Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. This may have been the most difficult close I've performed. Not in terms of the actual decision—there's strong, policy-based consensus to delete—but in determining the way forward from here, and sorting out all the tangential and ad hominem-type comments found on both sides.

There's consensus that this essay recommends attitudes and actions which run directly contrary to Wikipedia policies, best practices, and tradition. I can appreciate the difficulty of dealing with editors who attempt to game the system or take advantage of our principles of civility and good faith, as should we all. But this essay's recommendations seem to jettison those principles in order to stop such editors. I recognize that to some degree, this essay has become a moving target, with substantial edits performed between the time of its nomination and now. Had it not been touched, it probably would've made a relatively simple close. I note that none of the "key quotes" included in the nomination remained in the essay, and statements like "MEDRS is a content guideline that is highly respected by the community" mitigated some of the essay's previous harshness. Depending on your stance, you may see these as either necessary improvements in response to criticism or as backpedaling or pandering. Though I'm closing this as delete, I take the former position in good faith.

This leaves the question of what to do with the draft in userspace. At this time, I will leave User:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery alone. I would encourage the supporters of this essay to start anew, if they so desire. We can probably all appreciate that this will be easier work without the ongoing threat of deletion. Similarly, I would encourage those who wanted this essay deleted to give some latitude to the creators of a new essay, if we go down that path.

The short version: This essay was a good-faith attempt at addressing a real problem that nevertheless went too far. Take a deep breath, cool down, and either re-approach the issue having learned from this discussion or just walk away. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks

[edit]

Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks I’ve nominated this essay for deletion as its content undermines consensus-building and collaborative editing, instead expressing and encouraging a WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, discouraging WP:GF interactions, and encouraging editors to engage in interactions that focus on editors instead of sources and content. It openly postulates, without supporting evidence, the existence of a vast cabal of COI editors whose editing efforts should be met with resistance and rather than collaboration and consensus-building. Furthermore, it undermines several Wikipedia policies and widely accepted Wikipedia guidelines by encouraging editors to treat any explanation that an edit was justified by WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:OR, or WP:BLP with broad skepticism. I’ve included some key quotes below:

In general, edits that are justified in terms of maintaining WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VERIFY, or WP:OR are not to be taken seriously, but are rather evidence of the COI of the other editor.
A few common criticisms in edit summary reverts by advocates include
  • unsourced or poorly sourced, see MEDRS
  • trivial mention, nobody cares
  • hell no, POV
  • whitewashing quackery, see Fringe/PS
  • unproven, need RS
  • no consensus, discuss on TP
  • no OR
  • not supported by source
Oftentimes the best way to identify editors with a COI is that they attempt to uphold Wikipeida’s policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing, biographies of living persons, and NPOV:
How to identify a COI duck: …the bad behavior elevates and the edit summaries that revert your edits sound more like frenzied quacking...revert,quack revert,quack not a RS,quack violates MEDRS,quack blatant BLP violation,quack...
COI ducks will abuse PAG, particularly MEDRS and FRINGE guidelines if they believe they can gain advantage by preventing negative material from being included in the article.
Its ok, and frequently desirable to ignore WP:CONSENSUS, as COI is so common here that the most likely explanation for the fact that other editors don’t agree with you is that they have a COI:
if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics such as tendentious editing by one or more editors working in a concerted effort, and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some or all of the same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they continue to quack away at a targeted editor like ducks chasing a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks.
Advocacies almost always involve tag teams so they can sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community. They are experts at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition. Such behavior is often driven by paid or unpaid advocacy and helps explain why edits that don't support their POV are consistently reverted and offending editors are made to feel unwelcome as collaborators. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it probably is a COI duck. quack, quack
Wikipedia’s dispute mediation and disciplinary processes are not to be trusted either as the Admins are easily fooled and / or are part of the conspiracy.
Tactics typically include attempts to switch blame by casting aspersions or making spurious allegations followed by initiating unwarranted WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AE, and WP:ARBCOMcases against their opposition which are usually void of diffs, and/or the piling on of diffs that do not support their argument, the latter being a tactic to inundate admins and possibly fool them into believing they truly do have a claim. There is a slim possibility they may be working in tandem with an admin who may also be an advocate of the same cause and/or also involved in paid editing, but that is the last thing we want to believe. If you suspect there is a problem, see WP:ADMINACCT.

I respectfully submit that the existence of this essay encourages disruptive editing behavior, and it should be removed. The discussion leading to its preparation doe not speak well for the authors and their supporters, and can be found at the bottom of the section here. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 02:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, the discussion leading to this essay can be found at Sarah (SV)'s talk page here, with the original idea stemming from this recent ANI. (Although the link you provide is of interest too, in that it shows a list of bullet points exemplifying the subject of the essay in question, which happen to be edits made by Formerly98.) petrarchan47tc 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So having expressed your disagreement with my edits at ANI, and having failed to obtain consensus support for your views, you decided to write this essay? It sounds like that is what you are saying, and it certainly does look that way from the conversation on your user Talk page.
The problem with this approach is that 1) it is a workaround of a failure to get consensus for your point of view, and 2) you've come up with an essay that labels anyone attempting to apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines as a COI editor. Why not try to deal with these content disputes in the old fashioned way: Seek consensus assuming good faith of other editors, and if consensus cannot be reached, request a RFC? Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 19:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumptions are misguided and not based in reality. Follow the links and you will see the idea did not originate with me, nor did it begin at my talk page. Tl;dr: The idea to create "COIDucks" came from a request made at Sarah (SV)'s talk page, after a comment she made during a recent ANI. Someone had questioned another editor's possible COI and was threatened with a ban. The request for this essay stemmed from complaints about that process. petrarchan47tc 08:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS AN UNSIGNED RESPONSE BY ESSAY AUTHOR ATSME AND NOT PART OF THE NOMINIATION)
[edit]

The OP has a stated COI on his User Page. See User:Formerly 98.

COI statement

I fully support and adhere to Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy. I abstain from editing articles in which I might reasonably be perceived by others to have a conflict of interest or objectivity issue if they knew my personal details. This includes both situations in which I have a financial interest and those in which I might have emotional bias, such as articles covering former employers. I hold a Ph.D. in chemistry, and have worked as a medicinal chemist at several biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. The most recent of these positions ended nearly a decade ago and all of these companies are now defunct.

In my personal life I am a strong proponent of several causes, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to reducing malaria, dengue, and other tropical diseases. I've worked as a foster parent and have a strong interest in domestic violence. I tend to stay away from these articles on Wikipedia, in part to avoid issues of WP:ADVOCACY.

(END OF UNSIGNED RESPONSE BY ATSME)

I will be happy to add my sig. Inclusion of the COI should have been added by the OP, and the same applies to any other participant in this survey. Thank you. Atsme☯Consult 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this was a good faith error and not intended to deceive. I don't think it is necessary to change it now. I disagree with your assertiong that anything in that statement of compliance with WP:COI represents a COI with respect to the current subject matter. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 16:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly 98, I mulled your response around in my head for a couple of days to see if I could arrive at the same conclusion you did regarding your COI statement not representing a COI in this matter. What I basically surmised is that you are saying your COI doesn't apply here because you don't display COI duck behavior or have any COI issues with a COI essay? I think the latter is self-evident. I might have agreed with you on the former had you not filed this MfD within hours of it going online which speaks volumes, especially considering you didn't even attempt to discuss anything with us first. I liken it to GM setting a pay scale for its assembly workers, and those same workers thinking they don't have a COI when voting for an industry wide pay-hike at a UAW meeting. Atsme☯Consult 20:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


As discussion of user behavior on an article Talk page is outside the Talk Page Guidelines, I'm collapsing this section and requesting that you move this discussion here, where I have responded. Thanks. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
[edit]
  • OPPOSE STRONG KEEP - and respectfully request that this AfD be removed immediately, and that Formerly 98 be reminded that his behavior here ironically demonstrates some of the issues mentioned in the essay he just proposed for deletion. While we appreciate his knowledge, expertise and contributions to the encyclopedia, he does not hold a trump card over other editors. Perhaps he should read this essay as well as some of the related essays, beginning with WP:COI, and WP:ADVOCACY. Hopefully he won't be proposing any of them as AfD as well. Atsme☯Consult 04:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated to strong keep based on the recent improvements and updates to the essay by other collaborators. Atsme☯Consult 04:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • As author of the essay, I just read all the delete comments, including tin foil hat claims that the essay was written to promote pseudoscience, and created a cudgel to promote fringe which is absolutely ludicrous. Other comments make other outlandish claims that the essay obscures or hinders finding real COI, and/or that it obfuscates, is incompetent, etc. The few comments that actually did give a substantive reason by quoting a passage, or pointing to a particular section in the essay allowed us to modify those problem areas and make the essay better. Another delete supporter even added a section and made a few other improvements to the essay. The other claims are simply not supported by anything specific or that can be proven by actually reading the essay. Atsme☯Consult 03:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it runs counter to the aims of our Project, as the nominator explains. Alternatively, rename it to WP:TINFOIL and/or WP:REDSUNDERTHEBED and leave it (with a suitable hat note) as a kind of exemplar of a bad essay and conspiracist thinking to guide editors on how not to partipate on Wikipedia. (Add: it is just so deliciously ironic that this essay advances the case that "ducks" can be easily identified by a self-appointed corps of COI-finders-general, and then has a lead illustration of a flock - of geese!) Alexbrn (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact that's what Domestic ducks look like. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I never! I must eat my words then. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP/OPPOSE DELETION or USERFY - Problems with COI need to be addressed. The WifiOne case discussed on Jimbo's page here languished for 3 years because not enough was done, jeopardizing the credibility of the encyclopedia from COI editing. This essay is to address such problems. Formerly98 has not been collaborative in making suggestions to improve the essay, but instead simply rejects it outright. This is not a productive approach. Formerly98 needs to make a good faith effort to address any concerns about the essay before taking such an all-or-nothing approach. The same applies to User:Alexbrn who also has shown no interest in improving the essay. Userfy is a much better remediation to concerns raised arguing for deletion. The essay is in my opinion more in the draft stage rather than publication stage, so more work is warranted before publication if that is how essays typically proceed. (I have never dealt with user essays before and I do not know the steps of the process, but I did think the publication of the essay was premature without more feedback.) However, I am again greatly troubled that those who take issue with the essay have not first made efforts to propose constructive criticism and instead bash good faith efforts to address the kind of COI we found with WifiOne. Solving the serious problems of COI is not done by sweeping the problems and all proposed solutions under the rug and allowing the status quote COI behavior to continue. I urge that everyone who says this essay should be deleted make good faith efforts to be very specific about how to improve the essay and propose real solutions. Recent improvements to the essay have made it stronger. 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (revised 14:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC))(revised David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Delete I look forward to the next essay collaboration by the same authors, "Problems in the Big Pharma Cheque delivery system" -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just noting the obvious fact that I support my own proposal. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 09:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Essay does not contain good evidence. It appears to promote the use of poor quality sources and hinders those trying to promote the use of high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What in the article gave you that idea? You provided input once during the sandbox discussion [1], and I modified it here [2]. If you felt more was needed, why didn't you discuss it with us? Criticism is healthy, but unwarranted criticism is not productive. Atsme☯Consult 14:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete it lacks logic and objectivity--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely incoherent and actively unhelpful to anybody trying to navigate the murky waters in which the "ducks" purportedly swim. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think JzG says it best. This page confuses, obscures, and hinders the effective ways of determining who has a conflict of interest and making sure that Wikipedia pages follow Wikipedia policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as soapy coat. The essay is obviously written from the perspective of a group of editors who want to incorporate unverified and unreliable content into Wikipedia that is either pseudoscientific, promotional of alternative medicine ideas, or both. This muddies the water and opposes a number of policies and guidelines on this site and therefore should be removed and the writers trouted. jps (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Userfy I think the essay is largely nonsense, and lists behaviour that all regular medical editors do, and most good ones in other fields. I'm not quite sure what grounds for deletion of an essay are, & this could remain in userspace. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Userfy. I think the author of this essay was premature in establishing it as an essay before getting feedback. It is too broad-brush and fails to make an effective case. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Changing to "keep" per Groupuscule. My opinion on the flaws of this essay is unchanged. However, this essay addresses genuine issues. While I understand the concerns that have been raised, I think they're overstated and also don't justify deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to clarify, I am a former paid editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - for those saying "userfy" there already is a draft is userspace whence this came - see here (last dif blanked it - see the history and its talk page). This is really about deleting the essay. note to closer: close should deal with the essay that is also in userspace Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (added note to closer Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • comment - whoa - you just made a pretty bold assumption, Jytdog. You actually instructed the closer on what to do before a decision has been made knowing full well the userfy was not part of this request. Don't forget, Griffin was determined to be no consensus despite 15 KEEPS, and only 5 Deletes. Please stop taking over articles and projects, and let the closer do his/her job. IF the result is to delete the essay, the KEEP supporters plan to work on it further in userfy, or does that conflict with your plans? Atsme☯Consult 02:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nope, not what i meant. the closer will choose to deal with the essay in your sandbox or not; but should be aware that it already exists in your userspace when the close is made. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG, who summarizes in a few words what I am about to expand further: this present essay deals incompetently with only one type of coi problem, what we have normally called Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing--as explained in that excellent long-standing essay. In contrast, this one deals with the problem in a way that does not helpfully distinguish constructive from unconstructive editing behavior--people trying to maintain a neutral POV use similar arguments, and use them much more frequently that the POV pushers do. POV pushing by a group of paid advocates for a single POV that are not obviously socks is rather rare; true believers are much more common and characteristically concentrate on nationalistic or ideological topics. The big pharma situation is a special case, and there I would rely completely on DocJames's view that this essay is not how to deal with them--dealing with them requires actually knowing the science in order to identify false arguments and misleading references. Most paid COI editing is by single paid editors who are trying to promote a company or whitewash its reputation, and are usually best distinguished by the actual content of their edits, rather than their arguments. (And even here, allowance is needed for those good-faith editors who want to write about a company and assume that the typical COI article is the model for how to do it, because that's most of what they see on Wikipedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 April 2015‎ (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete and salt I work the WP:COIN board and am on the ground dealing with COI issues every day here in WP. There are behavioral signs of COI editing, but none of them are described in this essay. This essay grew out of a comment by SV here (in a section about my putative COI) recommending that we lower the bar for pursuing editors with claims of COI on the basis of WP:DUCK. This specific realization of that idea, appears to me to be is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP (see here) and is an example of why lowering the bar is a terrible idea. People fling changes of COI way too easily in content disputes. We don't need to feed that unfortunate tendency. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (owning my perception Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment - If you truly believe there are behavioral signs of COI editing that were not mentioned, why didn't you propose them on the essay's TP? Your claims of a "cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP" is very disconcerting, primarily because you create the impression that you want to exclude all mention of it from WP. You need to read WP:FRINGE which states: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. The guideline does not suggest censorship of such material, rather it suggests that it must not be given undue weight about a mainstream idea. Your comment actually validated the need for this essay. Atsme☯Consult 14:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose deletion Strong keep Given recent events in my wiki-life, I would have welcomed reading this essay a few weeks ago. The essay reflects in an articulate and informative way, the thoughts that some editors experience when confronted with multiple editors seemingly in an alliance with a POV. The essay also offers guidance on how to behave in such circumstances and relevant policies and articles. A great piece of writing for the less experienced editors.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per DrChrissy, who encountered the exact activity being defined by "COIDuck", by the same group of buddies who gather at the same articles to create faux consensus, and flock around noticeboards to silence opponents through bans, etc - many of the same editors who are offended by this essay. Advocacy editing is rampant on WP and can be proven by looking at editing and behaviour alone, which this essay attempts to address. The conversation should not be confined to "COI" editing, which requires honesty on the part of the conflicted editor or, barring that, some proof of their offline identity and employment - effectively silencing WPians from addressing this type of editing altogether. I see the majority of editors who do speak out seem to defend the subtle but pervasive pro-industry slant WP has adopted by refusing to address actual edits and behaviour, funneling all conversations to COI, whose parameters have been defined by the very editors receiving a majority of the COI complaints. I am suspicious of efforts to remove the ability to speak of this behaviour and of a reality that is ruining WPs reputation. Much of this website reads like a thinly veiled ad for the pharmaceutical industry, the GMO industry, and the official government viewpoint, etc. Our readers recognize this, and laugh at using WP as a source for much beyond celebrities' birth dates. There are few options for those wanting to bring about a NPOV after this gang has descended upon a certain article or topic area. We are outnumbered and silenced, and this AfD is an example. What would really show me that an editor is truly concerned about the Pedia would be a willingness to look at the editing we are attempting to address. I spent 4-5 hours surveying just one article revamped by the nominator of this AfD, and thus far no one seems interested in discussing it. I'll re copy this example of "COIDuck" editing below. (Copied from a conversation on my talk page, addressed to Formerly98) petrarchan47tc 17:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You whitewash by using overly-technical language * *,
  • overuse non-neutral, non-independent government sources such as the FDA and NICE *
  • to whitewash information about serious side-effects * *.
  • You use packet inserts * from drug companies as a reference.
  • You remove large sections of negative information citing RS problems *, and leave the reader with muddled text supposedly saying the same thing, but actually devoid of readable content, except to a scientist *.
  • You removed negative info about Abilify, and the link to List of largest pharmaceutical settlements with the edit summary "Aripiprazole - not an antidepressant" *.
  • You seem to be removing links to people who don't hold your views: "neither Kramer's view nor those of Breggin/Healy POV is mainstream. Undue wt to outlying viewpoints" * You admit you are wrong *, but a month later you remove them anyway with the edit summary "adjust per WP:ELPOV" *.
  • You say nothing to correct Jytdog when he removes from the article any mention of "withdrawl", opting for industry speak, "Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and forgoing an introductory sentence altogether *.
  • You remove* the fact that 80% of each drug passes through the body without being broken down, saying that it was not in the refs cited, yet I find in the citation: The use of antidepressants has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, says Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello. Around 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down, and so they are present in waste water.*.
  • You remove the arguments of opponents, saying "This is just a letter to the editor" *.
  • You removed this saying, "Fluoxetine is exceted from humans unchanged or as glucuronide" - cited ref doesn't say that, and package insert contradicts this statement". The first sentence of the cited ref says Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant and high-prescription-volume drug, is excreted unchanged or as a glucuronide from the human organism. You are corrected here *, and decide to spin it, imo, here adding this source.
  • You whitewash by using overly-technical language * *,
In the first example I'm having a little trouble understanding why you think the new language is more technical or less critical than the original. In the second I replaced a straw man argument ("Lilly is proud of its accomplishments") with a meta analysis. Not sure why you would have a problem with this.
  • overuse non-neutral, non-independent government sources such as the FDA and NICE *
The FDA and NICE are recognized as high quality sources by WP:MEDRS. If you don't think they are appropriate, the appropriate response is to seek consensus to modify that document. As it stands now, you're criticizing me for following established Wikipedia Guidelines.
  • to whitewash information about serious side-effects * *.
Again, these changes were sourced to WP:MEDRS compliant sources. Do you have an alternate reliable source that states that this information is not accurate? Here again, your problem does not appear to be with me, but with WP:MEDRS
  • You use packet inserts * from drug companies as a reference.
The package inserts are reviewed and approved by the FDA. In fact, the language of the FD&C act specifically states that the FDA approves labels and not drugs per se. They are essentially FDA documents.
  • You remove large sections of negative information citing RS problems *, and leave the reader with muddled text supposedly saying the same thing, but actually devoid of readable content, except to a scientist *.
The information about spontaneous abortions was discussed in two different places in the article, one using high quality sources and one using low quality. I deleted the later for redundancy. The article still stated that there was a 1.7x increased risk after my edit, and it was better organized. No information about AEs was removed.
The title of the article is "Antidepressants". The discussion of the off-label marketing of an antipsychotic drug belongs in the article on Abilify or the article on antipsychotics, but is out of place here.
  • You seem to be removing links to people who don't hold your views: "neither Kramer's view nor those of Breggin/Healy POV is mainstream. Undue wt to outlying viewpoints" * You admit you are wrong *, but a month later you remove them anyway with the edit summary "adjust per WP:ELPOV" *.
Yes, I changed my mind twice. I think this shows that I do make an effort to do the right thing.
  • You say nothing to correct Jytdog when he removes from the article any mention of "withdrawl", opting for industry speak, "Antidepressant discontinuation syndrome" and forgoing an introductory sentence altogether *.
I had no opinion on this. Lots of people did not comment on it.
  • You remove* the fact that 80% of each drug passes through the body without being broken down, saying that it was not in the refs cited, yet I find in the citation: The use of antidepressants has increased dramatically over the past 25 years, says Michael Thomas of Idaho State University in Pocatello. Around 80 per cent of each drug passes straight through the human body without being broken down, and so they are present in waste water.*.
Its clearly not true that one can make broad statements about every drug in an entire therapeutic class being excreted unchanged to the same extent, and the non-MEDRS compliant source used for the 80% figure doesn't even support that number. I took Prozac-specific information from the package insert, and the editor whose content I changed agreed that it was an appropriate source.
  • You remove the arguments of opponents, saying "This is just a letter to the editor" *.
Please review WP:MEDRS. This was nothing more than a statement of opinion, being presented as established medical fact. Again, your problem seems to be with WP:MEDRS, which does not allow these types of statements about health-related topics to be sourced to editorials.
  • You removed this saying, "Fluoxetine is exceted from humans unchanged or as glucuronide" - cited ref doesn't say that, and package insert contradicts this statement". The first sentence of the cited ref says Fluoxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressant and high-prescription-volume drug, is excreted unchanged or as a glucuronide from the human organism. You are corrected here *, and decide to spin it, imo, here adding this source.
I no longer have access to the article cited here, but the package insert clearly states that " The primary route of elimination appears to be hepatic metabolism to inactive metabolites excreted by the kidney.", e.g, it is not eliminated unchanged. Note that the "spin version" that you cite says that less than 10% is eliminated unchanged. This is in agreement with my edit, and directly contradicts the sentence that I changed. I'm not sure how you came up with this as an example of a problematic edit.
  • comment - the personal nature of the comments above, are a great demonstration of why this essay should not exist, but should be salted. this is exactly how accusations of COI are used inappropriately in WP - as a personalization of disputes over content. enforcement of the COI guideline needs to be done carefully, not wildly, and not carried on like this in whatever forum pops up, which just becomes harassment and campaigning. This is not what WP is about. See the Arbcom cases: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV that was about harassment, and the very controversial case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal about the intersection of paid editing and outing (and harassment more generally), and the more recent case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Add those up, and you get that campaigning with accusations of COI gets nothing done, is harmful to the encyclopedia, and can get you banned for harassment more broadly and outing more specifically. we do not want to encourage that. we have a process to deal with COI and to deal with advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC) (amend Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Add those up and you get nothing. The cases you cite are completely unrelated and don't have the slightest thing to do with this essay. What they do indicate is that it is very difficult to get rid of adminitrators who misbehave, it takes an arbcom case, but that has nothing to do with this essay. The purpose of this essay is to make it easier to identify and act against COI. I happen to feel that this essay doesn't really help in dealing with that issue, but I do feel that is a genuine concern that needs to be addressed, not some kind of scumbucket activity that needs to be "salted" as you put it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note - this conversation was picked up in the comments section below. Jytdog (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It took under 5 minutes to begin to find more tendentious edits by Formerly98, this time to Johnson & Johnson

  • Removes paragraph from lead which includes a summary of criticism (once) found in the article, saying "remove WP:Peacock and unsourced material from lede". Note that WP:LEDE does not require 'sourcing' as it is expected to be found in the body.
  • Adds content about company sourced almost entirely from primary sources and the FDA, or no source at all (see here.
  • Removes more criticism with "2010 Hip replacement recall: Quoting the plantiff's attorneys without giving equal space to a company quote? Seriously? Deleted. WP:NPOV" - as opposed to adding Company statement. petrarchan47tc 01:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Petra, this is not the appropriate place for you to generate an an endless list of edits that you disagree with and demand that I defend myself against your accusations of bad faith editing. The edits can be discussed in terms of sources and content on the article talk page. The appropriate place to discuss editor behavior is ANI, but we have already done that and you were not able to get consensus for your point of view, so that conversation is over. I therefore respectfully request that you focus on the essay that we are here to discuss. I'm happy to discuss my edits to the JNJ article on the Talk page of that article. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 02:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the perfect place to show, for example, that pro-pharma spin doctoring is taking place, and that there is a tremendous amount of energy spent defending, denying and ignoring this activity in response. It's no conspiracy theory, the evidence is clear to anyone willing to look. Special interest spin doctoring hurts the articles regardless of the impetus behind it (COI or personal passion). I wonder why no one seems willing to objectively view the actual edits, since article content is the only thing that really matters. Strange. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No Petra, this is an example of why this essay and your accusations are completely wrongheaded. The second of your bullet points notes that I removed material from the article, but the diff shows that what I removed was "Johnson & Johnson Ranks No. 1 in National Corporate Reputation Survey for Seventh Consecutive Year," December 7, 2005. was ranked as the world's most respected company by Barron's Magazine in 2008," Did you read this before citing it as an example of my "pro-industry COI editing"? Once again I request that you focus your comments on the subject of this page, and stop denigrating other editors. This page is for discussion of the essay. If you would like to discuss my editing behavior, you need to try to take that up at COIN or ANI, but given the results of your last effort, I don't see that there would be much value in that. Thanks, Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sprinkle extra salt. Trout and/or block editors for supporting nonsense. QuackGuru (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redddbaron (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The essay articulates a common problem. There should be more dialogue at Wikipedia, not less. Differences of opinion are normal and natural. Wikipedia should be embracing dissension. I'm sorry to be so jaundiced but this essay represents a positive, not a negative, contribution. We should be thinking of ourselves as a "slow moving" institution. Quality is associated with time in my opinion. Our articles should be the product of extended dialogue if valid disagreements persist. Wikipedia does not thrive on politics. Wikipedia thrives on freethinking individuals who bring sources. Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep Amazing, the opposers are identifying with the COI ducks (If the shoe fits—wear it!). Further, the essay clearly says the opposite of what the OP stated, “In general, edits that are justified in terms of maintaining WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VERIFY, or WP:OR are not to be taken seriously, but are rather evidence of the COI of the other editor.” Particularly note the actual essay statement: “MEDRS is a content guideline that is highly respected by the community. Read it, learn it, know it.”--Pekay2 (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like it a lot better if it said "respect and follow it" instead of stating that one should get to know it because others respect it and suggesting that edits justified by its requirements are indicative of an undisclosed COI. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:18, 4 April 2015
This is nits and lice, not advancing the conversation. PS: Our comments belong in the section below.--Pekay2 (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)(UTC)[reply]
I don't think its nits and lice at all. The essay repeatedly states that making edits on the basis of MEDRS, RS, OR, or BLP requirements is evidence that the editor in question has an undisclosed COI. With respect to MEDRS, it then exhorts the reader to "read it, learn it, and know it" because it is "respected by the community". This reads like political advice, and can hardly be interpreted as endorsing MEDRS given the statements that preceeded it.
The bottom line is that this essay is a rebellion against multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines undertaken by other means because the authors did not feel they could successfully challenge these policies and guidelines head on. What it attempts to do instead is raise doubts about the motives of those who attempt to apply them. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the bottom line is that editors who apply WP:PAG properly have no reason to be concerned over this essay. Your recommendation to respect and follow it is a demand that goes beyond what WP expects from its editors. See WP:PAG wherein it states: Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Also see WP:FATRAT. The only rebellion I see stems from what appears to be an effort to impose certain demands on editors that our policies don't even expect. Behavior is what is actionable, and that is where the problem lies. You talk-the-talk about following guidelines, yet you ignored guidelines when you initiated this MfD when failed to discuss trying to make improvements beforehand which created a battleground situation, and you continue to do so. Issues arise when an editor tries to spin PAGs in order to gain advantage, so if you truly believe you have never done such a thing, you have nothing to be concerned about. The essay describes behavioral issues, supports civility and recommends options for remedies. Atsme☯Consult 13:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously feel that the sourcing and no original research guidelines are being used to drive an agenda. The answer to this problem, if it exists, is not to undermine Wikipedia policies and guidelines that have have been established by broad community consensus, but to act within them.
  • If an editor removes poorly sourced information that supports your position, find a WP:RS or WP:MEDRS supporting the information and re-add it.
  • If you can't find such a source, it doesn't belong in the article. And its absence will not affect WP:NPOV for the simple reason that NPOV is defined by the prominence of POVs in reliable sources. If there is no reliable source for the information, it is not relevant to NPOV. Its really quite simple.
Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 14:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop assuming because it leads to faulty conclusions. The essay under the section Analyze your edits states There actually exists the possibility your edit was improper which caused the revert. Read the edit summary objectively and consider the following: which includes a list of 5 suggestions, two of which clearly state: Did you cite your passage to a reliable source that is verifiable but not false? and also Is the topic of the article about health or science which requires closer attention to WP:MEDRS guidelines? I am now beginning to wonder, did you actually read the essay? Atsme☯Consult 15:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not assuming anything. The following is highly problematic:
A few common criticisms in edit summary reverts by advocates include
  • unsourced or poorly sourced, see MEDRS
  • trivial mention, nobody cares
  • hell no, POV
  • whitewashing quackery, see Fringe/PS
  • unproven, need RS
  • no consensus, discuss on TP
  • no OR
  • not supported by source
You're directly advising editors to regard guideline-based edits as evidence of COI. If you don't understand why that is unacceptable I don't know how to begin explaining it to you.
Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 15:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not - another assumption based on what...misapprehension of the essay? It's easy enough to improve upon it. Let's not forget, you initiated this MfD without any prior discussion, and some of the things that were pointed out here are easy fixes. The essay is a step by step procedure, not based on one list. Stop cherrypicking. Atsme☯Consult 20:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the list from the essay. There have been other excellent updates and modifications to remedy concerns. If only you had discussed the issues before your haste to initiate this MfD, we could have avoided the conflicts. Ironic, isn't it? Atsme☯Consult 11:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list is valid: My interpretation is that she is talking about WP:tendentious edits/reverts, that come rapidly to prevent well sourced material from getting in, often without any real discussion on the talk page, using what appears to be valid reasons but are used only to obstruct valid material from inclusion. I have certainly seen that. If the essay does not make it clear that it is in connection with WP:tendentious, then maybe it is worth adding that and referring to that Essay. David Tornheim (talk) 07:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Socks are one person acting as multiple people - can you link to the passages that led you to believe the essay is about socks? That need to be changed; unless I'm mistaken, this is not about sockpuppeting. petrarchan47tc 02:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I know what's the case now; that is seem to be a disruptive essay, which at the same time is a bad faith essay. WP:CRY may apply either. --TL22 (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you perhaps intend to link to the page called WP:AGF? The link you provided above is to the page called WP:ABF which is intended to be humorous. Bus stop (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that guideline is humorous, but it also documents behaviors not accepted by Wikipedia community. That's why I linked to it. --TL22 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. The current version appears to be rather rant like language rather than a guidance essay. The overarching problem that leads me to delete though is the premise of the article, which violates WP:COI and other polices. We make it very clear there that editors are to bring forward evidence of actual COI or suspicion of it at WP:COIN to discuss it with the community rather than engage in this behavior. If an editor suspects a COI, that is explained here where we do not use WP:ASPERSIONS about COI as a trump card in content disputes. Evidence is still required in that case though. The heart of this essay flies in the face of that, WP:AGF, and not casting aspersions. This essay could be used as an example of behavior not to follow when dealing with COI, but I'm just seeing WP:BEANS. If there isn't clear evidence of COI editors can bring to COIN, there can be the potential for WP:ADVOCACY going on, but that is found through consistent evidence of violating WP:NPOV. Given that WP:ADVOCACY explains how to deal with that, I don’t see any room for this essay. I'll agree with QuackGuru, especially after looking at some of the writers' histories and supporters here that this appears to be WP:POINTY behavior and shouldn't be entertained. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The policy cited above does not take into account the recent WifiOne case described here. The policy needs to be adjusted to guide users how to properly prepare an ArbCom case or better bring a case at a lower Wiki-court so as not to put all the burden on ArbCom to adjudicate these cases. I believe discussion is currently taking place to address the new change of circumstances on the COI talk page as requested by @SlimVirgin:. David Tornheim (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that case, and NPOV was how it was rooted out. We don't resort to red scare-like tactics like this when problematic behavior is difficult to address. We do what we can with what we have instead of throwing logic out the window. Also, please leave additional comments out of the survey section to avoid clutter here since we already have a comment section. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be a rant about something, but it's more about content disagreements than the kind of problems that come up at WP:COIN. I often work on WP:COIN problems. Most of the problems there relate to promotion of bands/DJs/indie films/companies/products, with the occasional biographical self-promotion. Nothing in the essay helps with such issues. Nice pictures, though. John Nagle (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit mercilessly. I strongly dislike this essay in its current form, but there are several essays that I dislike more. I am happy to have a range of essays that reflect diverse opinions. Yes, this article seems to mingle advocacy, and group advocacy, with conflict of interest. However there is a germ of truth and need for a discussion and essay to identify the quacks that identify conflict of interest edits, so that those edits can be tagged or reverted. In other words, COI cases convince me that COI ducks exist, but this essay isn't yet ready to help editors detect them. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When there are problems its best not to stick your head in the sand and pretend they dont exist, or fight against the possibility that a problem exists. Thats called denial. The essay is a start at identifying a problem that I believe exists as do a lot of editors. Its a start, and like lots of starts on Wikipedia could use improvement, thats what we do on Wikipedia. We improve whats been started by others if there is good reason to keep the information. In this case there is good reason, anything that helps identify problems, that makes WP stronger and better is needed. It is at least the opinion of a minority as the essay banner allows minority opinions, I find nothing wrong with keeping it, or a reason to delete it. Removal should hinge on a finding that is not at least a minority opinion. Efforts toward rooting out COI and other things that harm WP should be a top priority, not tossed in the trash can. AlbinoFerret 10:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - We obviously have a COI problem here, so an essay that deals with COI ducks would be highly desirable. Any debate about specific content in this essay should be done on its talk page, not here. -A1candidate 12:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have numeorus essays on how to identify and handle COI. What are COI ducks? The definition is incoherent. Can you give an example of an article where this essay legitimately characterises the issues and offers a productive way forward? To my reading it offers no useful policy-based guidance at all. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, here is where the essay was requested, and here is the link to the conversation where the concept originated. Note in particular:
Sarah (SV): "Jytdog, this is at least the third editor (EllenCT, David Tornheim, DePiep) for whom you and Kingofaces43 have sought topic bans or blocks, after the editor expressed concern about pro-industry COI editing. Yet I know you've been concerned about COI yourself and its impact on WP. We're already hamstrung because of OUTING. It means editors often can't produce the evidence, but if they express concern without evidence, someone will seek a block. What can be done about this?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrarchan47 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC
Well that explains everything. This essay is nothing but an assertion of the pharma shill gambit - that explains why it is so far out of line with reality and Wikipedia policy. The sooner it's nuked, the better. See WP:TINC. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BoboMeowCat: "I think Sarah (SV) raises an important question here regarding COI concerns and what can be done about this. It seems one potential way to deal with this would be for ANI to differentiate between COI concerns raised as vicious allegation/personal attack vs civil reasonable COI concerns backed up by diffs. For example, calling someone a “fucking asshole shill for Monsanto” vs someone saying “these edits (with difs provided) appear non-neutral and this WP:BITE / WP:BULLY behavior toward editors with a different POV (again provide difs) suggests to me a COI”."
Sarah (SV): "We need a safe way for people to express these concerns. Issues can be taken to COIN, but if you're not allowed to produce evidence because of OUTING, there's no point." petrarchan47tc 19:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care This essay isn't especially well-developed. For example, "COI ducks will abuse PAG, particularly MEDRS and FRINGE guidelines if they believe they can gain advantage by preventing negative material from being included in the article" forgets that people with conflicts of interest abuse policies and guidelines to prevent positive material from being added, too. It sounds like the real dispute that prompted this is that someone forgot that "being an expert" (e.g., having a PhD in chemistry) isn't a COI, excalty like "being a patient who believes that the cure for cancer can be bought at a health food website" isn't a COI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - there are a lot of article-for-hire users nowadays and an essay about identifying their wares is potentially useful. It isn't there yet, but there's potential here. --B (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since I edit areas of fringe science and alt med with respect to our policies, this essay says that it's very likely I'm being paid by big pharma. While that's funny, how can I collaborate with this editor, or any editor who sees his essay, when they believe pointing to policy pages is disruptive? The author can have his opinions, and even share them in his user space if he desires, but we should not allow essays in the same space as our policies and guidelines that are the very definition of poisoning the well. Collaboration is impossible if we turn our talk pages into a witch hunt for pharma shills. Ironically, this essay hurts the editors the author is trying to help; instead of learning our policies and collaborating, they are being encouraged to edit tendentiously against consensus, which will lead to nothing but sanctions.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep. Remember what it says at the top of the page:
Reasons to keep:
  1. Comments above which object to "incoherence" or refer to this essay as a "coatrack" — "a coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but has been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects" — miss the point of an essay, in which focused discussion of one issue is completely appropriate. That these comments furthermore prove the author's point by invoking a barrage of inapplicable policies is of secondary importance.
  2. The original nominator badly mischaracterizes the essay itself, which obviously argues that policies are being abused, not that they should be ignored. The text asks readers to carefully consider Wikipedia policies before speculating about an editor's conflict of interest, and carefully refers to "abus[ive]" and "unwarranted" use of policy to clarify that not all uses are problematic. The essay's attitude on this issue is completely unambigous.
  3. Widely known existing essays such as Wikipedia:Wikilawyering (also see: Wikipedia:Policy shopping and Wikipedia:Gaming the system) discuss the abuse of rules in a similar fashion to the essay under discussion—and indeed one of Wikipedia's most historically popular policies, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, actually epitomizes the thoughtcrime of which Atsme now stands accused.
Happy Easter, groupuscule (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S., reason #4 to keep the essay: The nominator's bottom line is that the essay "encourages disruptive editing behavior". Incitement to actual disruption is the only plausible reason for deletion, since we have a strong presumption that people can express different points of views on essay pages. Anyone who has read the essay itself, in addition to the nominator's summary, can tell that it does not "encourage disruptive editing behavior"—quite plainly, it does the opposite, encouraging beducked editors to "avoid confrontation"; to "maintain a sense of professionalism and level-headedness"; and maybe even to "sit quietly and learn by observation". Atsme has now added the advice, "Stop, breathe, think...and above all, avoid WP:Edit warring" These suggestions encourage the opposite of "disruptive editing behavior". In fact they encourage cautious and respectful editing behavior (perhaps more so than do some of the essay and guideline pages concerning medical sources). groupuscule (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason #5: Genesis 18:32 (may also apply to Wikipedia itself) groupuscule (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Problems on multiple levels, but basically gives bad advice to editors. Conflates multiple related but distinct issues (COI, advocacy, group editing, etc) in a way that will make things worse for the reader to correctly understand and act on any significant issues. Would also have the underappreciated and inflammatory effect of causing people to accuse others of COI editing for unsubstantiated reasons - this needs to be stamped out, not promoted as this essay would do. I also think the point raised above, that the author has not actually encountered any real episodes of COI editing makes this essay somewhat of a solution in search of a problem, at least as framed by the author (COI is a problem, the presentation and solutions presented are likely to cause more harm than good). A net negative for Wikipedia, and conflicts with existing policies and guidelines, so needs to go. Yobol (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should there be an essay instructing editors to avoid good faith and inculcating them in a battleground approach to editting? No. Delete and salt. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I believed that the essay could be salvaged, I would either edit it myself or propose changes on the talk page. However, the notion that citing widely respected policies and guidelines is evidence, in any way, that an editor's conflict of interest is out of control is so wrongheaded that I see this essay as fatally flawed. I believe that every editor has a variety of conflicts of interest, and that the mark of a productive editor is the ability to consciously place the improvement and best interests of the encyclopedia above their own personal interests. We should not keep essays that are divisive and that encourage battleground behavior. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete long and rambling rant about nothing with tenuous if not nonexistent connection to policy. Also, the way that this MFD page has been organized is rather poor. KonveyorBelt 20:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an approval, enshrinement, and adulation of blatant assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks based on editors' personal POV. Shared POV does not even slightly prove any concerted tag team editing, and favorable POV does not even slightly prove any type of favorable COI connection with the topic. The converse would also apply to the accuser, rendering their argument nonsensical. This applies both ways, which is why we don't allow it.
This essay is an exercise in extreme bad faith and should not only be deleted, but the creator sanctioned. They must stop throwing around these nonsensical accusations. NPA is a policy. Why is the creator not blocked for continual violations of this policy? We can't allow essays that seek to undermine policy in such a blatant manner. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fundamentally contrary to established policies and guidelines, as inherently bad-faith, and as utterly confused as to what COI actually means. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The essay is a garbled mess from start to finish. It documents and seeks to legitimize a toxic editing approach that would casually elevate a good faith content dispute to baseless accusations of COI and willful POV disruption. It needs to be deleted lest inexperienced editors stumble on it and take its advice. SPECIFICO talk 04:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to userspace. I take COI issues pretty seriously. Which is why I think this essay should be deleted: it is so aggressively wrong-headed that it is actually harmful to any serious attempt to deal with COI editing. There is no useful guidance or insight contained in the essay, only lazy conspiracism. Insofar as I can follow the essay, its thesis seems to be that if one is opposed by n editors (where n>1) then the only likely explanation is that they all have undisclosed conflicts of interest. To call this unhelpful would be an understatement. I don't see a salvageable core idea here, which is why I advocate deletion rather than a comprehensive rewrite. Moving the essay to userspace would be acceptable, I guess, since we allow much wider latitude there. MastCell Talk 05:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- in addition to the many specific concerns addressed above, the basic problem is that the essay will not enhance editors' abilities to improve the encyclopedia -- quite the contrary. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per groupuscule. I also think the Wifione case highlights the need to be proactive regarding such COI/advocacy concerns. [4] Seems it can be improved rather than scrapped and it certainly doesn't need to be salted. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (and install desalination plant- salt ?? what a horrible practice to salt another's land and also a disgusting metaphor for sudduing another's ideas. I have seen first hand the fallout and the diminished quality of articles ridden by and riddled with COI jockeys and their convictions, and for reasons listed by others above too.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find that the essay, while not perfect, is a good effort to identify some of the serious problems Wikipedia faces with the subject of COI editing in areas where money, and especially big money, is at stake. The essay makes me think, presents concepts in new ways, and in general is useful. The opposes include among their arguments the need to assume good faith, and not give in to a battleground mentality. We are long past that era, in my view. As User:Coretheapple points out, it is very difficult to remove corrupt admins with entrenched bases of power. I have felt for many years that Wikipedia is overrun by business, corporate and yes political interests with a COI to the mission of Wikipedia, who in some cases are protected by those inside the system. These people are organized, well-funded, and will do anything to anyone to get what they want. The Wifione case is just the tip of the iceberg, in my view, and quite small compared to as-yet unexposed examples of ongoing deeply problematic editing. And the effort to, as I see it, stifle discussion by deleting this relatively harmless essay is something I can't help but regard as worthy of contemplation and even suspicion. Jusdafax 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By any standards of decency, your comment is on its face uncollegial and disruptive. What I find interesting is that it comes amid the discussion below, regarding the perception some of us have, rightly or wrongly, of a pattern of intimidation regarding this essay. So, you are asking me to go "elsewhere?" Either you are oblivious to the discussion, or your comment is WP:BAIT. I suggest you reconsider your comment, strike it through, and issue an apology. You would not be the first to do so on this page. Thanks for your consideration. Jusdafax 19:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jusdafax, I agree that the comment you have objected to is harsh, insulting, and should be withdrawn. However, the reiteration of the charge of "a campaign of intimidation" seems unfair here, as I have apologized to yourself and Atsme. Furthermore, your addition of a level 2 heading suggesting a "campaign of intimidation" was arguably a bit of an overreaction itself. Strictly speaking, discussions of editor behavior don't belong on a project Talk page at all, per WP:TALK
There has been problematic behavior on both sides from the beginning of this dispute. When I filed this MfD, I received a note on my Talk page threatening me with "further measures" if I did not withdraw it immediately. My filing of it was called evidence of a COI, and in the course of the discussion here on this page I have been called a "spin doctor", held up as the epitome of all of the negative traits described in the COI Duck essay, accused of "whitewashing", "tendentious editing" and bad faith editing.
Could we all just try to turn down the rhetoric a notch? Believe me, people are angry and frustrated on both sides. :>) Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 19:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
jusdafax, maybe you are reading your !vote differently than me, but to me (and perhaps also to the three editors who have reacted strongly to it) your !vote paints everybody who voted to !delete as "suspicious" (i.e. probably corrupt as described earlier in your comment). are you aware that your !vote is open to that reading? can you see that in this reading, what you wrote is pretty offensive? those are real questions, not rhetorical ones. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it clear, by use of terms including "I have felt," "in my view," and "as I see it" that I am discussing my feelings, and nothing more. Now, once again, I am being asked to leave the page. I think my statement regarding a "pattern" (my exact wording, not "campaign" as has been imputed to me) of intimidation is quite precise. Three apologies to date, now this. To those offended by my suspicions and feelings, I say, I'm not telling you to leave, with snarky and deliberately insulting intent. These are two different things, and I deeply resent being painted as on the same level. Jusdafax 20:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
while i get it that you hurt/offended/angry, and i totally get it that you tried to couch what you wrote in "owning it" language which is great, i hope you can see that there is little difference for a recipient between "i feel you are corrupt" and "you are corrupt". again, i am not sure you aware that you commented not just on the general situation in WP, but also on specific editors based on their specific !votes here. Jytdog (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We've policies and guidelines on how to address real conflicts of interests, based upon wide consensus and experience. Focusing and acting upon imagined conflicts of interest violates our fundamental purpose here of cooperating with others to create and improve this encyclopedia. Apparently, some would like to encourage the use coi accusations as a means of harassment and disruption. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's been said before, this appears to be incoherent nonsense. It is weeeird that lots of editors apparently see value in this! Like, I can sorta see agreeing with the POINT behind it, but if there's an article on finding secret COI accounts to be had, it isn't this one. SnowFire (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The kindest thing to say about this is that's a pseudo-clever incoherent mess. --Calton | Talk 06:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The essay seems to be largely expressing the Fallacy of the undistributed middle. It's postulating many examples of "COI editors sometimes do X, another editor might do X, therefore the editor is a COI editor". It's defining characteristics of COI editing which are, in fact, also characteristics of perfectly good editing as well as characteristics of other forms of problematic editing, and in doing so is essentially encouraging us to consistently assume bad faith. I'm quite sure the essay was meant in good faith, but I really don't see much at all in it that's actually helpful in tackling problematic COI editing - and that's largely because the task of writing a concise guide to spotting COI editing is pretty much an impossible one. In fact, I think it is likely to lead inexperienced editors into thinking they see COI where they don't, and that would be counterproductive. I know essays like this are not supposed to be seen as policy, but the mere fact that one is in WP space does lend it credibility and authority and it will be believed by editors not familiar with the COI area. No problem with allowing the author to keep it in userspace, but I don't think it should be in WP space. Squinge (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I note some people are saying we should not criticize the author for trying to help address problems like the Wifione one. I agree, and I offer my thanks for the effort. It's clearly well intentioned and quite a bit of work has gone into it. Squinge (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between inexperienced editors and experienced editors is a problematic distinction. Essays can serve a variety of purposes. It is not inconceivable that many of us correctly perceive the occasional misapplication of primary policies. The essay serves a good purpose if it correctly identifies an atmosphere that makes it difficult to produce articles that are evenhandedly supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The essay's title and thesis sentence, say that it is about identifying editors who have a COI. However, it is about something else altogether. it is already confusing people. it seems to have confused you as well. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this essay is being nominated for deletion while another essay, WP:ADVOCACY, is not. Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on inexperienced users is really a relatively minor point, and focusing on that misses my wider point, which is that the essay fails in its attempt to explain how to identify COI editing (and, in my view, in a misleading way). Squinge (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just a response to you, because others have argued for deletion based on a notion that this essay may lead inexperienced editors astray. I would hazard a guess that this essay would especially be beneficial for inexperienced editors. I think we know that there is a problem and WP:ADVOCACY already alludes to it. The inexperienced editor needs to hear what these essays are grappling with. This essay will not supplant the WP:FIVEPILLARS. It will rarely be invoked. Bus stop (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and you are correct with the experienced/inexperienced thing there Bus stop. you have been here a long time and the essay seems to have you confused as well. this essay is not about COI. it is about what it feels like to be on the wrong side of policy-based consensus, but it describes that not as a situation to listen and learn something and actually build up the community, but instead, it describes that as being the result of a conspiracy of policy-spouting corrupt editors. which is deeply messed up, and destructive to the community. it is why there are so many !delete votes. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are expected to think. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Quality of arguments is more important than quantity of votes. Inventive editors can misconstrue that there is support in policy for that which actually lessens the value of the encyclopedia to the reader. As I see it, the reader, in the final analysis, matters most. You express that you are concerned with "build[ing] up the community". But that should never be done at the expense of informing the reader. All editors benefit from identifying some of the weaknesses of policy, which of course is not perfect. And we stand a better chance of having a community we can be proud of if we know that we have done due diligence in examining the ways in which policies are occasionally misused. No one is saying that all editors are "corrupt" or anything like that. This is merely an essay addressing some known problems. One can only hazard a guess as to how prevalent these problems are but Wikipedia's editorship is not perfect. We should not be so cautious as to shy away from shining a light on our potential failings. Bus stop (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes we are expected to think, Bus Stop. And think clearly. again, the essay purports to be about how to identify editors with a COI, but slides over into casting a consensus of editors on interpretation of policy as being in a corrupt conspiracy against editors who take a stance against that consensus. The casting of consensus as conspiracy - and the complete lack of mooring for the COI in anything other than raw bad faith - is sloppy thinking, a policy violation itself, and destructive in that others are advised to do the same. This is the reason for all the delete !votes. Please do read what I just wrote, read the delete votes again, and read the essay with this question in mind - what evidence do you find presented, that the editors holding the consensus actually have any COI'? You will find none. You will find one thing - an assumption of bad faith. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points made by all. Bus stop provided a thought provoking recap of the issue, and if I may please top it off with the following: If the concern is over how new editors will interpret this essay, I think the concern is misdirected. Instead, there needs to be more focus on what is considered the accepted standard, WP:IAR, and how new editors may interpret that policy. Opposition to this essay which actually discourages WP:Battleground, WP:Edit warring, and explains the various behaviors that may or may not erupt are a long way off from being harmful. Atsme☯Consult 01:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This essay, while perhaps redundant, is not violating any policy and is informative (at least of what some editors think). It's informative about COI editing. LK (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Intellectual rationale for disruptive warriorism. Carrite (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This whole essay runs counter to how this place is supposed to work. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for several reasons. First, this essay uses "ducks" and "quacks" in a completely different way than the well-established WP:DUCK, making their use in this essay quite confusing. Second, it isn't at all clear what a "COI duck" actually is as it the term is poorly defined, and what is defined appears to be based on the Fallacy of the undistributed middle as described by Squinge. Third, this essay appears to be a thinly-disguised way to accuse others of having a COI without providing evidence per WP:COI. Although this essay says that The goal is not to encourage wikiconspiracy theorists to skulk talk pages looking for ducks, to use this as a cudgel for beating their enemies, or otherwise to allow editors to call anyone that disagrees with them a duck, at the same time it provides no actual method of investigating "COI ducks" other than to take them to a noticeboard (including ANI if the issue isn't resolved at COIN). This lack of clarity or good-faith guidelines to deal with "COI ducks", combined with the lack of a clear definition for a "COI duck" and the fact that the editing behaviours described as evidence of "COI ducks" are not unique to them, appears to me to be a recipe for casting aspersions against other editors. Any essay that encourages such disruption is neither informative nor useful to Wikipedia and should be deleted. Ca2james (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what do you recommend as a better way to identify? Do you think we have a clear definition now? Do you think misidentification isn't already happening and causing a stir? Just wondering since It's an essay, and it can be improved. Atsme☯Consult 04:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENTS
[edit]
  • Comment - this MfD request is a knee jerk reaction by its opponents considering the request was initiated the same day the essay was added to mainspace, and without any prior discussion with its author or other editors involved in its creation. To my knowledge as creator of this essay, there has not been any GF attempts to improve the article by any of those who are now criticizing it, most of which is unwarranted blanket criticism that lacks the quality needed to delete the work of another editor. One of the first questions our deletion guidelines ask is if there were any attempts to improve the article? The answer is clearly a resounding no with regards to its opponents. I also ask that any editor who participates in this survey to please make known potential COI with any of the topics mentioned in the essay. What I'm seeing now is a beehive attack with unwarranted blanket statements of criticism, some of which are not even supported in the essay, and are clearly POV. When statements like this [5] appear on the TP of an article that is heavily debated, it justifies the need for this essay and the clarity it brings to the issues. There is a recurring problem on WP as the essay brings to light. It did not just appear in mainspace without extensive discussion as implied in some of the comments above. In fact, the essay was born on the Talk Page of (SV) beginning here: March 30, 2015 and continued through a lengthy discussion with a break here: [6] and continued for a few days thereafter. The content was also open to discussion while in my sandbox prior to coming to mainspace User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery. Coretheapple, you were actually pinged during the discussions here [7]. The broad brush approach you mentioned here [8] is actually more descriptive of the beehive approach we are experiencing here now. Atsme☯Consult 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is nothing about the article that is salvagable, as it consists mainly of encouraging violations of WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS, along with encouraging editors to treat edits that are explained in terms of compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines with skepticism. The central thrust of the essay is at loggerheads with the Pillars of Wikipedia. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 16:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion had pretty well petered out by the time I read it, and was well into tl;dr status. I think that you need to focus it better. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The discussion on the essay was continuing yesterday before this AfD and continues today, taking place on the talk page of the essay, on the talk page of the sandbox of it and on SlimVirgin's talk page--it probably would be better to consolidate those discussions. I don't understand the tl;dr issue. The essay is pretty short compared to many of the Wikipedia policies and Guidelines and other essays I have read. As for discussion about the essay, it is indeed long but a very productive discussion--that does not suggest that it is petered out, but instead that more work is to be done to find solutions to the COI problems this essay is here to address. Brainstorming is still going on and that is a healthy response to COI problems. However, I do agree the first two paragraphs of the essay need work and I expressed that on one of the talk pages.David Tornheim (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Core, your input would be greatly appreciated at the essay's TP. I am happy to discuss improvements with you and any other editor who is demonstrating GF. While the essay may not be FA material, it does cover several of the points at issue, many of which have been mentioned in other essays and guidelines such as WP:COI and WP:SOAPBOX. There are numerous diffs to demonstrate the problems that keep occurring for the same reasons, but I am loath to include even half of them as they would fill a page. Some of the issues can be seen at SV's TP as I explained above, others at Petra's, and another example is here [9]. In fact, Jytdog's comment in this survey is a behavioral issue resulting in his advocacy I just issued a warning over at SV's TP and his own TP [10] as it casts aspersions against me with diffs that do not support his argument, and provides misinformation to seek advantage in this survey. The game play couldn't be more obvious. Atsme☯Consult 16:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
as i asked you at SV's page, please point out anything specific there, that is not accurate, and i'll be be happy to strike it. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mention or discuss a fellow Wikipedian without a ping - herewith a ping for @User:SlimVirgin. Thanks for your attention. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing, Jytdog. Read my comments at Sarah (SV)...T-H-E . W-H-O-L-E . T-H-I-N-G. Atsme☯Consult 21:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
responded there, as did you. i just replied to you here above, since you commented here. best we keep it in one place. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off subject discussion
  • DrChrissy, about your !vote above. This essay is meant to describe how to identify an editor with a conflict of interest, and what to do when you identify one. Per the many "delete" votes above, the essay is not about that. It does describe the frustration of having policy cited against you when you are not getting consensus for changes you want to make, and I think that is what you reacted to. For examples of the kinds of problems the essay was supposed to help address (namely, paid editing), please see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (struck Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • @Jytdog Less than a week ago you were warned at an ANI I raised about your incivility toward me[11]. Why have you now singled me out with the comment above that bellitles me and suggests I do not know what I am doing. You are being uncivil to me again and I am requesting that you strike your comment above and post an apology here.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you took that as uncivil of me. It wasn't intended that way nor was it on the surface, but I am sorry you took it that way. I will strike it. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It damn well was "on the surface". Why did you post the message to me (given the recent ANI I raised against you) ,and only me, and not the other several editors supporting this essay? By the way, I do not take "I'm sorry you took that as uncivil of me" as a sincere apology - I am asking for you to take responsibility of your behaviour and your edits, not apologise for the way I interpreted them. To other editors - apologies this is being discussed here, but Jtydog has asked me not to contact them on their Talk page.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
cursing! my goodness. your comment didn't seem to deal with COI at all. I am sorry that i somehow missed that it did. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors supporting the essay also did not comment on the COI aspect either. Why did you not send them the same or similar message?__DrChrissy (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting off topic and I respectfully request that you both take this conversation to one or both of your user pages. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 00:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow...that was a sudden closure!__DrChrissy (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your frustration, DrChrissy, the OP did the right thing by hatting it. We need to stay focused on the essay. Also, I would very much appreciate it if you would initiate a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks that we can expound upon (without naming names) in an effort to help remedy some of the problems editors encounter based on your experiences. Thank you, kindly. Atsme☯Consult 13:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure can. Can I clarify, I can use diffs to illustrate behaviour, but not mention names? Is that correct?__DrChrissy (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend against it because it's always best to avoid potential misunderstandings that could lead to allegations of WP:PA which states: ...discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). An essay would not be the appropriate forum. yes Atsme☯Consult 15:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This essay and several of the threads of discussion relate to use and misuse of WP:MEDRS. Looking back at an edit history of an article, I was amazed to see the following edit summary of an editor who I have had suspicions about WP:COI and WP:TAGTEAM. The edit summary was "paraphrase the review article if we're going to have this at all, but doesn't WP:MEDRS indicate we shouldn't be using animal evidence to implicate health effects in humans at all". If WP:MEDRS can be (mis)interpreted in this way, it seriously needs looking at. This essay is correct to be drawing attention to it.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Why? It is normal to be extremely cautious about extending animal models to potential use in humans. Animal models are pre-clinical, there are two or three tiers of human trials to go through before safety and efficacy is established. This is absolutely standard: animal physiology is different from human, after all. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps more importantly, the appropriate response would be to raise that discussion at the MEDRS page rather than to assume that the editor who left that comment has a COI. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 17:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG I appreciate what you are saying. The circumstances of the edit summary was that a study on animals had indicated that problems ocurred in lab mice if a certain food was eaten. To the best of my knowledge, no clinical trials using humans has been attempted, however, there was a quote from a secondary source that there might be a connection. My concern with the edit summary was really motivated by the words in bold - "we shouldn't be using animal evidence to implicate health effects in humans at all__DrChrissy (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Formerly 98 I think you might be slightly missing my point. This essay is about the behaviour of some editors towards other editors. By leaving such an imposing edit summary, other editors are confused into thinking there is a grand WP policy about not using animal studies as evidence in their edits. Not only is this not a policy, but it does not argue that animal studies should not be used "at all". This discussion is relevant to the essay because the essay also identifes the (attempted) misuse of MEDRS.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a perfect example of why this essay is so pernicious. By its precepts this very good edit[12] by Zad68 means he is now on the receiving end of "suspicions about WP:COI and WP:TAGTEAM" by DrChrissy. If this kind of thing takes hold, then truly the lunatics will be running the asylum. DrChrissy—have you ever even so much as read WP:COI? (Add: and, for anybody not aware, in Zad68 we're talking about one of the community's most esteemed contributors, not some newbie.) Alexbrn (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexbrn Please make it clear that you are not calling me a "lunatic".__DrChrissy (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obvs it's a figure of speech: you're no more literally a lunatic than Wikipedia is an asylum. Now, how about addressing the substance of what I put? Alexbrn (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep this in perspective; we are talking about an essay, not a proposed policy or guideline. I am completely at a loss as to why people think this will lead to "the lunatics running the asylum". The problem of COI existed before and will continue to exist beyond this essay - but the essay provides solid advice to those who may be being bullied, harassed, war-editted, prematurely taken to ANI, having Templates thrown at them, other experienced editors suddenly joining in a page they have never edited, etc, etc. Well before I read this essay I had formulated opinions about editors' (potentially COI or not) tactics. This essay did not lead me to suddenly become suspicious of these activities, I already was, however, I felt so inundated with criticism I did not seek out help until I had to resort to an ANI. Reading this essay would have helped me considerably in those circumstances.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the essay would have encouraged your misguided approach (which, broadly, is thinking that when consensus is against you it betokens anything other than you not getting your way because of our WP:PAGs). What you write about is nothing to do with COI, which again makes me suppose you haven't read WP:COI. Alexbrn (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to suppose all you like. Why not try discussing the content of the essay rather than yet again attacking editors in a way which is becoming sooooooooooo tedious.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that some people misapply MEDRS, and in fact I have alway argued in favor of using animal data to support toxicology conclusion (its where most of our carcinogenity and repro tox data comes from), provided it is a secondary source and that it is not used to contradict high quality human data. What the current essay does is to attribute any such misunderstanding or misuse of the rules to COI. That's reaching way too far.
I routinely run into editors who add material to articles based on what I believe to be an extreme interpretation of what constitutes a reliable source. I could readily assume that they are simply acting dishonestly and drag them into ANI for advocacy. But doing so is unpleasant and unnecessary. I try to reason with them, and if that doesn't work, an RFC will bring in a broader range of editors to offer opinions. I have never considered writing an essay that suggests that anyone who cites "The Death to Capitalism Blog" is acting dishonestly, is deliberately trying to manipulate the encyclopedia. and should not be dealt with in as collaborative fashion as possible. It is very frustrating to deal with people who disagree with you, and even those whose opinions seem incomprehensible. But it is not reasonable to assume they are acting in bad faith simply because they disagree with you.
There are exceptions. I recently reported a suspected COI case when an editor on a major pharmaceutical company article was adding a lot of fluff and peacock language and had a username that was based on the company's former name. I deleted the offensive edits, and reported the situation to an admin. The case was then taken up to COIN. It doesn't seem complicated and doesn't seem to require assuming bad faith in every content dispute. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 18:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • above, i wrote a comment, and Coretheapple replied. I am copying the two comments here, and then replying, to avoid cluttering up the survey section.

comment - the personal nature of the comments above, are a great demonstration of why this essay should not exist, but should be salted. this is exactly how accusations of COI are used inappropriately in WP - as a personalization of disputes over content. enforcement of the COI guideline needs to be done carefully, not wildly, and not carried on like this in whatever forum pops up, which just becomes harassment and campaigning. This is not what WP is about. See the Arbcom cases: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV that was about harassment, and the very controversial case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal about the intersection of paid editing and outing (and harassment more generally), and the more recent case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. Add those up, and you get that campaigning with accusations of COI gets nothing done, is harmful to the encyclopedia, and can get you banned for harassment more broadly and outing more specifically. we do not want to encourage that. we have a process to deal with COI and to deal with advocacy. Jytdog (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Add those up and you get nothing. The cases you cite are completely unrelated and don't have the slightest thing to do with this essay. What they do indicate is that it is very difficult to get rid of adminitrators who misbehave, it takes an arbcom case, but that has nothing to do with this essay. The purpose of this essay is to make it easier to identify and act against COI. I happen to feel that this essay doesn't really help in dealing with that issue, but I do feel that is a genuine issue that needs to be confronted, not some kind of scumbucket activity that needs to be "salted" as you put it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so replying. Core, I think you maybe skipped over the first sentence (which was too condensed, I think) so I am going to expand on that, to help make sense of how i got to the Arbcom thing. please bear with me. please. The Arbcom related stuff, is about what is likely to happen if people read this essay and follow it. It is about consequences of this essay.
The way this essay is written, it is something to be used to argue against the application of policy in content disputes. It actually says nothing about how to tell specifically when an editor may be editing under a COI. It doesn't even give concrete signs of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. It is just about what it is like to fail to gain consensus for your view, when several other editors cite policy against you and don't agree with you. Think about that. If you are in that situation, most of the time you are wrong. And people who are in that situation, are often new or inexperienced editors who are upset. This essay offers itself as a claim you can make against those other editors - namely "COI duck!" It invites its use, as a way to personalize disputes, and encourages and further confuses editors to act badly.
Besides not giving any guidance about what a "COI duck" actually quacks like, there are two other fatal flaws with it.
  • Really importantly, at no point does it advise the user that he or she may be wrong on the content issue and/or on their assumption that the other editor may have a COI. Yikes! With anything involved with COI, it is really important to know, and act as if, the the COI is only a possibility unless the other editor actually discloses something. And if you look at all of the good essays about content disputes, they all call for self-reflection and the possibility that you, not the other editor, are wrong.
  • Possibly more importantly, at no point does it advise the editor to take the issue to the community at COIN or ANI. It leaves editors who read and swallow it, perfectly set up to convince themselves that the other editors are conflicted and corrupt, and that they are alone. The rest of the way down that road, (where you are already convinced that you were right and good and the other editors were wrong and corrupt) is either giving up in despair, or taking up the sword and harassing those editors as actually being conflicted. None of that is good for the one who takes this to heart, and neither is good for the community.
Now we are at the place where Arbcom comes in. But what i just wrote above, are where I think editors who read this and believe it, are likely to end up - harassing other editors with claims of COI.
  • The first Arbcom case i cited, is a) what it is like to be harassed and b) clarity that harassment is bannable
  • The second Arbcom case i cited, is even more on point. Like I said, very controversial and a lot of people have been bitterly disappointed with it. But what happened there (as best I can tell, and only with regard to WBB) was that WBB was really convinced that another editor was a paid advocate, and went after that editor, all over the place (respecting OUTING for the most part) and finally emailing confidential OUTING stuff to Jimbo and Arbcom. Arbcom found some of it compelling, but some of it wrong (!) and ended up banning WBB for violating NPA and harassment. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Will_Beback:_conduct_issues. (I may have some of that wrong, and i recognize i might make some people angry for getting that wrong. I wasn't around then, and apologize if i am misinterpreting something. I do understand that this is very sensitive) My point in bringing this in - is that even in this case - pursuing somebody with claims of COI on that basis (and where i think a good chunk of the community believed WBB to correct) - does not lead to a good end. WBB didn't get what he wanted, and he got site banned, and the whole community was incredibly roiled. Not good for anybody. Remember -- there is no consensus in WP that paid editing is against any policy. And Abcom has said clearly that they do not make policy - they only enforce it. I don't like that paid editing is not against policy but that is what it is. You have to deal with reality if you want to get anything done.
  • The third Arbcom case is Wifione, where the community finally got it right on how to deal with paid editing. The model is established. You can only nail a paid editor, by identifying a long-term pattern of edits that violate NPOV. yes that is messy, and yes it is hard to gather that evidence, but that is what it takes in the WP that actually exists. And "COI duck" does not help people get there, at all. Instead, it leads editors who buy into it, down a path that harms the community and themselves - it leads them in the wrong direction, on several levels.
there you go. Way too long, but i really wanted to explain. sorry for the length. Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC) (striking first case, per Core's comments below. he is correct that this did not ban an editor for harrassing. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]
(edit conflict) OK that's helpful, but I think that what you're saying is something of a stretch. I'm not seeing what you're seeing in the first case, as it deal with harassment but also appeared to find that the purported harasser (Cla68) wasn't harassing. The third case specifically punted as far as paid editing is concerned. Now the second case is far more on point and I'm referring to the following:

2) Many issues concerning paid editing, anonymous editing, outing and harassment, are unresolved. Our policies and guidelines are complicated and sometimes contradictory. Investigating, sanctioning and/or exonerating editors on the basis of who they are or what they do in real life is not only controversial but often impossible. Furthermore, extreme cases apart, there is no consensus about the extent that editors may edit articles on topics with which they are personally involved. Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed.

The RfC in question went nowhere. However, the issue itself has not gone away, and note this passage from the finding quoted above: Hence, of necessity, review must focus primarily on the editing patterns of those editors about whom problems are claimed. That's what this essay is seeking to do. I don't think it does so effectively, and I think the essay creator is well advised to go back and do this again more deliberately. But I don't think deleting and salting and then scorching the earth with a flame-thrower and neutron bomb is the answer. As for QuackGuru's comment below, I think his implication is unwarranted and certainly I'm anything but pro-quackery. In fact I first found myself interested in this whole topic area when I encountered paid advocates from a nutritional supplements company. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for correcting me on the Cla case - not relevant and i have struck it. sorry about that. I think you are dismissing the Wifione case too quickly... we nailed a long term editor about whom there was significant unease in the community for a long time. we have a model now. That is huge in my view.
but turning to what you see as important.... the thing you cite from the 2nd case, - behavior - is what matters. I agree 100%. (and it is exactly what finally happened in the third case. it is so strange to me that you don't see that The third flows beautifully from the 2nd, in terms of the deep logic of what the community actually has consensus for.)
finally. and i have to thank you talking simply and directly with me - I do agree that an essay on identifying typical behaviors of conflicted editors could be quite valuable. Could be. A good essay on identifying conflicted editors would offer very clear points on what COI editing often looks like, and have tons of caution about not being too certain, (especially early on), not personalizing, not using it emotionally, focusing on the behavior and not the person, doing careful work of building up a record of diffs and especially, taking it to the community and not harassing. Build in protections against abusing it. That essay could be valuable. But this essay (besides being conceptually all murky) links "duck" to a COI in a (pardon me) in a loosey-goosey, unreflective fashion. DUCK is most often used about socks, (someone commented on that above) and SPI is one of the most controlled environments here. linking "duck" to COI and inviting any editor to deploy it, is a nightmare waiting to happen, to me anyway. Thank you again. i mean that. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks I appreciate your comments and your more conciliatory tone. I will look again at that case. A problem with these arbcom cases is that they emerge from emotional and vicious disputes, but tend to sound clinical to the point of being disembodied. Often it's hard to discern exactly who did what to whom. Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alleged assay seems to be more like a how to guide for pro-quackery editing. It is not about identifying COI editors at all. If you review some of the editors who want to keep this junk you will find a lot of interesting edits. QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ermmmmm....it is an essay, not a biomedical technique, and why would you call it "alleged"...it exists! It seems rather a broadbrush to say that editors supporting this essay are involved in "interesting" edits, a term which is clearly being used in a derogatory way. Perhaps you would like to identify the editors? This appears to be further uncivil behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at QuackGuru's editing history, I suspect that while I haven't edited much in those areas that I would tend to be on his side most of the time. What both sides in this discussion tend to forget is that COI is a real or at least a potential issue on both sides of the various science/pseudoscience debates. It's a serious mistake to conclude that this essay, or something like it, would necessarily benefit the "quackery" position. If it did I would not support it. In fact, I don't support this essay in its current permutation; I think that it needs work. Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, has anyone ever told you recently you added a source that fails MEDRS? QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:QuackGuru I am not sure what you mean by "recently". I was once advised that references supplied to me by another editor on a talk page would not be suitable because they were more than 5 years old and this was contrary to WP:MEDRS. Oh, the talk page was Foie gras...that well known medical article!__DrChrissy (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you mean Talk:Foie_gras#Controversy_at_the_controversy_article_first.3F (only on March 15), you weren't told that at all. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was referring to this highly misleading edit which is clearly warning me not to use sources that are more than 5 years old on the Foie gras article.[[13]] Yet another example of an editor misusing WP:MEDRS to POV.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's exactly what I was referring to. If you think "There is no hard guidance in policy on this that I know of, nor in the RS guideline (although RS notes that "some scholarly material may be outdated"). The MEDRS guideline (see WP:MEDDATE) recommends around five years, for content related to health (and one could argue that vet med falls within that)." is "clearly warning" you, then no wonder you like this essay! Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple, this alleged essay contradicts MEDRS and other rules. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest a re-title of the essay, "COI Duckery, or How to Deny Consensus And Refuse to Admit You're Wrong". And that's the problem, stated as succinctly as I've managed so far. Geogene (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Made some major modifications to the essay based on some of the feedback

You might want to read it again. I did not consider that several of the editors who are participating here have COI statements on their User Pages. The essay was not intended to target GF editors so I made some modifications, and apologize for not seeing it in the beginning. That is why discussion and collaboration is so important. The beehive behavior and attacks have been very disconcerting. Atsme☯Consult 01:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could of kept the page if it were a humour page. As it stands, it is a joke. QuackGuru (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could make you laugh. Laughter is the best medicine. Hope saying that doesn't get me blocked as a promoter of CAM. :-) Atsme☯Consult 02:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are a promoter of CAM? Why not be a promoter of following NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a promoter of CAM or anything else for that matter. I was making a joke - laughter is the best medicine. Ha, ha, ha?? I thought someone who calls himself the guru of quacks would understand the humor. I do follow NPOV. Atsme☯Consult 02:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The changes since nomination to now have improved it, but not enough. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the whole thrust of the article is the opposite of what it should be, and so tweaks can't fix it. If you want it to be acceptable, it should say:
  • Respect and abide by WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS. The vast majority of editors you encounter are acting in good faith, no matter how incomprehensible you find their views
  • If you find yourself opposed by multiple editors who do not agree with your edit, the correct thing is almost always to accept the consensus. According to editors with extensive experience at the COIN board, paid editors and those with other COIs usually work as individual editors and not in collusion with others. The assumption of collusive COI editing is flawed because it requires the assumption of vast conspiracies for which there is no evidence.
  • The WP:OR, WP:MEDRS, and [WP:RS]] guidelines have been developed and agreed upon by editors here as the first and best line of defense against POV and COI editing. Respect these policies and guidelines.
  • According to WP:NPOV, NPOV is based on the prominence of different points of view in reliable sources. If there are no RS supporting a POV, then exclusion of that POV is appropriate, as WP:NPOV assigns it zero weight.
  • WP:ADVOCACY is much more common than actual COI, and is found in support of many different points of view, including both conservative and liberal political viewpoints. The best way to address advocacy is to make use of the sourcing guidelines, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS, along with WP:NPOV. In the event that you encounter an editor who is an advocate and entrenched in a particular viewpoint, hold an RFC to bring other editors into the discussion. If the editor refuses to accept WP:CONSENSUS, the issue can be taken up at COIN or ANI.
  • Other signs of advocacy or COI editing which may be present include
  • Incorporation of the name of a company, organization, or activist movement in the editor's username
  • A consistent and sustained pattern of adding peacock or highly critical material that is supported only by WP:OR, or by poor quality sources. (note that I have here redefined FAILURE to follow the guidelines rather than implementing them as a sign of COI/advocacy editing)
  • Exercise care in drawing conclusions about advocacy editing that are based entirely on removal of properly sourced positive or negative material, as the inclusion of material in an article requires BOTH that it be properly sourced and not WP:UNDUE. As undue weight is a subjective opinion, give careful consideration to the possibility that an honest difference of opinion is involved before drawing conclusions. In such cases it may be appropriate to politely ask about COI and advocacy considerations on the user's talk page, but such questions should generally not be raised on article talk pages.
Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly 98, you stated above: (your statements in green text)
  • If you want it to be acceptable, it should say: Respect and abide by WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS. The first sentence of the essay states...which is why it is best to assume good faith (AGF), and not make unwarranted accusations based on suspicion or flimsy evidence. It could boomerang on you. Also the 3rd para states, But do not automatically assume that is the case. Take care to not confuse stewardship with ownership so familiarize yourself with the relevant policies. Actually, the two guidelines you mentioned are wikilinked in the essay.
  • If you find yourself opposed by multiple editors who do not agree with your edit, the correct thing is almost always to accept the consensus. In the subsection First, analyze your edits, it makes a list of behavioral suggestions and ways to seek remedy, including:
  • Open a discussion on the article's talk page and request input from the community.
  • Be polite, even if you encounter conflict instead of resolve.
  • Do not argue for the sake of argument. Calm discussions are the most productive means to accomplish your goals.
  • If you still have doubts after checking the relevant PAGs, consult a third party for input.
  • If after your consult, you feel even stronger that the reverts of your edits were unwarranted, you may have encountered a COI duck.
  • The assumption of collusive COI editing is flawed because it requires the assumption of vast conspiracies for which there is no evidence. I don't believe your assumption is realistic because it basically denies that tag-teams exist.
  • According to editors with extensive experience at the COIN board, paid editors and those with other COIs usually work as individual editors and not in collusion with others. Excellent suggestion. In fact, I will include it in the essay. Wish you would have discussed some of these issues with us prior to initiating this MfD. I also like your suggestions for ways to identify, and will add them, too. Thank you.

The remaining points are already mentioned in the essay, but employ a little different terminology. I'll see what I can do to make the passages more evident, and if I inadvertently missed one, I'll add it. Thank you for your input. Atsme☯Consult 18:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The essay takes the multiple-policy-violating stance that it is appropriate to assume a coi given certain behaviors. If that approach has not already been identified as actionable at ArbCom, it should be given AGF, BATTLE, DR, CON, CIVIL, HAR, NPA, etc. I suggest you review ArbCom for what is actionable, and start a new essay on what you find that isn't redundant with current policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to believe this! Even whilst this discussion is raging, another editor is being confronted by the same bullying tactics we are discussing relating to inappropriate accusations of COI, but these accusations/implications are made by an editor opposed to this essay![[14] Unbelievable! Editors need protection from this behaviour!__DrChrissy (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is out of control - and Jusdafax points out another instance here, s/he received a template for personal attacks due to a favorable iVote here. I received one as well. petrarchan47tc 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme Here's another example of rather unusual behaviour for this essay. Editor A requested that a list be produced of references in an article that were WP:MEDRS compliant because editor A had not found one.[15]. I asked editor A on 2 occasions why a specified reference was not "compliant" here[16] and here[17]. Editor A simply deletes my 2nd request, apparently struggling to answer my question but claiming it is a personal attack.[18]. Editor A refuses to answer my question about the reference. Now, here's the interesting bit. TAG! Editor B quickly enters the scene and simply deletes the reference in question from the article using extremely dubious interpretation of WP:MEDRS as the reason.[19]. Result: Editor A is never brought to account for original disruptive editing.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting stupid. It would be as daft for me to say "An editor at Scrambler therapy added a bunch of dubious content and guess what? soon afterward DrChrissy appears on the scene agitating about it.[quack] COI much?!". It's another example of the way this bullshit essay is already starting to influence editor behaviour. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary - this is exactly why this essay is needed. The essay gives recognition of the problems and patterns of (mis-)behaviour. It gives support and advice to those being targetted by these behaviours, particularly less experienced editors. It helps people see through misuse of guidelines such as WP:MEDRS to make POV.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DrChrissy, none of what you just said is evidence of COI editing. That's what's wrong with this essay, and it's rather scary that you don't get it. This essay essentially tries to make assuming bad faith part of policy. It makes the false assumption that an editor's POV is evidence that they have a COI. That's BS. SALT this essay, including where it's found in userspace. It's THAT seriously at odds with our policies. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an article or an essay? Bus stop (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An essay. Fixed. Thanks! -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
drchrissy, are you saying that Alexbrn has a COI with respect to that article? if you are not, then you should strike your remark. if you are, please state your reasons why you think he has a COI with respect to that article. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Where have I even implied Alexbrn has a COI with ANY article? For the record, I am not stating that Alexbrn has a COI with that article. No, I will not strike my comment as there is absolutely no need to.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this essay is about identifying editors who may have a COI. i called your attention to this above, and you got offended. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic to the actual MFD. Discussions about conduct related to the MFD should be at the talk page or at the appropriate noticeboards not here past a short mention.
Is there a pattern of intimidation and harassment going on?
[edit]

I recieved a templated "warning" on my talkpage from User:IP98 over my !vote. I must confess that few things get to me on Wikipedia, but after numerous years and nearly 60k edits, being templated is one. I banned IP98 from my talk page, but have since observed that IP98 and another editor interacted with the essay writer, Atsme directly on Atsme's talkpage in an exchange I find questionable. You have to go into Atme's talkpage history or archives to find it, but I don't blame Atsme for archiving it quickly. Now if others are experiencing issues, we should get it out in the open. And I'll add this, waving the Five Pillars around or using Wikilawyering tactics to arguably bully people won't work as a tactic to stifle free and open discussion. This page is under discussion at Jimbo's talkpage, and has a reasonably high profile. It's time to shine a very bright light on what's going on. Jusdafax 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction - it was Formerly98 (OP of this AfD), whereas you linked to his former account "IP98", I believe. petrarchan47tc 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made a personal attack in your !vote against the people that favor deletion, when you accused them of some kind of vast COI conspiracy. Then you received an NPA template on your talkpage for it. That's how it goes. I would like to see more light on this MfD, I'm tired of the desperate efforts at disrupting it. Geogene (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote accuses no one, it raises questions. You, however, just accused me. Your diffs? Jusdafax 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm accusing you of making personal attacks. Diffs: [20],[21]. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geogene, I don't see personal attacks in those diffs. Perhaps you accidentally linked the wrong diffs? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Insinuating that you're the victim of a COI conspiracy that's out to suppress alternate viewpoints with this particular MfD, is a personal attack. It is not "raising questions". One, an unfounded accusation of COI is a PA, and two, in this case it's directed towards specific, identifiable people. Justdafax should accept that they received a talk page warning template and go on their way. Instead they doubled down by accusing people here of a "campaign of intimidation". I suggest they back away from it. Geogene (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still confused. The diffs you provided seemed to contain general COI concerns/statements. Maybe if you provide direct quotes from those diffs to what you consider a personal attack that might help. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me for being a realist, and even further if my response raises further dispute, but I checked the diffs, and I don't see any personal attacks. Yes, I am wearing my reading glasses so don't go there. I agree with BoboMeowCat and Jusdafax that the diffs do not support the allegations. Perhaps there is a simple misapprehension that can explain it all?? Atsme☯Consult 23:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Geogene I too can not see any personal attacks in the diffs you posted. I suggest that it is you that should back down and go on your way...repeated postings of this nature will only considerably raise suspicions of you being complicit with editors perhaps guilty of intimidation and harassment.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I see unfounded COI accusations as being offensive, and it could be that you don't. Anyway, if the other party wants to continue this, it should be moved to the drama boards. Geogene (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that this has to be kicked over to ANI at this point. My intent is to see if supporters of this essay are experiencing pressures. I would think the deletion backers would welcome a fair examination of the issue, if there is nothing in it. So, my understanding of your position, which has no agreement so far, is that I should "go my way" on your say so? I would ask, isn't that called intimidation? Jusdafax 23:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is related to supporting this essay, I was just taken to court for giving examples of the OP's pro-pharma editing in the survey section. petrarchan47tc 23:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes, not just one one side
[edit]

I thought Formerly's warning on Jusdafax' page was over the top. There is a lot of over-the-top stuff going on around this essay. Not interested in getting into a tit for tat set of diffs, but there is a lot of fierce negativity/harshing/intimidation all around, not just on one side. Formerly i do think you owe jusdafax an apology, and geogene you too. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I over-reacted to Jusdafax's comment that the nomination of this essay for deletion was "suspicious". I picked the mildest template (Please focus on content and not on editors") but even that was in retrospect too much. I apologize and will strike the notice. Formerly 98 talk|contribs|COI statement 00:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my reply to Justdafax's concerns. Geogene (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks formerly and geogene. i trust and respect - and so does the community - editors who can acknowledge when they lose their heads a bit. it happens. Jytdog (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned Elsewhere
[edit]

The essay is mentioned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tornheim (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also at
Should get a nice wide consensus here then! Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i posted notice of this here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Note_about_essay_on_COI_that_is_up_for_deletion Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also at
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest_ducks&oldid=1151041088"