allow their edits to stick.  it is not about slant.  It is about whatever edit the student made sticking, regardless of whether other editors view it as an improvement.  do you see that? Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems a discussion regarding student editing potentially not sticking due to WP:Consensus seems a reasonable thing to address on talk of WP:STUDENT or WP:ASSIGN to enhance direct communication of this to student editors and to their professors. It seems curious to push student editing as a COI issue, when it doesn't really seem to even best fit here, and when we currently have much more serious COI problems we do not seem to be effectively dealing with. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * had an ec..
 * these issues come up constantly at WT:WikiProject Medicine
 * see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_55
 * please really see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_57 - it is long. this is what happens.
 * see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_56
 * see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_33
 * nothing here should be miscontrued. Wikiproject Medicine  - especially  has done a lot of work mediating between Project Medicine and Project Education to try to improve things.
 * see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_51
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_50
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_58
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_47
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_52
 * really, the goal here is not to ban or restrict but to clarify issues involved. Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

it is really confusing to me that folks don't see the COI here. When you are actually interacting with a student who is trying like crazy to get their edit to stick, it is exactly the same as the interaction with a paid editor who is desperate to have their content stick, so they can get paid. They each are driven by an external interest that has nothing to do Wikipedia's mission. That is the definition of COI. You cannot have a rational conversation because the goals are not the same. Once that is made clear with students - that WP doesn't exist to help them get a grade, it changes everything. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's definitely a COI here. I'm not sure about the proposed solution, however. It's also worth noting that in WP:GLAM COI is normal but we doesn't have the same problems as the education people do. Can we borrow something from their approach? Or is the success of WP:GLAM about professionals being professional about things? Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose There are always motivations for people to edit Wikipedia, whether students, or those who are paid, or physicians, or homeopaths, artists, skeptics. It is not possible to know what those reasons are. That's why attempting to some-how delineate what COI behaviour consists of is an endless pit of subjective guesses, opinions, ideas, and so on. We are safest when we look at the edits not the editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC))


 * comment - folks are reacting like this is an effort to restrict what students can do. It is not.  it is an effort to show the issues involved when students edit WP for a course, where a grade is at stake. Jytdog (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * u|Jytdog- This not the place to "...to show the issues involved when students edit WP for a course, where a grade is at stake." because the net effect of any language in policy or guideline that labels any class of editor as having a COI invokes the following guideline: COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted ..., and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked.  No one above is denying that student editors have or may have COI, but when you consider any individuals' motivation to edit Wikipedia and participate and behave in certain ways in discussions and disputes, WE ALL HAVE A COI.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * well i cannot diagree with you more. I am here editing WP because I like to, and my work here is all about WP's mission.  A student who is editing WP to meet a course requirement, is fundamentally WP:NOTHERE.  It may be that they align themselves with the mission while they work.  But really, i have received many notes like this : "Hi Jytdog, I am, in fact, a student. Groups within the class were to find a 'incomplete' or nonexisting wiki page. I am (of course) very new to Wikipedia and I dont even know if this is the right way to converse with you. (not very convenient) I completely understand the points you made concerning prior authors etc. I just use that my groups contribution not be removed til next week. So that we can receive our grade for the assignment. Thank you".  That was very nice interaction, but can you see the confusion there?  that worked out well. but I have had very bad ones (cannot find them now, but messages like 'LEAVE ME ALONE THIS IS FOR A CLASS AND I NEED MY GRADE" and "I am going to a party and have to get this done as it is due tomorrow just let my edit be") .  I have also had really great interactions like User_talk:Jytdog/Archive_3 Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reply there was in part "To the extent that what you are interested in, is getting a grade and not improving the encylopedia, that would be a violation of our conflict of interest policy.", to which the editor concerned responded "the aim is, or was, to improve the article - not just receive a grade". Your baseless false allegation that the editor was not interested in improving the encyclopedia demonstrated an egregious failure to behave in a manner expected by our community. (The editor has not contributed since; it hardly "worked out well".) Your user page opens with the statement I believe strongly in Wikipedia's Five Pillars. The evidence you have presented here suggests actions that are contrary to them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * first my reply was a lot longer and more conversationa; and civil then what you quote there,  what prompted the interaction, was the student edit warring.  the student responded with "This is an assignment I and my group were required to do for class. All I ask is this contribute not be undone for 1 week's time. thank you"  My description of the COI was neither baseless nor false but accurate; the behavior and initial comment were a perfect reflection of the COI I am talking about.  My response to the student was civil and human, as was the student's response, acknowledging the mission of WP - also human.  It worked out well in the sense that the student understood the problem.   I have no idea how many students come back and edit WP; you make an invalid leap when you assume that the student didn't come back because of me.  that is just sloppy. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

neutral -it does seem to have merits, perhaps if it were reworded so that the it does not give the appearance of student editing restriction, I believe something should be done and Jytdog has the right idea.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Concerns. 1. The proposed wording states, without qualification, that students have a COI. Yet in describing the situation, the proposal concedes that a course and its grading criteria may be aligned with the WP mission. From what I can tell, the student does not have a COI as long as the course and grading criteria are designed to promote WP (and, in effect, avoid COI). Jytdog and SG are correct that problems occur, but we should be cautious about overgeneralizing as if it's intrinsic, rather than preventable. Couldn't the COI label discourage educators and student editing?
 * 2. A better generalization, IMO, is that university courses are promoting general knowledge consistent with WP's mission, not promoting some specific interest (e.g., corporation, product, politician, individual bio, etc). I'm concerned that the implicit message here (not Jytdog's) would be that the sciences and humanities are somehow special, outside interests. I want my university to support my WP course, but I think many profs would be dismayed to think that Wikipedia treats their pedagogy as a conflict of interest.
 * 3. The self-cite problem would be with course textbooks, much less so with articles. I don't think this would be a common problem, so it shouldn't be given undue emphasis in length. Maybe just make it a few sentences here or under Self-cite. Thanks, ProfGray (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting in a dialoging way, ProfGray. Would you be more comfortable if instead of saying "Students who edit Wikipedia as part of a class have a conflict of interest; the student's "outside interest" is the grade that they will receive for the course, and the grading criteria may or may not be aligned with the mission of WIkipedia." it said "The grade students receive (or think tjey will receive) poses a potential conflict of interest for students"?  In other words, talk about "potential" as opposed to making it categorical?  Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I do understand the problems you have encountered, since I've worked with multiple students myself (including some that SandyGeorgia just gave up on). I'm sure it's possible to have a conflict of interests there, but I'm not at all sure that it's likely.  Given the typical assignments ("find a incomplete or non-existent wiki page about ____ academic subject, and add some sourced material to it"), it's really unlikely that there will be a COI.
 * There might be laziness (citing my course textbook because it's easy), and there is often confusion, but I don't see a lot of room for their grade to cause them to do the opposite of what we want (=addition of material sourced to adequate [if not stellar] sources, e.g., the "standard" university textbook on abnormal psych). Looking at the comments you copied above, I think what some of those students actually need is an introduction to the history page.  A message that says, "Here's the URL that will permanently show what you wrote, no matter what anyone changes in the meantime.  E-mail this one to your instructor to get credit" would probably resolve most of those concerns.
 * Anyway, given that an actual COI is unlikely, I think that including it would be WP:CREEPy and have a net effect of being unwelcoming without actually improving the behavior of students. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, hi. Well, I appreciate what you're suggesting with "potential" but shouldn't we wonder if that subtlety could be lost in the mix, or easily deleted down the road? Thinking some more, I wonder if the focus on students is misplaced. In general, academic grades are not an inherent problem or conflict, since academic work is fundamentally consistent with Wikipedia's mission. [Bracketing OR, which is a separate, manageable issue.] So, maybe the focus should be on the professors. Here's an idea: With support from WP volunteers and Edu Prg, Professors should make sure that their grading rubric and assignments are consistent with Wikipedia's mission. Professors should avoid giving students incentives to edit in ways that may detract from Wikipedia standards and policies. For guidance on best practices, see XYZ. If a student, or any editor, senses that course grades could motivate students in unhelpful directions, you may wish to contact [the professor or WP:ENB or Edu Prg]. I'm not sure this belongs in COI, but from other comments I do wonder if COI could end up stifling rather than improving educational efforts. After all, it's not just about what's COI in theory, it's how the community plays out COI in actual practice. And I'm trying to discuss this because I think you and SG raise excellent issues, which deserve to be addressed in effective ways. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * for pete's sake, ProfGrey this whole thing is not driven by "theory" for me it is dealing from lots of actual editing experience i and others have had, where students needing their grades to 'stick" was 100% in conflict with our goals. maybe it is theoretical for you?  that's all i'll say til i hear back from you, since we seem to be operating from very different perspectives.  i am trying to manage actual problems that arise. Jytdog (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Read my comments again and AGF. As a practical matter, I've said, it does not seem helpful to approach this as a COI issue. ProfGray (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I did read them again, and you are trying to deal with the real problems. sorry.  what is frustrating for me is that you keep skipping over what i view as the heart of the matter. you have written now more than once the idea in " In general, academic grades are not an inherent problem or conflict, since academic work is fundamentally consistent with Wikipedia's mission."  but what i am trying to communicate, is that on the ground, in articles,  students get disruptive (as we define that) because they have a grade on the line.  they explicitly say that to justify their behavior.   :::::::COI is at play when someone  says "leave my edits alone because X" where X = any interest outside WP.  X could be: "the subject of the article is paying me and i need this to get paid" or "my company is doing a social media marketing campaign on this subject so we can sell more of it" or  "i am suing the subject of the article and want the public/jury/judge to see this negative information" or.... "i have a grade on the line".  The underlying structure is the same in each case - COI.
 * and it may even be that the grading criteria are aligned with WP's mission, but the student is not even close to understanding them or to getting an A.
 * can you see what i am saying?
 * all that said, i do like your language and think that would be very helpful to include, as it is Profs who put students in the awkward situation. i like that very much. i do think we need to help students (and the community) understand that getting the grade is a COI.  everybody involved should remain aware that the need for a grade should not influence discussions about content in any way... in my view. i hope that makes sense. thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, students are probabely interested in doing excellent, good, or at least expedient written work - as is every other editor, some better than others - COI is fundamenatlly about relationship-to-the-subject not motivation per se. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, well said. ProfGray (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * that is a great point, and probably the reason why folks are not seeing this the same way i am. you are 100% right that the student isn't likely has no interest with regard to the subject of the article, which is our usual framework; instead their COI is with regard to a meta-issue - their need to have their edit visible so it can be graded by whatever criteria the teacher has.  (that is how school works - you produce work that is yours and submit it to be graded (I also get WP:OWN issues with students with regard to their edits) because of this.   The COI is on a meta-level, not on the level of denigrating or praising the subject of the article. yes. great point. Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing my concerns and suggested alternative wording. Reading more comments, and thinking about this further, I'm changing to Oppose. ProfGray (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for your time, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per 's and 's comments. People who identify as scientists do not immediately get a COI tag for every science article they edit, so neither should students.  Students' participation in Wikipedia does not create a COI as described unless one can provide evidence their grade is dependent on adding biased editing.  If their assignment is to make positive contributions to Wikipedia following the rules, there is no COI.  Are students to be interrogated for editing on Wikipedia to make sure the instructor's assignment had no agenda?  Identifying students as COI is assuming "bad faith".  (It's truly amazing that pro-industry editors are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt, but here students are not.   What kind of priorities are being asserted here?)  Besides, the normal COI and advocacy rules already cover any possible COI, if if can be proven there really is one.  If a student's goal is to improve any article following the rules, I don't see any problem--although I do think teachers of K-12 students should monitor their students' work and make sure no vandalizing or other inappropriate edits are going on.  I have definitely seen the work of kids here on numerous articles and the adults who have those kids under their custody and control should be taking responsibility to make sure those kids are not doing damaging edits, rather that leave the entire burden on the community.  If guides to instructors (and parents) on how to look at all of their students' contributions are not available this would be a good place to start. David Tornheim (talk) 08:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is absurd, for reasons others note above.  Yes, there's an issue with student edits.  Would welcome a far more moderate proposal; welcome input from  and/or .  --Elvey(t•c) 20:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the ping, ... sorry, but I bowed out early on because there are already so many basic inaccuracies and mistruths and misconceptions throughout the discussion above, that I don't think this proposal has the chance of a snowball in hell.  You can lead a horse to water and all that ... and some folks opining here simply have never been in the trenches, working with students, and don't understand either the issues or how it would help to be able to highlight COI aspects to the professors, so that they could better inform their students (which isn't something most of the profs I've come across seem to be much worried about at any rate, but that's a whole 'nother story ... we really need more effective ways to protect the poor, unsuspecting students from the profs who are not familiar with Wikipedia, but recognize free TAs provided in here).  As to basic inaccuracies above ... for the record, I haven't "given up on students" (some of their profs are a whole 'nother story, though).  FYI, COI of profs pushing their own work into biomedical articles via their students is not even remotely uncommon; the other problem is the increasing number of courses that are unregistered, because the profs don't want to be held accountable for these dubious practices.  Some of the ideas above that we can point students and profs to existing pages assume that we even have a means of contacting the profs, which we rarely do, while we can point active student editors individually to specific guideline and policy pages.  To be able to point out in a guideline what COI might exist in the context of editing for a grade or on behalf of a prof would be helpful, which makes it highly unlikely that such a thing will ever happen in here!  And that leaves the unpleasant alternative of pointing them to WP:MEAT, which is more disagreeable than pointing them to COI would be ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * how would a more moderate proposal look different? thanks. (btw your ping to doc james didn't work, pinging him --   Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Categorically oppose, per my first comment on teh issue. Breaking down COI into a multitude of confusing segments of anecdotal wannabe categories, such as "students", distracts from and defeats the prime purpose of this guideline.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is counterproductive to expand our COI rules so as to dilute their primary focus on businesses (which are a unique problem). In some sense, everyone has a conflict of interest, but it would be senseless to mash this guideline together with guidance for student editors, fanboys, nationalists, etc.  Let's keep this focused on one major problem and work out guidelines for student editors elsewhere. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

reordering
hey - about this reordering. i reverted, as this was worked over when we added the ToU section (which was a big negotation!) back when it was changed.

the idea of having our paid editing section just under that, is to tie them together, at least rhetorically. there is (to my chagrin) no consensus as to the status of the ToU in Wiki-en... Arbcom has said, for instance, that they will not act on it until the community agrees that the ToU is policy. That can happen two ways. There could be an RfC (which we have never done) or it could become practice (e,g admins block people for violating it). In my practice at COIN, i work the two of them in parallel, as seamlessly as I can, which has worked pretty well so far. Happy to discuss, of course. (the rest of your edits have been great, btw - as far as I am concerned.  thanks for them!)  Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the paid editing section, which is an EXCEPTION to the COI rule, from its prominent spot of the beginning to the end of the section close to another subsection (!) on paid editing. the effect of jytdog´s revert is that paid editing again "sandwiches" the problem of paid advocacy (by appearing at the beginning and end)  and diffuses it, as if paid editing wasnt unusual and as if it wasnt always bad... lalala etc pp. for fresh eyes on this guideline, this is a very very prominent spot.
 * plse provide link of referred to the "consensus of this order" and need of a "rhethoric tie".--Wuerzele (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * i am not going to engage with you like this "lalalla". i self reverted and others can disagree and engage with you  if they like. Jytdog (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume that there is no link of a "consensus of this order of mentioning COI´s" and no link of a "need of a rhethoric tie" (?). I changed informal expression lalala to formal "etc pp" so nothing stands in the way for jytdog to engage. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * wuerzele i cannot remember the last time you just talked decently with me. as i said above, i am not engaging with you on this. i am engaging with you as little as possible. really your changes are fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for confirming that there are no diffs to back up your claim, selfreversal and confirming agreement with changes. (i struck irrelevant part, since this is a content discussion page, where editors must refrain from WP:PA, because they WP:IDONTLIKE edits.)--Wuerzele (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * nope, that's not what i said. there are 3-4 pages of the archives where we worked it out.  don't alter my comments, please. smallbones seems interested in discussing your changes with you. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * please provide the diffs to back up your claims, for the third time. I have read your old discussions.
 * The offtopic and irrelevant sentences "i cannot remember the last time you just talked decently with me. as i said above, i am not engaging with you on this. i am engaging with you as little as possible." are mudslinging, personal attack and biting the newbie on this page. My strike out is completely legit based on WP:TPO see removal of prohibited material. Your re-reversal of my legit edit is a pyrrhic victory, unproductive, contradicts policy and by leaving the WP:IDONTLIKE you have with me on this page, is a testament editing behavior. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Series of edits to improve layout, readability, succinctness and accuracy
I reverted back to the start (Last Little Olive Oil). I'm not sure what the reordering means and am not necessarily against it, but we need to have consensus. It struck me as similar to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic - what's the point? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the first section, the Foundation's position, should be moved into the paid-editing section, because it's about paid COI, not COI in general. It is followed by Wikipedia's position, which is about general COI, so the juxtaposition looks odd. Sarah (SV) (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah (SV) the change you describe (above without a diff) has never been made as far as i can see, correct me if i am wrong. I certainly did not make such an edit. therefore your writing you "agree" is confusing. That said, I certainly would agree with such an edit, because it creates clarity. --Wuerzele (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread one of your diffs, and just assumed that's what it referred to. Would anyone mind if I were to move that section? Sarah (SV) (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Smallbones, I was alerted by your revert of my 12 edits with detailed edit summary today. It is different from the interaction with jytdog above, who was temporarily uncomfortable with one edit, 658029130, so I am starting a new section. If you click on each of the 12 diffs you will see the nature and quallity of my edits, their description and my intent.
 * Example of first edit: "expand quote to completeness, add url". The quote was incomplete, which is not good practice. The ref did not have an url ! I added one. let me know if this edit is not ok with you, why not.
 * Example of last edit:"collapsing legal subsection consisting of 1 sentence, and subsection campaigning which is part of political COI." The unnecessary partitioning some of which was against WP:MOS, inhibits WP:readability. let me know if this edit is not ok with you why not.
 * I would prefer if you raised your general concern ("I'm not sure what the reordering means") by reverting the particular diff that reorders 658029130. Or revert any other that you feel is no improvement. i hope this helps--Wuerzele (talk) 01:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Smallbones' reversions of your edits, as I do not feel that in the main they were improvements. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your (albeit pingless) reply. can you please be more specific of your "feelings" please? For example, why is expanding an incomplete quote no improvement, or why is adding an url to a ref no improvement? why is collapsing excessive partitioning like a subsection consisting of 1 sentence, and a separate subsection which is part of a subsection, and inhibits WP:readabilityno improvement? please refer to teh specific diffs you find no improvement . Thanks. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)