User talk:Ocaasi/COIreview

COI+ again

Hi Ocaasi, I hope you don't mind me editing this, but it looks like another attempt to resurrect COI+, which failed and would now be even more controversial. There can't be deadlines, and OTRS shouldn't be used to bypass the normal editorial process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Slim, I did undo your changes. If you object to the steps for resolution section, please just say so on the talk page. I'm not moving quickly with this and no changes would be made to any WP space page without a full comment period at the relevant talk page. The steps are not deadlines, and I've removed the 'timeline' language to make that even more clear. OTRS is not being used to or suggested to bypass normal editing processes, quite the contrary, as the text explicilty says. If necessary, various pieces of this page can be separated and discussed or proposed individually. For now I'm keeping them in one place because I think they are related. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

This is an example of you using OTRS, or allowing it to be used, to bypass normal editing:

OTRS, the group that handles official communications to the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia's parent organization) occasionally receives contact from people who have issues with articles but don't know how to address them, either because they have a conflict of interest or are just completely novice editors with an opinion about the article. In this case I'm declaring a conflict of interest because I might be working with these editors at times to help them express their views in a way that could make it unclear whether they are mine or theirs.

This group, which you later called "The Readers," turned out to be an American government employee who worked in national defence trying to change the article on a contentious piece of national-defence legislation. It couldn't be more inappropriate. Luckily another editor stepped in and appears to have put a stop to it. [1] [2]

I'm very willing to stop raising these examples, Ocaasi, but there has to be a sign from you that you understand that these contacts with PR and government people to influence articles via OTRS can't continue in the same way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim, I've explained what happened at that article, how COI declarations were made, and how review was sought with no special privileges, how I infact stopped such an edit from being made by counseling Darouet in how to handle the siutation. They were called "The Readers" because OTRS privacy policy does not permit me to disclose any identifying information, they had to do that themselves to the extent they were comfortable. They did so right below my COI declaration, in the section partly titled COI Declaration. Darouet, the editor who primarily worked with "The Readers" which was an editor named Quirin42, wrote[3][4]:

I want to emphasize that Ocaasi certainly didn't appoint me, and didn't try to represent Quirin42. Ever since this event happened I've had the highest respect for Ocaasi as an editor and have often wished that editors of their calibre were working on troubled pages.

At some point, Ocaasi posted on the talk pages of the article, writing that he had been contacted by someone (later User:Quirin42) who didn't want to edit directly, and had a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, Ocaasi obliquely suggested, but did not directly state that the party he was bringing to the talk pages was someone affiliated with and working for the American government. Ocaasi did make it clear that he did not necessarily endorse their views. When Quirin42 began editing, he made it clear he was working for the American government...Ocaasi responded very politely to all inquiries and collated a very impressive list of sources, and I engaged with the editor, Quirin42, on the talk pages. At one point I was willing to make a compromise with Quirin42 that I wasn't very comfortable with, at which point Ocaasi intervened and stated that all changes would need to be rigorously backed by sources. At that point asked another editor whom I very much trust, Thucydides411, for his opinion, and he wrote that Quirin42's proposed changes obscured the effect of the legislation and contradicted most available sources. At that point, Quirin42 stopped contributing....So, I certainly never worked for Ocaasi, and in the end I think he acted according to wikipedia's policies, by demanding that all statements be rigorously sourced and therefore verifiable.

He also added:

I do wish it had been a little clearer, for me and from the very beginning, that Quirin42 was working for the government. Also, though Ocaasi didn't represent Quirin42's position and explicitly stated this, as a slightly greener editor at that time this wasn't wholly clear to me, and I was embarrassed to feel obliged to change the article for Quirin42. I'm thankful to Ocaasi and Thucydides411 for preventing that, and teaching me something.

I also incorporated Darouet (and others') suggestions to make that process even more clear (including this very draft), I've also separately sought advice from OTRS about how to handle this, and will incorporate any feedback I get. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ocaasi, I'm sorry that you're feeling under pressure. But the problem is that this really was inappropriate. So the question is: how to stop it in future? The only way that can be worked out is by acknowledging the things that went wrong, and that's what I'm not seeing. Hence the repetition on my part. The fragmented discussions don't help, because I then have to post from scratch each time, so that magnifies things. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim, what you don't seem to be getting is that this very document is a response to your criticism, but you don't back off or change your tone regardless. So what's the point of continually arguing with you when even good faith efforts to respond to your criticisms are not taken into account? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I take your point, but I see this as just more of the same – instead of corporate drafts being reviewed, you're suggesting they be robustly reviewed. The problem is that we lack content reviewers at every level (FAC, GAN, peer review, noticeboards), so I don't know where the robust reviews will come from.

Looking ahead, I'll try to find time to write up my concerns with some examples on one user page, so that there's an overview in one place. That should make things less fragmented and repetitive; I can raise any issues centrally and link back to the overview. If you see that page being created, by the way, feel free to edit it or make suggestions on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we can both agree that the kind of attention BP is getting now is better than what happened over most of 2012. The goal is to encourage review of that scale, but without needing a media scandal to make it happen. This might not be feasible, but it's a worthy goal, and something that we should at least aim for as long as talk page drafts are being presented.

Great about drafting up your own thoughts, I'll take a look. My hope is that they don't merely rehash our extensive discussions about Rangoon (now confirmed to not have been connected to Arturo by me or vice/versa); or the NDAA article. Darouet's feedback was something I think we both learned from and will use to improve future guidance. The paragraph in this userpage which addresses OTRS very clearly points out what the right approach is and is not. I'm still waiting to hear back from OTRS and a few WMF folks so I can't call that process finished yet; indeed, it should evolve over time. I guess my point is that your time would be better spent improving guidance than trying to prosecute an editor who has consistently acted in good faith to advance the interests of the project. OTRS work has compromised tens if not hundreds of hours of volunteer time for me and the rare controversial cases we deal with are not a reflection of the tremendous contribution which OTRS makes in improving Wikipedia's relationship with the public, its readers, and our critics (some of whom come bearing legal threats). OTRS is not an attempt to subvert the normal editing process but to lead to it, with disclosure wherever possible, and on talk pages if at all controversial.

I know we don't agree on everything, but I'm still willing to entertain your suggestions, fit them in where I think they work best, and read your separate ideas fairly and with an open interest in seeing if they would work. Please feel free to link me to your page as I might miss its creation in your userspace. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I feel the Principle of independence section might be a little heavy-handed, as a whole, this reads perfectly fine to me. And I like the change on the timeline part so that the last step is going to Jimbo's talk page. You're just expressing exactly what he requested and I don't see how anyone can be opposed to this new draft, since it doesn't have anything to do with implementation, but notification, and leaves it directly up to independent reviewers. Therefore, the community is in control. Seems all good to me. Silverseren^C 20:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  Excellent, that's what I hoped. The heavy hand was slightly intentional given this week's discussions. I wanted to err a tad on the side of caution while still being useful. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

IRC help

Well, for now, you have the help chat in the first step. As someone who's in there frequently, we get tons of COI already, and having even more being directed to us by this as step one imo wouldn't be the best thing. Might I suggest moving it to step two? Us helpers are always glad to close discussions if needed, or offer third opinions, I'd just rather not us have to do the explaining first. In my opinion this would be a better flow:

1. Talkpage of article/frequent editors thereof
2. Help chat/desk
3. WP:DRN/COIN/AN
4. OTRS

This adds in the helpchat only after the others. I am a bit biased here, just trying to make it easier for us, so if nobody else likes this, feel free to kill the idea :) gwickwire^talk_editing 22:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion. I did all of my early learning in the help channel and dealt regularly with tons of COI editors there. I can see why we'd want talk page first. I was somewhat pushing help chat because the feedback is immediate, but I can see it fitting in step 2. I'm going to consider it seriously. Thanks Gwick!Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Major question about whether this is worthwhile, plus two suggested edits if it is

Comments: Expand from:

They might be financially, legally, or professionally obligated to advocate for a position which is counter to neutrality.

to:

They might be financially, legally, personally or professionally obligated to advocate for a position which is counter to neutrality.

Many overly rabid fans of a sports team, band etc. or relative of a subject may well have a COI, but the three other terms do not cover the nature of the conflict.

Minor point:

When you say:

other editors should not feel beholden to do what they request

Well, if they request consideration of their position, or discussion of options, we intend to do so. I think you meant this a little more narrowly. I don't have the right words at the moment, but something like:

other editors should not feel beholden to make any requested edit

Larger point:

I did read, (OK scanned) the other two links you provided to MRG.

While I see Concerns have been raised that there is some kind of "pipeline" wherein an ticket from OTRS or from other sources will direct a COI representative to the talk page where they will link up with an editor who will implement their changes by proxy.

This is the first I've heard this. If one or two editors are misinformed, those editors should be corrected. But this all strikes me a perfectly obvious, and it sounds like major Wp:creep to be writing this up formally.

If there is a widespread misunderstanding, perhaps, but even in that case, let's track down the source of the misunderstanding and correct it there. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Sphilbrick on these points. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Size of Organization; extraordinary assertions

While I agree in large part with the direction here - which is mostly just a description of best practices - I have a couple of concerns. First, I'm not sure why robust scrutiny is more important for a large company or prominent individual. I have experienced plenty of powerful COI issues with relatively obscure figures and, if anything, review can be more challenging there. :) I think the degree of review rests more in the following three points than the first, although I would suggest that (d) should not be restricted to whether the company, organization or public figure is contributing text about a controversy merely but in general whenever text concerns extraordinary claims. I would feel that Small Town Diner would need robust review to add a claim that their chicken salad has been critically declared the best in the world, even if they have two Small Town Paper reviews that say so. :) (Substitute any extraordinary claim; I'm not invested in their chicken salad.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks MRG! Great suggestions and I've incorporated them accordingly. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarity of purpose

I find the organization here just a tad confusing. The first several sections are descriptive, while the last offers guidance, but it may be a bit buried for COI editors to find. I assume that will be addressed when you finish and get around to adding your lead, but I wanted to note it here just in case. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this text is going to hopefully be incorporated where appropriate into WP:PSCOI, so it will be most useful. Discussion is ongoing at that page about how best to do that. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)