Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks

Arbcom findings related to coi
Even if no attempt is made to this essay in line with our Arbcom findings (or create a new essay entirely), I Thought it might be helpful to make a list: --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting, . Would you be so kind as to explain more?  If it can be incorporated into this essay, I am very interested in your suggestions.  Also, please feel free to include whatever you think would prove helpful.  My goal is to keep improving it.  See WP:COIducks and add a discussion on the Talk Page.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  19:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the findings starting with this. Basically, this essay encourages violations of findings #5-11. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Easy solutions:
 * Encourage readers of the essay to read the case.
 * Quote from the decision and make recommendations for compliance.
 * -David Tornheim (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione Jytdog (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where? What principles or findings? "Determination of motives"? --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you are not familiar with that case i guess? questions were raised about wifione doing paid editing for a long long time. case was finally brought to arbcom on basis of long-term POV editing, and that is what finally got him.  arbcom mentioned paid editing only here.  there was an effort to get that stricken, which failed here.  see also discussion at Jimbo's page User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. Jytdog (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the case. But you still did not answer the Ronz's question. Which findings?  All of them?  David Tornheim (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't familiar with the case. So it is "Determination of motives" in the context of the "Paid editing" and "Limitations of arbitration". Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Same solutions:
 * Readers of the essay should be encouraged to read the case and/or relevant portions of this lengthy case.
 * Quote from the decision and make recommendations for compliance therewith.
 * - David Tornheim (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as the essay assumes attitudes and behaviors that violate policy and ArbCom findings, it doesn't matter how much "encouragement" is given to follow the very same policies and findings. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * , I think you may be on to something very productive. Please weigh-in.  My thinking is that if we can analyze the circumstances that actually caused a case to be heard by ARBCOM, we have something solid on which to base our suggestions regarding ways to avoid ARBCOM.  I like it a lot.  Are we allowed to include links to those cases? Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  01:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (cough) User_talk:Jimbo_Wales. you don't want to steer away from arbcom, you want to steer into it.  it is one of the most controlled environments for accomplishing something this complicated, and probably the one place where you can be heard, cleanly, on something like this,   Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Here...use my hankie. Sorry, Jytdog, but I don't understand why you said "you don't want to steer away from arbcom, you want to steer into it." Did someone suggest steering away from it? Atsme ☯  Consult  01:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hindsight is 20/20. I'd be interested in seeing what you find. In my experience, the circumstances leading to ArbCom are always a combination of not enforcing our policies and focusing on personalities rather than content, especially focus based upon bad faith assumptions.
 * I'm concerned, and I think Jytdog might be indicating the same, that the ArbCom findings are what's important, not what led up to them. --Ronz (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The essay is about curbing the type of behavior that leads to ArbCom which means enforcing policies before the behavioral issues erupt. The problems I've seen are the result of policy violations, some of which are our 3 core content policies.  I may be wrong, but if designated admins or perhaps a task force could focus on the root of the problem; i.e. policy violations, it may help eliminate the behavioral issues before they escalate. The COI issues would also be resolved at the same time.  In other words, if the COI is about NPOV issues, it would be resolved by the designated admin or task force. I'd much rather see fewer incidents at ArbCom than more.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Atsme is right on again. I seriously doubt ArbCom wants to be flooded with every possible case of slanted (non-NPOV) editing that gives the appearance of a COI.  As I mention on Jimbo's page that Jytdog dog refers to (User_talk:Jimbo_Wales), ArbCom is more like a forum of last resort for serious conflicts that cannot be resolved in lower forums, acting like an appellate court (over DR).  The problem as Atsme says is that the lower courts are not doing their job in addressing NPOV problems.  I would think the COI Ducks would love it if the only place one could legitimately challenge them was at ArbCom. David Tornheim (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But you're ignoring the policies and history. I'm saying that the essay will cause more problems, not less, because it specifically recommends attitudes and behaviors that lead to ArbCom if not curbed. --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have lost me here. What attitudes and behaviors are you saying the essay is recommending that causes "problems"?  If an editor or group of editors acts like WifiOne controlling and slanting an article in such a way that adds undue praise and eliminates valid criticism of the subject of the article and adds undue criticism and eliminates praise to competitors, is the act of trying to do something about it as Vejvančický did creating unnecessary "problems"?  Is the goal to "curb" the behavior of neutral editors who are appalled by badly slanted articles, who try to address the slant?  Should they be told instead "move along; nothing to see here; nothing can be done and nothing should be done, as Wikipedia has new owners who are untouchable"? Please tell me that is not what you are saying. David Tornheim (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the arbcom findings. Focusing on the bad faith assumption that there may be a coi is a problem, not part of any solution. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The essay does not focus on or advocate for a bad faith assumption. Did you read the essay or are you basing this claim on the mischaracterization of the essay by those who want it deleted who never worked to try to improve it?  In fact, the essay specifically says to assume good faith (in the second sentence) and gives many arguments for how behavior that might look like COI editing might have another valid explanation, such as "Do not confuse COI ducks with editors who are experts in a given field" and "COI ducks should not be confused with reversion warriors, cranks, and impolite users."  I have read all of the ArbCom findings before coming to this discussion, and I don't see how the essay violates them. David Tornheim (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems like we disagree. I see many others with the exact same concerns. I suspect, if we spent the time, that we'd find we have incompatible interpretations of the policies involved, starting with AGF and its importance. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I find reading this discussion in the wake of subsequent events to be quite compelling, as is the now-closed deletion discussion. Jus  da  fax   11:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)