Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

COI task force

The Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Investigating_COI_policy discussion closed to say, "The Wikipedia community shall appoint a task force of trusted editors to act as referees in matters related to conflict of interest and outing." The term "task force" seems to not otherwise appear in the discussion. What is the origin of the "task force" concept? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • "Task force" is my own phrase ---- my attempt at a concise summary of the complex discussions around Milieu #3. What the supporting editors actually said in discussion contains quite a bit of information about what exactly they were supporting.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The closing statement discusses some potential roles for ArbCom. As a formality, I suggest that a notice linking to the closing statement should be placed at WT:ARB. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've reversed the close. There are too many things pointed out (both by others and things I am re-re-reading) that I'm not comfortable with. Primefac (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • There was a fair degree of support for a group of respected Wikipedians to manage UPE stuff which should remain private. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Can you point specifically to where? That's a long discussion and I see more opposition to nearly all of the proposals than support.--v/r - TP 23:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a shot at the close, and for withdrawing it. Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Would you agree at this point we have consensus, vaguely, for private information to be handled privately by some body but not much on details of what that body should be? I think that's something there's consensus for. The objectionable part to me was that the closers filled in many, many details about this group that haven't even been discussed. We'll need further discussions (or possibly just an ArbCom motion to create a functionary group in light of community support for this route?) to determine what to do. ~ Rob13Talk 02:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Do we need a new group? At the moment, people can email a functionary (or an admin; there's actually no need for it to be a functionary, because this is not "private data" as covered by the privacy policy). There are relatively few COI cases in which personal details have to be passed on. Is there evidence that a special group is needed? SarahSV (talk) 03:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
There consensus for a group to deal with off WP information yes. But there is not consensus that that is the only possible measure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Bring on the head hunters, the witch accusers, the pitchforks, and the like. Because any "task force" is going to entice and enthrall our most...hearty...of COI enthusiasts. Where is Senator McCarthy when you need him, amirite?--v/r - TP 13:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Is your suggestion than that we should simply assume good faith of the editors who work for "Wiki PR", "WizardsofWiki", "My Wiki Pro", "Legalmorning.com", etc? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The strawman's now? Did I make such an assertion or is that what you've imagined because I oppose a "Task Force" which google defines as "an armed force organized for a special operation" and implies aggressive strategies used to accomplish an objective? I don't have to support WikiPR or support doing nothing to believe that a "Task Force" is absolutely the wrong direction.--v/r - TP 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(EC)Cool the personal attacks please. At the very least TP's comment is in very bad taste. @Drmies: above, while just now !voting for milieu 3, also mentions comments in bad taste, in regard to @Doc James: saying that ArbCom has refused to accept evidence on or enforce the ToU change. I don't want to say anything in bad taste, but this is the crux of the issue. A couple of years ago in the Wifione case ArbCom said that "The Committee has no mandate to sanction editors for paid editing as it is not prohibited by site policies.". Has that position been revoked by ArbCom? Arb Amanda says (in Jan. 2017) "undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the WMF and is not local policy." If you go back to the Willbeback case, it seems to say that if you report COI editing to ArbCom along with any evidence of the COI, you can be banned (please correct me if I'm wrong). The ToU change was the largest RfC in history and established that disclosure of paid editing is mandatory under EN:Wikipedia policy (please correct me if I'm wrong). ArbCom has no right to veto that policy (e.g. by refusing to let anybody enforce it) but does have the right, under the ToU rules to start an RfC to come up with an alternative policy. It hasn't done that.
So what is the way forward here? The close said that there should be another RfC to decide what was meant by milieu 3. There was widespread agreement (31-8) that there should be some body that would hear evidence on undisclosed paid editing. The close got that right. It may have overstated the agreement about the purposes of the body, but, in any case, anything solid coming from further discussion would have to be confirmed by a new RfC. Actually @Casliber:'s goal in opening this RfC was to figure out what were the best roads forward for further discussion. Casliber, does this seem like a good path for further discussion? We actually don't need the closer's permission to start a discussion. Would everybody be cool with starting a discussion along these lines, even without a close? Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I've clarified this with the Arbitration Committee in the past; CheckUser and Oversight blocks must be based at least in part on technical data or oversighted edits. So functionaries are no additional help to us here. The Committee is almost wholly against dealing with this, and rightly so, because they simply don't have the time nor were they elected to be the paid editing police. Administrators are prohibited from blocking based on information that is not available to all administrators, per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. And based on current policies, making this sort of information available to all admins would likely be outing. So yes, I think we do need a group. ~ Rob13Talk 15:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Smallbones: Who exactly am I personally attacking? Since I had no one in mind when I wrote it, I assume you feel I'm imagining one of my personal grudges in the McCarthy spot.--v/r - TP 19:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@TParis: If you had no one in mind, if such people do not exist, then what was the point of your comment? Why raise the specter of "head hunters, the witch accusers, the pitchforks, and the like" if there are no such persons? I'm also taken aback by this "task force" thing. Why not just learn to live with it? Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Who said such people do not exist? McCarthy existed. I just said I had no one in particular in mind. There are plenty of Zealots who will take up the banner. How am I supposed to know which one will become the COI McCarthy? I don't learn to live with baseless assaults and accusations as an acceptable behavior for a society or community. You should know that.--v/r - TP 21:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Might be easier on your belly to let go your feeling of grievance and being put-upon. Just saying. Friendly advice from an older man. Coretheapple (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Once again, who says I'm talking about you? Yeah, I don't like you. But unless you take up the role heading up this 'task force', you'll just be a small fry. I'm worried about whomever is in charge. He/she is the big fish. Power goes to people's heads and I'm concerned this is going to be a witchhunting task force with a McCarthy at the head - whomever that is. Calm down. I haven't even mentioned you two.--v/r - TP 21:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I know, you haven't exactly been keeping your dislike of myself and a few other editors a secret. So when you make vague accusations about "people you weren't thinking of," it is only natural to assume that you're just engaging in a personal attack. It's not a question of my calming down but your stopping that kind of nonsense. Coretheapple (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, let's not get distracted here. If you want to talk about a statement on my user page defending me from accusations made all over this project, feel free to go to my talk page. Other than that, let's stay on topic.--v/r - TP 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, you may have noticed that I may be at least somewhat in agreement with you on the merits. Just dial down the tone, please, somewhere below a screech. As for your talk page, I believe you once advised me that I should never darken that doorway again. No matter. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What are the penalties for violating WP:PAID? That policy says that paid editors must declare that they are paid, but it doesn't say what the consequences are if they fail to do so. WP:Blocking policy does not mention paid editing as a rationale for blocking. What (circumstantial) evidence is sufficient to "prove" to the minimum extent necessary for our purposes that a penalty for violation of WP:PAID should be imposed? Before any such task force is created, we need to be clear on what they would actually do. wbm1058 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The ToU and WP:Paid state "As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." i.e. if you don't declare, you may not edit. That's an automatic self-block since it is part of the ToU.
Before any such task force is created it will have to be confirmed by an RfC (a very well publicized RfC open for at lest 30 days, IMHO) Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, and there would need to be discussions over details. As an alternative that I'm rather supportive of, I think the Arbitration Committee could take a consensus for such a group here and use that to create a new functionary group. ~ Rob13Talk 16:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it fair to conclude "if you don't declare, you may not edit"? Period? "You must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." It doesn't say "You must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you do not receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Your interpretation should be reflected in a more clear policy declaration, i.e. If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any edit, then you must disclose your employer(s), client(s), and affiliation(s) with respect to all of your contributions, even those for which you do not receive, or expect to receive, compensation." And people are not generally immediately blocked for their first violation of a policy, rather they are warned. Wouldn't reverting the edit and warning be sufficient? But, before blocking, if not warning, shouldn't there be sufficient (circumstantial) evidence to "prove" to the minimum extent necessary for our purposes that the editor was paid? How is that evidence gathered and presented, and to who? wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(EC below)"you may not engage in such activities on our sites. These activities include: ....Paid contributions without disclosure"
"These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:"
that's 1 "prohibit" plus 2 "must's" in one paragraph, together with a "may not" in the introductory sentence. How many times do we need to see the word "Prohibit" and similar words before we conclude that paid editing without disclosure is prohibited? Let's just read this as it is written - it's prohibited.
Your question "But, before blocking, if not warning, shouldn't there be sufficient (circumstantial) evidence to "prove" to the minimum extent necessary for our purposes that the editor was paid? How is that evidence gathered and presented, and to who?" That's exactly what the RfC is for.. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I imagine would have to be confirmed by an RfC. I missed this whole "task force" debate and I don't quite grasp why it is necessary, The vast majority of COIs are self-declared or blindingly obvious (an SPI writes an article resembling a press release), I don't know if this will help or hurt, but obviously there is a consensus for it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's basically difficult cases, appeals from blindly obvious actions taken by COIN participants, extreme abuse that needs action to be taken very quickly. These are things that I believe ArbCom should do as part of their basic mandate to enforce Wikipedia's rules. But if ArbCom doesn't want to do it, then somebody has to. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That sounds fair. The discussion was tl;dr in spades. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No one who is not identified with WMF and has agreed to the WMF Privacy policy should be anywhere near private data. Only until they are legally liable for what they divulge should anyone access private data. And that liability is why Arbcom is hesitant to do this. Anyone who volunteers for this brigade is making themselves liable.--v/r - TP 21:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Something along those lines crossed my mind. I'm not oozing with confidence over this idea. I do have a general notion as to why it might be desirable, and Smallbones' explanation makes sense. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • OPPOSED to creating COI task force at this time. This is the first I have heard of it. I am afraid the COI editors themselves will be running and dominating it: foxes in the hen house; Wolf in sheep's clothing; similar to regulatory capture. After all, some of them are paid to be here and influence policy for their clients, and if this is their paid employment, they have more time to work on it than the rest of us who do it for free. (I will add more to this comment later). --David Tornheim (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This August–September 2016 RfC represents the current consensus on creating a dedicated group. That was a proposal for a new functionaries' list, but the current proposal amounts to the same thing. The response was 4 in support, 21 against. Any RfC that aims to overturn that should be held in the same place; should refer back to that one; and the question has to be very clear, not ambiguous or mixed up with other issues. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI, my above opposition is not to creating a mailing list for submitting evidence as mentioned in WP:RfC you referred to. I was responding to Smallbones's proposal on Jimbo's page which Smallbones has unfortunately withdrawn in lieu of a "task force". A task force sounds more like an official entity acting on behalf of all editors to make proposals and decisions about COI policy and I am opposed to that, assuming that is what is being proposed. I have not read over the huge discussion above that was closed and re-opened. I believe a "task force" will only interfere and delay our strong need to ban paid editing. The mailing list of the RfC you mentioned to address specific privacy issues regarding specific editors on a case-by-case basis is quite different than a "task force" to address policy issues. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where the idea of a task force came from (i.e. some kind of official body to decide on policy and look at cases). The only thing that's arguably practical is a dedicated mailing list that receives personal information. But the 2016 RfC rejected the idea of what one editor called "yet another clique of self-appointed Power Users", so if we're overturning that, we need to do it properly, not with an ambiguously worded RfC that asks lots of things at once. SarahSV (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Can someone please clarify whether this task force will receive private information? That's not an insurmountable issue but it has to be dealt with. After all, we have checkusers. Coretheapple (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
All there really is to go on is #Milieu 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that the closers are reconsidering what the close should be, it's entirely possible that the idea of a task force will vanish on its own. (Til then, all we can really go on is the language of the RfC proposals: nothing was decided beyond that.) Perhaps it would be best if editors not continue to try to re-litigate the RfC discussion, but just let the closers make their decision, and also not continue the sometimes-angry comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh not trying to relitigate at all. I'm just baffled by the very long discussion, my question was purely informational. It may well be a good idea to have a task force that can get private info. Just unclear as to what what decided. Coretheapple (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I was really thinking more about other editors, not you. Until we hear back from the closers, nothing really has been decided. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Strengthen notability

  • People who talk about task forces may not realize how widespread COI/paid editing is. Coretheapple put it well when he likened it to a task force to make hell cooler. The reason COI/paid editing is ubiquitous is that everyone expects to have a Wikipedia page similar to Facebook, something you write and control, or pay someone to write for you. Wikipedia has done nothing to disabuse people and businesses of this notion.
    One thing we could do is strengthen the notability requirements, so that borderline-notable profiles can be speedied, but that almost certainly won't gain consensus. Another thing is that the WMF could employ people to handle this, but they won't want the expense or responsibility. No volunteer task force will make anything but a dent. In fact, they will waste so much time talking that their dent will be smaller than the current one, and their existence will discourage non-task-force volunteers from getting involved. That's what happened with admins as the ArbCom assumed more responsibility. Then you have the problem several editors have pointed out: what happens to the task force if undisclosed (or even disclosed) paid editors are elected or appointed to it. SarahSV (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Per SV, I think that strengthening the notability requirements for both bios and corporations (the two areas of greatest COI) would be a good approach, and avoid all the pitfalls that we've seen in tackling COI/paid editing (privacy, anonymity, blah blah blah) For instance,. as Smallbones can tell you, there is a certain marginal type of financial company that aggressively self-promote. They sometimes duck under the notability rules. Strengthening notability guidelines, or perhaps elevating notability guidelines to policy, or making it easier to AfD such articles, would go a long way to dealing with such situations. Articles on marginal companies and people are little more than extensions of company pr efforts, parroting what is in press releases and "puff piece" articles. I think Wikipedia would do well not to have them.
The "articles for creation" mechanism is also utilized by COI editors, and it can simply be shut down, replaced by a suggestion-box mechanism. Sometimes i'm in the mood to create an article and I have no fresh ideas. So I could look in the suggestion box, which could include both ideas and suggested sources, and what the heck. Maybe there is something there that would interest me. It can be an old or new subject. Maybe there is some exec or company worth writing about who has fallen through the cracks. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Although strengthening the notability requirements might help the COI situation, what will it do to Wikipedia otherwise? I think that the notability guidelines should be just that, notability guidelines. Not a solution to some problem that doesn't have much to do with notability. A solution would probably be something encouraging more editors to participate in the new article patrolling process. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
^I agree. I believe our notability requirements are already too high. When I encounter a new subject I often look at Wikipedia. I don't want to lose articles on less notable subjects. Working at WP:AfD, I already see articles getting nominated for deletion that have plenty of WP:RS or have subjects that immediately seem notable to me. For example, the article on the producer of extremely notable film Fight Club was nominated for deletion [1]. Even if that is the only thing he did, I can't believe we would not keep the article on him, even if it had simply one sentence. That is a disservice to Wikipedia reader in my opinion.
Also, I don't see the harm of having article on subjects that of marginal notable. My concern is whether the information we give is accurate, reliable and properly balanced. We should not be producing puff pieces, but our WP:NPOV rules address this. If COI editors are biasing the articles, bending the rules and changing policy, that's a problem. But the existence of an article on a subject of limited notability I don't see as itself problematic. (That said, I don't want an article on ever soccer player from every team down to elementary schools.) --David Tornheim (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (revised 01:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC))
I'm curious to hear your views of what you feel the downside is of tightening the notability requirements. I see only upside, personally. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: I revised my comment above (and agreed with Bugz below). If my response is not sufficiently clear to either, please ask away. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's main selling (not really selling though, but regardless) point is its broad range. Wikipedia is the place where you go if you need to know more about some obscure topic or person. Also, it would discourage new editors, as their articles would have an even higher chance of getting deleted. Again, just to revist my point that our notability guidelines should be guidelines about notability, the guidelines are in place so that things that are not verifiable and not crazily biased. Although the latter may seem to support your argument, I would disagree. This is because of the fact that that is just in place to make sure that one can write a neutral article. COI editing just makes it so that the article isn't neutral right now. Sorry if that was a bit convoluted or confusing, but anyways, that is my argument. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I also forgot to add something. Basically, upping our notability requirements prevents good faith editors from making more useful, neutral content. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 00:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
^I agree that:
(1) "Wikipedia's main selling...point is its broad range."
(2) "Wikipedia is the place where you go if you need to know more about some obscure topic or person."
(3) "it would discourage new editors", notwithstanding concern about COI editing
(4) Guidelines are in place to avoid subjects/content that is not verifiable (or overly biased by a single article).
--David Tornheim (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There are many ways to stop the advertising that occurs in many business related articles. Increasing notability and referencing requirements for business articles is just one of them. We need to try as many as possible. Let me give you a couple of articles we have or had. I won't give names because this first one was deleted after I mentioned it, and I'd like to keep the 2nd one around just to show folks how silly our articles can be. The first was a 15 seat, single-store coffee shop off the main drag in a medium sized southern California city. Averaged 1 page view per day. It had an ethnic theme and that seems to be the most interesting thing about it. What did I have against this article? There 1,000s or 10,000s of coffee shops opening in the US each year, and the large majority go broke *sooner* or later. If we have article on these shops we'll never be able to get good info on them, especially when they go broke - we'll end up lying to our readers about them a large majority of the time. 2nd example, a coffee truck in NYC, article started by an SPA in 2006. Though I can't find another reliable source, I can track down 2 unreliable sources (it might even still exist!), and it had an article about the truck in the NYTimes in 2001. But let's get serious folks, can we really expect to give our readers anything close to reliable info on coffee trucks, or for that matter ice cream trucks, hot dog stands, etc. I say if we can't even pretend to do a subject well, we should not try. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that articles without reliable sources should be deleted. It might actually be pretty good to change the wording on really obscure topics like coffee shops, just so that statements are less dated (as in change the wording to make them less dated). I think that something that will help with stopping bad COI editing is to encourage people who meet the requirements for WP:NPP to apply, and to make it so that granting NPP is considered less on a need basis, and more on a "does the editor have enough experience to be able to do this?" basis. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
But the two articles you mentioned would be deleted per our current WP:GNG guidelines, right? Honestly, I really don't care that much if we have an article on an outdated coffee house or food truck somehow escaped WP:AfD. If yelp says it is closed, the language can be changed to past tense. Does anyone use Wikipedia to find a quality restaurant reviews? I do not and do not know anyone else who does.
I'm not concerned about small proprietors who are novices to Wikipedia who hope that creating a Wikipedia article on their fledgling business will be of some miniscule help in getting it off the ground and slightly more recognized. If that is all they are here for and they don't know the rules, it should be pretty obvious. They are small fish and I think the focus of COI investigation should not be on such petty wiki-criminals who do little harm. When there is no RS, it's easy enough to handle.
It's the articles on notable subjects where COI editing is of greatest concern. There the problem is when WP:NPOV is not followed. The cases described in Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia are the ones that hurt our reputation for reliability and neutrality. And unfortunately, many of these cases are found out by outsiders. When people inhouse call foul, sometimes they are ignored. Consider WifiOne case that had been warned of years before and nothing happened. Or the problem with our coverage of the BP horizon spill being 44% written by a BP representative (Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia#BP) . Or Orangemoody_editing_of_Wikipedia. Reducing notability requirements will not help there. The work I see being done at COI appears to me to go after small timers rather than the big fish. If the big fish get away and corrupt our articles that pass notability, then we have a big problem. Increasing notabilities requirements will not help at all. The outing of small fish is a distraction and red herring [pun intended] of the bigger problem. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It might be good to have a tag that doesn't actually show on the article but is in the markup that tags on article where significant COI editing has taken place. These would be reported somewhere, maybe at the community portal or something. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 04:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
David, re big fish vs. small fish, that is why my feeling is that tighening notability requirements is the answer. First keep mind that I'm talking about doing so for present day subjects (BLPs and corporations specifically). That's just one segment of the articles. People come here to write about their towns, local attractions, national monuments, old movies, and of course a host of historical figures and subjects. They would not be touched. Making it easier to delete articles on marginal companies and people would have the greatest impact on paid editing mills and COI editors, because their subjects by definition are the most marginal.
Also, we all know that even after we identify COI, or when COI is admitted, it doesn't always amount to much because of the notability requirements and AfD rules. For example, I recently found a BLP that was clearly self-written or by a paid editor, a DUCK situation (it commenced a few years ago by a two-article SPI as a copyvio lifted from a website). It limped on to the present day, edited to remove the puffery, poor sourcing, really marginal. I recently merged. But it just sat there and if the merger is contested, it may well go back to being an unnecessary, poorly sourced independent article on a marginal person who wants her Wikipedia article.
With tighter notability requirements, or perhaps a rule allowing deletion of DUCK self-written or paid editing articles, we could sweep out such articles and deter paid editing and COI editing. There could be a clear warning, when one creates an article, that if it is found to be written by or on behalf of the subject it will be deleted. What I'm suggesting is cutting off the oxygen, not running around with a fly swatter as is the current practice.
We can also make the COI guideline into a policy, thereby prohibiting COI editors from editing their articles. It now is a guideline and has no teeth, and experienced COI editors know it. We keep on discussing elaborate mechanisms to deal with COI and paid editing but not this simple (though admittedly extremely hard to implement) step. If the community won't or can't even do something that obvious, why not just pass the buck to the Foundation and spend less time agonizing about a problem that 1)is basically a Foundation problem and 2) the community is unwilling to fix?Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Wait, no COI editing?! No, please. Seriously, COI editing can be a big help to the community. Just check out the recent editor to the Pavlov's Dog (band) article. They are a member of the band (presumably) but have made some great contributions. Also, a great example on editing on behalf of companies that is good is Wikistrategies. Going back to what you said, that "What I'm suggesting is cutting off the oxygen, not running around with a fly swatter as is the current practice." I think that this would harm Wikipedia, as cutting off the oxygen wouldn't just be cutting off the oxygen for the flies and bugs and such, but for the whole room, which I think that we all agree is something that nobody wants. A simple, harsh policy on paid and COI editing will alienate good faith contributors trying to help their business and the encyclopedia at the same time. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 17:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
RileyBugz, the purpose of this discussion is to explore ways to enforce/supplement a guideline that strongly discourages COI, and other steps to do the same with paid editing. COI editing can't be banned as it is not a policy, but subjects and others with COI are "strongly discouraged" from editing articles. The intent is to curb the practice. We're not reinventing the wheel here. You seem to have a philosophical issue with the underlying philosophy of this guideline. That's fine, many do. If you want to repeal the current language so as to bring it more into your line of thinking, please commence that process. But arguing in favor of COI editing, and all the good it does, isn't helpful in this particular discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I understand. I think that good COI editing can be useful, and I do agree that we need to curb bad COI editing. I wasn't exactly encouraging COI editing, I was just saying that COI editors can be helpful. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits
That's kind of an existential issue. The guideline does not distinguish. What I do know is that debating the issue in the abstract is a time suck and generally an exercise in wheel-spinning. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say that the fact that not all COI editing is bad is an important issue in this. Why? Because if not all COI editing and COI article creations are bad, then a hard and fast rule would make it so that good COI article creations are stopped. In addition to this, we would be biting new users, and basically preventing them from improving the encyclopedia. And, debating the issue in the abstract is helpful, at least in my opinion. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
If you can, perhaps you can look through what I posted re notability. Only bio and business articles would be impacted. They are just a sliver of the articles created by newbies, but there is a very high proportion of COI articles among them. We'd mot be making it impossible to create such articles, simply requiring higher standards. We seem to have a large number of marginal business articles that replicate company websites. The presence of such articles skews the content in the direction of self-promotion. Coretheapple (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Editors who are new to these discussions might want to know that the idea of raising notability thresholds has been discussed for some time. Opabinia regalis has been one of the major advocates for doing this. My personal opinion is that it would be helpful, but far from sufficient in itself. At WT:HA#Break 3, I have tried to paint a (disturbing) picture of the difficult kinds of undisclosed COI that we will be dealing with, that require a lot more tools than what we use now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I think that we need to definitely be more aware of both subtle vandalism and low-traffic vandalism. Other than putting pages on our watchlists, which isn't a very effective solution, if a solution at all, I don't really know how we would combat these things. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 23:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Well you know STiKi is surprisingly good to fight vandalism, better than Huggle. I would use it more but my eyes aren't the greatest lately. Trypt, I know, changing notability requirements is far easier said than done. Coretheapple (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about "major advocate"; I certainly think it is a good idea, and a necessary precondition to attempting more drastic steps, and I think I said I'd look at writing up a proposal at some point, but I really haven't had time to invest in this yet. What seems surprising to me is how little real data we still have on this problem despite all the pixels spilled over it. My impression - which seems consistent with the above comments - is that most COI articles are about people, products, and organizations, and that large subsets of new COI articles are deletable regardless of COI. But I'm also under the impression that most are in fact deleted. So it's not necessarily clear what the sticking point is where changes would be most effective. Is the volume the problem, or the perception that some slip through?
Now, we could propose a change that would affect the bottom tier of notability regardless of COI-ness - i.e., just make the rule of thumb "at least three reliable independent sources" - but that will make only a small dent if most of articles we're concerned about don't meet the existing requirements and are being created by people who don't read them. (Personally I think a general rise in notability requirements is a good idea regardless, because marginal articles are often out of date and so incomplete that they fail to serve even a causal reader's needs. The discussion about the coffee shop article is a case in point - there is no realistic way we can give readers useful and current information about individual local businesses, and that would be true regardless of whether there was COI in its history, or whether it crept over the current notability line by a hair.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: In my experience, not many bad COI articles make it through the review process. In my perception, the problem isn't new COI articles, it is existing articles getting COI and similar added to them. And even that is (usually) reverted. Honestly, I think that there isn't much of a problem in terms of new article creations being bad COIs—they almost always get deleted. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Rather than tighten the notability requirements, why not have backlog drives to go through articles on companies and businesses to get rid of all the crap that gets pointed to by COI editors saying "but they have an article" or "but their article reads like this!"? We have a huge number of articles on non-notable organisations that can already be removed from the encyclopedia. Sam Walton (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm always looking for a mechanism that can uncover marginal articles that are deserving of deletion. Can you elaborate on how such articles can be readily identified? Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Samwalton9: Thanks! Those are really good ideas. I'm going to pin those links to my user page for future reference. Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

UTRS-like site

    • I don't like "Task Forces" for the reasons I've already stated. But here's a counter proposal. What if there were a website like UTRS where administrators that have identified with the WMF and signed the privacy NDA have access. The WMF hires a contracted ombudsman for oversight. We use oauth to authenticate the accounts. Anyone can open an investigation on anyone else. The two individuals are then granted access to a ticket just for them where one party can provide evidence and the other can dispute it. Administrators could weigh the evidence. The discussion gets logged but the evidence is deleted at the end of the discussion to protect the privacy of the target. Controls could be put in place to prevent the same person from being repeatedly taken to the investigative website and harassed. History would be maintained. The ombudsman would prevent abuse. And we could insta-ban any administrator or user that divuldged private information on-wiki that came from there. It wouldn't be a "Task Force" because any administrator that meets the eligibility requirements could have access. 1250 administrators ought to offer lots of transparency. Even if we had UTRS' number with about 150, that's still a lot of transparency. And we could actively track the people who abuse the system to harass others by running reports. What say ye?--v/r - TP 01:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
      • TParis, that's an excellent idea, much simpler. The stumbling block would be the WMF hiring an ombudsman. That's unlikely to happen, or at the very least it would take work to convince them. SarahSV (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
        • TParis, I agree with SlimVirgin, that's a excellent idea, and should provide better data on the prevalence of undisclosed-paid-editing. As for WMF providing a paid ombudsman—surely a foreseen consequence of the change in the TOU would be the expenses of enforcing the TOU—otherwise, what's the point? I'd think there would have been discussion on the ramifications, including budgeting for the expense. — Neonorange (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
this is an extremely loose requirement for what amounts to checkuser plus oversight. All that community needs to do is to elect only admins who are willing to work on such cases. I may not be the only one of the current group. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
As I think you may know, UTRS currently blocks private information from anyone except a developer or checkuser from seeing. Developers because it'd be impossible to stop, and checkusers for obvious reasons. A similar system could be in place for programatically derived information. The only other information would be user generated. The kind of investigative work that we don't want published on-wiki to protect people's privacy. And both the programatically derived information and the 'evidence' would be deleted at the closure of the ticket.--v/r - TP 13:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I've just had another idea. What if folks could self-declare on the tool as well. Provide summary data about their own activities allowing administrators to patrol their edits? We could have two stages on this side of the program: one that publicily lists the topics the user has a conflict with that anyone could look at, and another that the user can privately provide information that those are their only COIs.--v/r - TP 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
TParis, that's another good idea. Do you know what would have to happen technically to put all that in place? DGG, this is for information that can't be posted onwiki because of OUTING, not for information obtained by volunteers with access to those tools. The alleged COI editor would be part of the discussion, and it would be deleted once the issue was dealt with, so anything personal wouldn't hang around forever. And I assume there would be a rule that only the minimum information necessary to resolve the issue should be posted. SarahSV (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
My problem with this idea, like the task force, is that would expend a great deal of energy and manpower, and to what end? At the end of the day, at the most you have a violation of the very weak TOU. Or maybe you have a violation of the COI behavioral guideline. That's why I latched on to SV's idea about strengthening the notability guideline, though I see that there are misgivings about that too. I have been called a "paid editing fanatic" or words to that effect and I am opposed to it, but ultimately this is a Foundation issue. The volunteers here are being asked to take on a load that they can't really cope with. However, if we raise the barrier required to get articles in Wikipedia we 1) improve the quality of articles here and 2)deal with COI. We seem to be straining to deal with a condition that is large and prevalent, yet the actual owners of the damn website, the Foundation, seem fairly passive. It's their reputation at stake. I can't say that often enough. They draw salaries, we don't. Their livelihoods depend on the project, ours don't. Coretheapple (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Coretheapple, I agree, but notability changes are hard to push through. The thing about an UTRS-type site is that it probably wouldn't be used that much, because most of the time there's no need for personal details when dealing with COI/paid. But if we set up a special "task force", they will create work for themselves: announcements, policy suggestions, etc. A UTRS-type system is essentially passive. It will deal with cases brought to it, but it won't have any other function and the admins responding won't feel they need to justify their existence. SarahSV (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that having a task force is a nonstarter. With this one we have a kind of private arbitration tribunal overseen by administrators. And at the end of the day we have.... what? We're sort of back where we started from, with an account in violation of the guideline. That's like having a special court system set up to fine people for jaywalking. OK, so then one of the editors wants a topic ban or something meaningful. What then? The evidence was secret. It can't be replicated publicly so that the community can take action. There may be a finding that the account in question had a COI or that it's a paid editor, but apart from that it can't really be discussed. I just think that this proposal won't have much impact, and that working on notability makes more sense (although it is admittedly hard to do). In really big cases like the big Wiki-PR type firms, it's really a job for the Foundation. I just don't see this doing good in a practical sense. Maybe I'm missing something. Coretheapple (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2017 (UTC) (edited Coretheapple (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC))
We do the same thing we currently do for private information. When an editor blocked for sockpuppetry asks to be unblocked per the standard offer, a CU will generally personally vouch whether they've met the 6-month no socking requirement. It has worked for years without controversy. And regarding Wiki-PR type organizations, there is nothing that prevents the foundation from acting on the information we've collected in this system. They currently provide oversight for both UTRS and OTRS.--v/r - TP 14:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
How is this an improvement over the way private information is currently handled in paid editing cases? I'd like to see that question addressed. This came out of an idea for a "task force" of wide application. This seems to be very limited in application. Neither seem capable of doing much to deal with COI and paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The website isn't going to improve the enforcement authority of anyone in the community. You and I disagree on that point and you shouldn't expect me to hand you a solution that I disagree with. However, the point of the website is to resolve the conflicts between investigating COIs and the WP:OUTING policy. That's where the proposed application offers values to the community.--v/r - TP 18:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't addressing that at you, but generally. I'd like to see more input into this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
One issue that has to be considered very seriously in any such approach is who is allowed to have access to information that is protected by the outing policy. Presumably, anything of that sort gets oversighted if it's posted onsite, so do we really want anyone who does not have the oversight permission to handle requests here? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Wholly insufficient for protecting privacy. We don't give CheckUser to all admins for a damn good reason. Why should we allow similarly sensitive information to be available to all admins? I have zero faith in the confidentiality of information available to all administrators, especially when admins aren't required to sign any legally-binding document on confidentiality. But further, I don't even have faith that 100% of our admins are behaviorally fit to have access to such information. I've had a fellow administrator make comments toward me that appeared to be threats. That same administrator openly speculated about where I live on-wiki. That admin will retain the tools for the rest of their life because desysopping is currently impossible given our policies. ~ Rob13Talk 14:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
These are all excellent points in every respect. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: Your conclusion is based on a false assumption. Administrators still will be unable to view CU data. As I've said, that hasn't changed. This will only allow the private discussion of publicly available off-wiki information without violating the OUTING policy.--v/r - TP 18:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
No, he's right. I hadn't thought it through myself and I'm glad he did. This proposal would involve admins weighing material that is more sensitive than technical CU data. This proposal is just not tenable, sorry. Coretheapple (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@TParis: CU data is sensitive insofar as it allows one to determine the location of an editor. The data is inexact and confers no information about actual identity. So instead, under this proposal, we'll just let admins directly share and access information about an editor's identity, which can easily be used to determine their geographical location when paired with some Google searches, sometimes down to specific places where they're present at specific times for some people. That makes little sense. Identifying information is more sensitive than CU data. ~ Rob13Talk 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
If Wikipedia and/or editors are ever sued over an issue related to the editing of the persons dealt with by this, all admins having access to that personal info would be subject to subpoena. Look, this is well-intentioned but a terrible idea. Let's just forget about it, please. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: I can literally do what you're describing now without the tool anything I could do on the proposed tool. The only difference is the ability for it to be discussed with other people, who could literally do the same exact thing, in relation to its implication on editing. Your concern is imaginary. Please explain the difference between what I could do right now and what would happen on the tool. Because, like I said, the only difference is that we'd be in compliance with the OUTING policy.--v/r - TP 19:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@TParis: Do you understand why we have an outing policy? Sure, everyone could do substantial "internet detective" work and some might find personal details about some editors. The reason we have an outing policy is to prevent the spread of such information and to prevent it from becoming easy to find. The difference is that if you spent hours digging up something on an individual, that would be one person who knows that information. If this proposal goes into effect, suddenly over a thousand admins have easy access to the information. A secret known to a thousand people is no longer a secret. We haven't selected admins for their understanding of confidentiality. As I've highlighted above, I know of at least one admin who considered it appropriate to openly speculate about where I live on-wiki. That person should have easy access to personal information about our editors? Hell no. ~ Rob13Talk 19:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, as a rather important aside, our outing policy says the following:
Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy). Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted. Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other.
Making private information available to all administrators violates this. "Investigating editors" for the purpose of finding personal information violates this. So this system would still violate the outing policy. ~ Rob13Talk 20:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Not quite. The outing policy prevents opposition research from being used on-wiki to harass others. This tool would have control measures to prevent that. In addition, the outing policy prevents private information from being posted onto one of the most indexed websites in the world where it would promptly reach the top of a google search. Both of these problems would be resolved by this tool. The outing policy isn't to prevent 1000 people from seeing public information. It's to prevent public but obscure information from rocketing to the front page for 7 billion people. That's the significant harm that is try to be prevented - in addition to the opposition harassment.

Besides, as I've said already, only admins which have identified with the WMF and signed the NDA would have access - so it isn't even 1000, it's a subset of that. With regard to that last bit from OUTING, I think we could easily find consensus to change that bit for this system.--v/r - TP 20:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Would also like to point out that the policy says "Should" and not "Must".--v/r - TP 20:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
If you look up "should" in a dictionary, it indicates obligation or duty. Am I allowed to act as an administrator in a situation where I'm involved if I really, really want to just because WP:INVOLVED says I "should not" do so instead of "must not" do so? Obviously not. I simply have no trust in a private system that theoretically allows 1,200 editors to view it, even with a requirement for an NDA. The arb mailing list has been leaked in the past, and the only editors with access to that are among our most trusted. If we can't even keep that from leaking, do you really think we can keep a system that allows access to 1,200 from leaking? Moreover, what is the benefit of this above and beyond having a small group of trusted admins appointed to handle private information related to paid editing? Why expand from a dozen admins to all admins when there's no benefit from doing so? ~ Rob13Talk 20:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree strongly with what Rob has been saying. And I think that the current version of the outing policy is a scattershot mess. The passage quoted above does indeed say that private stuff can be sent to single admins, and yet there are single admins who should not be allowed within a mile of such information. (And every time I see "UTRS", I keep seeing it as "UTI" and thinking "urinary tract infection", but that's just me. ) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Also I think that the potential legal issue that I mentioned earlier needs to be weighed. If I think Editor X is a paid editor, and I take him to this UTRS-like thing, accessible by dozens if not hundreds of admins, I lay out my evidence. Editor X squirms for mercy. Yes, he says, I am paid by Cyclops Industries! On the basis of this proceeding, some kind of step is taken against Editor X. Victory! But then there is then litigation involving Cyclops Industries, brought by one of its competitors or the government. The plaintiff gets wind that there was this secret proceeding. Subpoenas go out to me, to Editor X, and to every administrator who had access to the information. Yes, it's not retained. So what? Each of those editors could have retained it. Yes, some admins are indeed not to be trusted with such information. Some have, to say the least, mixed feelings about paid editing. Maybe Editor X is exonerated but there are admins out there, who saw the info, who think he is guilty. So there could be leaks as well as involvement in litigation. Coretheapple (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with that, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
1) That entire scenario can currently play out as things currently are, 2) There is a legal-fees fund for sysops, and 3) this is a reasonable compromise between a secret cabel "task force", violating people's privacy on-wiki, and doing nothing. And I don't think I need to remind anyone that I'm perfectly happy in the "do nothing or less" camp.--v/r - TP 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I think that task force has no chance of advancing, so I don't believe that's a real choice. Yes, doing nothing, at least in this area, is indeed the best thing. I'm an anti-paid editing fanatic, remember? If I think it presents problems, it presents problems. I think that any mechanism that involves private exchange among admins of personal information - not just CU stuff but real private info - is a ticking time bomb. PS, have you ever been subpoenaed? Legal fees is just part of the problem. You don't want to be subpoeanaed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that, except for anonymity, Wikipedia would be probably the most real-world-destructive privacy-violating major website that there is. A public, searchable database of every edit that someone made in their whole lifetime, and the exact date and time that they made it. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@North8000: Oh please. No way. In law classes the message over and over is about social media: not to air dirty laundry, criticize your employer, brag about that non-disclosure agreement you were supposed to keep secret, release private information about a client's case, talk about your legal case, etc. To be honest I don't see why anonymity is so highly valued here (I use my real name), except that it creates the supposedly level playing field, where anonymous editors are judged entirely by textual edits and not name, gender, culture, place of residence, employment, etc.--tempered by the fact that these things might still be discernible from text. If anything someone says is so horrible and embarrassing that they would regret having said it for the rest of their life if their identity were discovered, my guess is that whatever was said was so inappropriate it was probably in violation of our standards anyway. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but when you have entire networks of paid editing mills, websites and so on, we're not dealing with privacy but quite the opposite---advertising. Any restriction on linking to such ads on-wiki need to be removed and specifically permitted. In fact, there should be a page showing links to all such ads, if there are editors willing to volunteer their time to such an endeavor. At a minimum, Jimbo and the Foundation need to work to prevent editors fighting paid editing from being harassed by advocates and apologists for paid editing. I won't stick my neck out to fight it, as I don't view it as my problem, but some editors are. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Coretheapple: I don't think anyone disagrees with the sentiment. The problem is that any such policy needs to be written very carefully to ensure that innocent editors aren't caught in the cross-fire. We have to consider the fact that paid editors, sockmasters, etc. would all happily "trick" us into outing someone by putting up a fake ad. They'd happily report their competition in an attempt to increase their own market share. They'd happily latch onto any information published on-wiki or leaked and use that to engage in campaigns of harassment. So far, I don't see any buy-in from those invested in combating malicious paid editing when it comes to not only creating policies to address paid editing but creating good policies to address paid editing. When it comes down to whether we should combat paid editing or protect our editors, I find the latter to be more important, so I'm stuck opposing measures that are well intentioned but poorly formulated.~ Rob13Talk 00:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
About how to prioritize between those two objectives, it's unfortunate that we have to choose. They are each so important that we collectively need to figure out how to avoid putting them in conflict with each other. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It absolutely can be done. We do it already with CU data. Appoint a small number of highly-trusted individuals to sort through the private data and release only what's needed to act. We just need to decide as a community that we care about the long-term safety of our editors enough to come up with a policy that protects that safety. ~ Rob13Talk 00:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
That's one approach. I guess where I differ from some of my colleagues is that I'm not sure how much of our limited time and energy to expend on investigating COI situations, except of course if the end result will be to root out a sock farm of paid editors. Seems like every day I find evidence of COI, in the form of phraseology that has come either from the subject or a paid rep. All one can really do in such situations is fix it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Replying to Rob, that is, of course, true. The problem is that the community is still treating the issue as if that is not an available option – probably not because the community needs to care more about privacy, but because the community needs to care more about undisclosed COI. The RfC I opened a few months ago proposed just what you described, and there was an overwhelmingly negative reaction – and yet we still have language at the outing policy that says that it's OK to email private information to any administrator. The status quo is untenable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Why would we want a "secret court" to address COI issues? If we have a system where protecting anonymity is a top priority, how is allowing users to be dragged to secret courts to be interrogated, cross-examined and prodded to release personal information going to protect their anonymity? The visible harassment of alleged petty COI editors by self-appointed COI cops is bad enough. Why turn this into an Gestapo style interrogation in some back room? Besides, the wise COI editor should be able refuse to answer any questions about identity, and this not be used against them. It just seems like a trick to strip them of their right to anonymity, and give other users the ability to invisibly harass them if they refuse to reveal it.
I differentiate this idea from WP:UTRS checkuser: Checkuser appears to be a fairly objective yes/no question: Is this the same editor with same IP characteristics or not? And only a handful of very trusted people have access. This proposed "secret COI court" will require much more judgment and provide little transparency.
My reading of our policy for quite some time is that if an editor chooses not to disclose their identity, we are not to initiate a fishing expedition trying to figure out who they actually are PERIOD. Instead we judge their editing behavior, as was done in the WifiOne case.
Again what is the need for a secret court? Can someone show me one of the cases listed at Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia that might have been addressed earlier by this supposed remedy?
My feeling if an investigation of an alleged breach of the ToU requires violating assurances of privacy, the investigation should go the Wikimedia legal department or other trusted professionals who have signed contracts not to violate user privacy--not to anonymous admins who may in fact be children, Russian spies, CIA operatives or COI editors themselves for all we know. To be honest, I do not know why the legal department is not the entity in charge of all COI investigations. If the foundation has as much money as I am told, this seems like a good place to spend it.
--David Tornheim (talk) 11:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
And indeed, that was very much the consensus of the editors who responded to the earlier RfC. Alas, the likelihood that WMF legal will step up to the plate is nil, and our existing outing policy says that it's OK to email secret information to any random administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
How can you know with certainty whether wiki-legal will step up in the future? WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can always ask Wiki-legal to step in via WP:RfC. Has this been done? I do not understand the cynical, defeatist attitude. We cannot know Wikimedia's legal department's position unless we communicate with it. If you have evidence of their past refusal to help with COI or paid editing problems, please provide it. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
That's a nice wiki-link. I've got two more: History and Experience.--v/r - TP 13:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
What I was thinking of was the very recent statement by WMF legal about how they see the outing policy in relation to the terms of use about undisclosed paid editing. They came down pretty strongly on saying that they provide advice about how WMF terms of use apply, but they want the local projects to make all the actual decisions and do all the actual work. That was just a short time ago. Link. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • David Tornheim I think you're basically right. The Foundation must step up to the plate. I agree that the chances are nil but if they don't do anything, to hell with them. They will do nothing unless they have no other choice as they clearly have other fiscal and corporate priorities. The privacy concerns you raise are correct but are of no interest to them.Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hidden tag?

So, I think that it may be beneficial to have some kind of tag that isn't displayed unless you go to the source. It would just be to note articles were major COI contributions have taken place, and articles that have been tagged with this would be logged somewhere, hopefully like on the community portal. It would be so that the COI editors contributions to an article could be looked over, and the tag would be removed when the COI contributions are judged to be fine. The tag would be placed again when major COI contributions resume. Thoughts on this? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Why hidden? - Bilby (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Bilby: It may actually be better to have a small, out of the way tag in the corner or something, actually. I just really don't want a big annoying tag that readers have to deal with. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 01:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: What do you think about this proposal? RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have no problem with it in principle, but we do have COI templates already. What would be the applicability and advantages of such a tag? Would it be visible to the reader? I think the latter would be a good attribute, but when the subject has been raised I've gotten heat to the effect that it would be a "scarlet letter." Coretheapple (talk) 02:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: Pretty much the problem I see with the current template is the fact that it displays a prominent message that is not needed in most situations, as in most situations, the issue isn't big enough that it requires a page-spanning tag because major advertising would already be likely removed, if it was prominent enough to require a page-spanning tag. It would just be so that editors can check for any subtle vandalism. In addition, most COI editors would remove the template, so having a hidden tag would reduce the possibility that the editor would notice it and remove it. This would work especially well if it were mentioned in some community space, as I said before, or otherwise one would be hard pressed to find and fix these issues. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't see the issue being large scale advertising, but more subtle bias that needs to be checked. As a reader, knowing that an article on a company was written by that company, and has not been independently checked, seems like an important piece of information when evaluating the content. - Bilby (talk) 02:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
That's true and it is why there is no such thing as "good " and "bad" COI. There is just COI. However, under current rules it is permitted. We can certainly review company articles and bios for POV and advertising issues. I do that every time I can. But it's hit or miss, not a systemic solution. I don't know of one, given the current rules and mindset. Coretheapple (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
People should know that paid jobs appear on job sites specifically to remove visible warning tags from Wikipedia articles. Not to mention ghosted insertions [4] and explicit SEO like "we are looking for a strong signal from Wikipedia Page to our website" [5]. A way to track the articles getting hit by this would be helpful. - Bri (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Would the hidden tags address the removal of warning tags? I'm just not quite sure what a hidden tag is. Perhaps the OP can elaborate. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coretheapple: What I mean by hidden tags are tags that are only in the source code, and not visible to the normal reader. Maybe there could be something done to make them look inconspicuous, like maybe make them look like a part of another template or something. Or, maybe it wouldn't be disguised, but only readable in the source code. Anyways, that template would report the article to some noticeboard. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 19:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, maybe it would give a notice to the removal of these tags. We might want to do that anyways for the normal COI template. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hidden from the reader but visible to editors and accessible, perhaps as a category? I'm not familiar with the subject at all. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about a category, as that would still be visible to the reader. I don't think that we actually have something like this, but I don't think that it would be hard to implement. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 20:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand how it works. I can't quite grasp it. Hidden from the casual reader but not from editors? Is that what you mean? Coretheapple (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Umm, not really. What I mean is that one would not see any external signs of the template on the page. The template would only be seen if one tried to edit it, as the template would only appear in the source code. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 21:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, I see. Well, one good thing about the COI template is that it advises readers (if they access the article on desktop) that the article has a COI issue. However, such templates often are removed, as they are viewed as punitive. So yes, I imagine the hidden tag could be more widely utilized, and if some list of such articles could be generated, so that such articles could be watched or perhaps AFD'd, I could see value in it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Do you think that it might be a good idea to tag COIs with the normal tag already in place? I think that it would probably be beneficial, as it would, as previously mentioned, be much less likely to be removed. This means that even if the normal COI tagged is removed, the article would still be logged in whatever place we will keep the list of articles tagged with this. Also, I suggest that if the template is created, that it is called "Connected", to explain the template but to not make it obvious that it is for COIs. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 22:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Well sure. But less obvious to whom? Paid editors will be on to it in an instant. They're reading this discussion as I type these immortal words. Coretheapple (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

MfD of interest

Please note that Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms has been listed for deletion. The discussion is here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Today I received a request for a paid article on the Upwork platform. I receive similar requests on a monthly basis (and always reject them with a link to this page) but this one was different in that the client included the name of the company, Gold Crude Research. So please keep an eye on it, as it's likely that someone else will accept the offer and create the article. Please feel free to move this message to a more appropriate place if there is one (I just couldn't find the proper place for this kind of message). Cheers! --Felipe (talk) 13:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Felipe Schenone. I'll put a duplicate copy of this information at WP:Conflict of interest noticeboard. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Watched the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone added a link to Economic calendar a week ago as their first and (so far) only edit, so your watchlist may be lighting up soon. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The page is here now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification requested on investigation of job postings

In the RfC further up this page, there was consensus for the following statement: "There are job posting sites where employers publicly post advertisements to recruit paid Wikipedia editors. Linking to such an ad in a forum such as the Conflict of interest noticeboard is not a violation of this policy."

I'd like clarification on the degree to which we can investigate such an ad in order to link it to an article created on Wikipedia by a user and determine that it was created in violation of the ToU (i.e. if it was not a disclosed paid contribution). For example; say there's an ad on Upwork by Company Ltd., asking for the creation of a Wikipedia article in exchange for payment. In the publicly viewable version of that ad, it states that the article was completed by John Smith in March 2017, and both Company Ltd and Mr Smith have left feedback/reviews for each other that all but confirm the article was created successfully. Now I go to Company Ltd. and find that it was created in March 2017 by User:Example with no disclosure of payment. Can I make the connection on Wikipedia between that ad and User:Example and consider it a violation? What if the ad didn't say who the client (Company Ltd.) was, but by clicking through to their previous public ads, I found their name, and then found their article? Thoughts appreciated. Sam Walton (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd say the issue is unclear and no one can give you a definitive answer that will keep you save from violating the outing policy. So, I'll propose these rough criteria and let's move forward from here:
  • Under all of these conditions, it should be safe to report 1) a new account (with < 50 edits; or < 50 edits outside of a single article or very specific topic area), 2) that is involved in editing an article that was posted to a freelancer job board, 3) and the majority of the edits were made after the job was posted.
These are tight criteria, but I figure it's safest to start with strict rules and then peel back until we're comfortable. Anyone else?--v/r - TP 00:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
It can be tricky to set stricter standards for new editors than for ones who have been here longer, although editing in the manner of an SPA can certainly be taken as evidence. But my take on all the lengthy discussions about the outing policy is that there is a pretty strong consensus against "investigating" other editors (as slippery as that definition can be), and also that the "specific situations" in the new language means very strictly that: it's OK to link to these specific things, but not OK to link to anything else. Consequently, it's perfectly fine to link to the Upwork ad, no matter what is posted there, but going from that to the company website, and presumably linking to the company website, would be testing the boundaries. I think that if the information at the company website corroborates what was at Upwork, without adding any new personal information, then that's acceptable. But if the company website does reveal some additional personal information about an editor, then that is probably crossing the line into an outing violation. That said, I personally feel very strongly that any admin needs to carefully evaluate whether the apparent intention of the editor who did something on the borderline was malicious or just a matter of a lapse of good judgment, before deciding to make a block. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
So the bottom line is that if that further investigation reveals more about the article subject, that's fine, but if it reveals more personal information about the editor, not so? Sam Walton (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters, given the purpose of the ad. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Exactly that issue is currently under discussion at WT:HA. Amid the tl;dr, the best place to start, probably, is WT:HA#Proposed section on non-editors and following. But I think the key issue is about "personal information", as that term is defined at WP:OUTING. So if the investigation reveals more information about the article subject, if that information conforms with WP:BLPPRIVACY, it's probably OK, but if it is equivalent to "outing" non-public personal information about the article subject, then it's probably not OK – pending the discussions that are ongoing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had forgotten about that. Shouldn't this be discussed over there? Coretheapple (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:COITALK

I think we need to improve this section a bit. Some people believe that if an editor follows the letter of COI/PAID and declares their COI and doesn't edit directly, then everything is OK. But if someone does those two things, but still uses their editing privileges only to advocate for their external interest (whatever that might be), this is still not OK -- the person is not here to build an encyclopedia but is only here to promote their external interest. The problematic behavior that arises from that, is described in COITALK, but not the underlying problem of NOTHERE, and I think we should say that explicitly.

I'm proposing the following additional first paragraph:

Editors with a COI who declare their COI and do not edit directly, should still remember that every editor is obligated to follow the content policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. If an editor is only here to advocate for their client, they are not here to build an encyclopedia. Editors with a conflict of interest should not bludgeon Talk pages, advocating for their external interest.

Paid editorsEditors with a COI must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.

Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.

I think the reference to "paid editors" in the 2nd paragraph should also be changed as noted above, to make it more general. This is a problem with unpaid conflicted editors as well. The third paragraph can stay as "paid" since it is specific to that. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. I can think of a few talk pages that have been killed by the persistence of COI editors (killed as in never recovered because everyone fled). SarahSV (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that helps. Coretheapple (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Good idea, and I support it. (Right after "bludgeon", "Talk" should be lower case.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been at the same MfD discussion (where most of the tl;dr has been coming from editors who do not have COIs), and I don't see how the discussion here would really affect it. I take this proposal as coming from good intentions, not from ulterior motives. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
The change from "paid editor" to "coi editor" and regarding talk pages echos very loudly of what Jytdog has complained about in that MfD. If that's not the case, I'd like to know what prompted the suggestion for the change.--v/r - TP 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) TP, the prompt for this was actually Talk:Alexandre Mars where a paid editor is pounding the talk page. I left this note at their talk page, just before i posted here. Another page where this has been a constant problem is Talk:William L. Uanna where the son of the subject has been doing the same. I didn't have the MfD in mind at all. Please don't think so badly of me. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see. I'm sorry then. Assumptions and asses and stuff. It just seemed to resonate so well.--v/r - TP 23:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I will not deny that in the background was a comment at the Talk page of the Statement, where a PR person wrote before the MfD was launched, Okay, so what's wrong with advocating--not COI editing, but advocating--for a client's interest on Wikipedia so long as that relationship is disclosed and takes place in forums where that is acceptable, which I did cite at the MfD. I have been thinking about the quoted remark a lot, as I think it was really asked in good faith from the perspective of a PR person, and if you look at the history of that page you will see that I changed my response to it three times afterwards until i hit on what is wrong with it. I have been thinking about it ever since, too. Today it kind of crystalized when i saw the new remarks at the Alexandre page, and i thought i would see if folks found it acceptable to add here. Jytdog (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to take your honesty and throw it back in your face as some kind of "gotcha". I disagree with you about WWB's comment but I'm willing to assume the spark was lit on that other talk page. As a matter of principal, and I've said this before, I believe changes like this to WT:COI should have an RFC. But I've stricken my above comment because making a bad assumption like that deserves my losing my voice in the matter.--v/r - TP 23:58, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
It was actually a statement by philgomes, not WWB. Should have provided the dif, sorry. diff (that edit put content in two places - scroll down for this one) I should further add that i think about these sorts of things a lot as I work here... this is just one crystallization among many that happen as i think and work through COI issues in this strange context that is WP. There are all kinds of weird facets to it. I really think that Phil sees nothing wrong being here to advocate for a client. Which is interesting to me. I see how somebody could think that this is really OK. In practice it wouldn't be problem if somebody could take no for answer and didn't bludgeon the talk page. But in terms of being aligned with the mission it is really not OK. But we are not thought police, and cannot be. So the practical thing is to focus on the behavior, as the section already did. I think it useful to add the underlying principles. No great loss if folks don't agree to do that. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I am not at all opposed to an RfC. That would be fine Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph really should say "external interest" not "client", so it is broader than just paid editors.... Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • oookay, getting back to this change: keep in mind that this subsection is part of a section devoted primarily to paid editing. For instance, in the preceding subsection, "Editors responding to edit requests from paid editors are expected...." We may want to effect the same change there and elsewhere in that section. Coretheapple (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That's fine with me. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

How about this for the sake of consistency:

Editors responding to edit requests from paid editors with a COI are expected to do so carefully, particularly when commercial interests are involved. . . . .

Paid COI editors on talk pages

PaidEditors with a COI must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. ...

There'd be no change to the "charge by the hour" segment as that only applies to paid editors. Coretheapple (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I need to oppose this. In effect, we're giving justification for blocking COI editors who are trying to do everything above board - engage in the talk page, declare their interests, and avoid editing the article. If someone is doing that, we don't need further discouragement - it just gives even more reason why they should hide the COI. Existing policies still apply in regard to talk page discussion, but advocacy is not in itself a problem. The more we go down the path of making it impossible for an editor with a declared COI to operate, the more we make undeclared COIs attractive. - Bilby (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Bilby So surprising. The goal here is to educate and guide, not provide hidden traps. If somebody is bludgeoning the Talk page, they aren't getting it that they can't use WP to advocate for something. This makes it clear to people with a COI that they need to be mindful of that. That's all. So much hintergedanken here. Jytdog (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
What is "If an editor is only here to advocate for their client, they are not here to build an encyclopedia" saying if not that you cannot be here to advocate? I expect this to be used to justify blocks on the ground that they are advocating for a particular position because of their COI, while other people who are advocating without a COI or without declaring one can continue. Then "No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them" effectively argues against trying to find consensus or follow DR when one of the people butting heads has a COI. I'm concerned that the more we add wording that makes it difficult for declared COI editors to operate, the more we create a scenario where only undeclared COI editors exist.
It isn't that we don't block for disruptive editing or NOTTHERE. It is simply that those exist, and we can reasonably expect a COI editor to be aware of them, just as we expect a non-COI editor to be aware. By singling out COI editors for special warnings we make it seem easier to target one side of a position. - Bilby (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Aren't editors with a COI more at risk of falling into bludgeoning the talk page, and shouldn't we warn them about that? I do hear you that people abuse this guideline and try to use it as a bludgeon (have been on the receiving end of that myself). That is not the goal here. This guideline should help editors with a COI understand their footing here. They have a place but they need to be mindful that advocacy is not OK, even if they limit themselves to the talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
On the articles I frequent, conflict of interest editors aren't an issue, but bludgeoning and advocacy are still problems, and they just drain all desire to edit Wikipedia out of me. So no, I don't see conflict of interest editors as being a greater risk; the problems are caused by editors trying to push a point of view, and those who are poor at group collaboration and building consensus. It's really unfair for editors to have to put up with this behaviour from any editor, conflict of interest or not. The existing wording and the proposed changes seem to downplay these problems from non conflict of interest editors. I would prefer wording that reinforced the message that these actions are generally problematic with all editors, including those with conflicts of interest. isaacl (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • When writing about somebody or some organization we need to give them an opportunity to suggest corrections and to point out any coverage they think is unfair. Such editors are welcome if they are polite and do not disrupt the editing process with excessive pushiness. Jehochman Talk 10:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
What we're discussing here is a possible tweak of longstanding language. As I recall, the language in the guideline in question was occasioned by difficulties arising on the talk pages of corporate articles in postings by paid editors. No editor has ever been blocked on the basis of this language. Like the rest of the guideline, it is aimed at COI and paid editors, because that is the purpose of the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Changing the language does open up the possibility of blocking based on the new version. - Bilby (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you can explain that, as I'm not seeing it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I meant that in a generic sense - you can't really say that noone was blocked with the previous wording to indicate that noone will be blacked when you change the wording. :) But other than not liking this on principle, my major concern is the specific wording against advocacy. People are allowed to advocate for a position, and taking a stance in these terms should not be connected to a threat to block. Especially where the COI editor is otherwise meeting the guidelines via disclosure and engaging solely on the talk page. - Bilby (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I see that language more as an effort, tailored to COI editors, to prevent them from getting in trouble. Coretheapple (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
It is telling them that they can't advocate where they have a conflict of interest or they risk being blocked for not being here to build an encyclopaedia. They should advocate, not be discouraged from doing so. If an article is about a person or their company, they should not be discouraged from engaging with other editors through talk. - Bilby (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Bilby how would you articulate this? It should be somehow said that it is OK to advocate a little but if you do it so much that start to annoy people we are going to actually enforce PROMO against you... That is what we do in practice. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Can we refer to the essay on not bludgeoning the process? I agree that asking people not to engage isn't conducive to better collaboration. isaacl (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think editors have been making a good point, that simply being here to make sure that content about a client is not inaccurate or defamatory is not the same as being not-here. So let me suggest this change, from: If an editor is only here to advocate for their client, to: If an editor advocates for their client to the extent of not following policies. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine with that, thx for suggesting it. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, and we can add specific language from WP:NOT if it's helpful. Editors who are here for a specific, narrow purpose (such as the son of the subject cited above) do not always understand, or want to understand, core policies and sometimes it needs to be pointed out, sometimes repeatedly. Coretheapple (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Above i noted that it was editing at Alexandre Mars that prompted me to post this. If folks are not aware, please have a read of this talk section and especially this reply to what i wrote there. See also this AN thread that led to an indef and may lead to a siteban. The language I proposed above was intended to help someone like this understand that what they ended up doing was not OK, in terms of why they were here.
I think it is not helpful to conflicted/paid editors to imply that if they just disclose and avoid editing directly it is fine to be here to solely to advocate for something.... very open to better ways to say that, that don't sound draconian or scary. The goal is to educate. (this is approaching legislating clue i know....) Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of whether editors are being paid or have a conflict of interest, they should be made aware that advocacy editing is not permissible. We should ensure that this message along with other basic principles are conveyed to all new editors. Keeping this page focused on matters specific to conflicts of interest will enhance its readability. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
The problem there is not advocacy, but promotion. What I'm trying to avoid is a situation where we have an unbalanced article about a person or something closely related to them where they have a COI. If the person with the COI discloses this, goes to the talk page, and advocates for changes in the article, they are not doing anything wrong. If they hire someone to do so on their behalf, they are also not doing anything wrong. It only becomes a problem if it moves into promotional editing, or if they break other policies. Advocacy is not, in and of itself, an issue, and suggesting that it is says to people that they can;t defend themselves on WP where they have a COI.
I'm not big on any change, but if we were to change the wording, I'd be inclined to go with something such as:
Editors with a COI who declare their conflict of interest and do not edit directly, should still remember that every editor is obligated to follow the content policies, including ensuring that articles are written from a neutral point of view, and they should refrain from promotional editing. Editors with a COI must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise, avoiding attempts to dominated the conversation. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.
Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.
We need to make sure that people with a declared COI are not discouraged from editing, but that their situation does not mean that they can ignore policies. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, the point is that whether or not editors are paid, they all need to be made aware of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and non-promotional content. They all need to avoid dominating the conversation and keep conversations concise. I'd prefer focusing this page on matters specific to conflict of interest editors.
(On a side point, I was not saying that discussing your point of view is an issue, but as Wikipedia:Advocacy says, using Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view is an issue.) isaacl (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, there is a distinction between the subject of an article trying to slant his article into a resume and him or her fixing errors and questionable material. One specific example comes to mind, an expert on Russia who edited his article and wound up being reported on COI/N. The name escapes me. That totally boomeranged, as the the guy was absolutely in the right, people were putting crap in his article and I put an end to that. But then we do have situations, addressed in this guideline, in which COI editors abuse the system. Distinguishing between the two is not rocket science and the former, the good faith COI editors, are not endangered by compliance with this guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Saying "If an editor is only here to advocate for their client, they are not here to build an encyclopedia" is not distinguishing between the two. If those situations are already addressed, the don't need to be tackled here. - Bilby (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, you do raise a valid point. Here is the COI/N discussion I referenced above. In that case, the subject apparently created an account in reaction to a BLP issue. Now, what if he had hired somebody to do the same thing? That person would be improving the project by fixing BLP issues. So yeah, maybe the proposed language (reminder: it is not currently in the guideline) needs to be tweaked. Or just left out. I don't feel that strongly about it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Bilby that is great. I would be happy with that. Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

break

new proposal per Bilby above, with changes from current version marked by underlines for additions and strikeouts for removals

Editors with a COI who declare their conflict of interest and do not edit directly, should still remember that every editor is obligated to follow the content policies, including ensuring that articles are written from a neutral point of view, and they should refrain from promotional editing. Paid editors Editors with a COI must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise, avoiding attempts to dominate the conversation. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.

Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't see the benefit of the first sentence. They're almost always at an article as advocates. In addition, the sentence addresses those "who ... do not edit directly", then contradicts itself by asking for no promotional editing. I would leave out that sentence. SarahSV (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with those criticisms, and I also think that some of the ideas discussed earlier would better address Bilby's concerns. I'll suggest this modification:

Like every editor, editors with a COI are obligated to ensure that articles are written from a neutral point of view, and they must not advocate for their client to the extent of violating any policies. Paid editors Editors with a COI must also respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise, avoiding attempts to dominate the conversation. When proposing changes to an article, they should describe the suggested modifications and explain why the changes should be made. Any changes that may be contentious, such as removal of negative text, should be highlighted.

Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Editors who refuse to accept a consensus by arguing ad nauseam may find themselves in violation of the disruptive-editing guideline.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I am fine with that, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. - Bilby (talk) 01:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Or perhaps the wording can be something like ...."and must adhere to the policy against promotional content found at WP:SOAP." That way the policy is explicitly cited rather than just linked in the text. Coretheapple (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I'm receptive to revisions like that, but I think that it's important to get across the idea that what matters the most is obeying all polices, not just SOAP – in other words, not letting any advocacy get in the way of that. Also, if the goal is to make it easy to find that policy, I don't think that the SOAP shortcut should be used in place of the full policy name (but I also don't think that any of that is really necessary). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The current proposal remains fine with me. Just to re-ground this, editors with a COI and especially paid ones first and foremost need to get oriented. What I mean by that, is they need to understand, somehow, that just declaring and limiting themselves to the Talk page is not really enough. They need to put their feet on the ground of being a WP editor, and know that they cannot be here only to to advocate for their external interest. Yes they need to put in the time to understand all the policies and guidelines, but the first step before they do that, is this basic orientation thing... the mission thing. If they remain focused on advocating for their external interest and don't take that fundamental step, they will end up acting disruptively and ultimately will leave angry or will be indeffed or even site banned, as just happened to Jennepicfoundation whom I mentioned above. Whatever we can say here to help people see Wikipedia and its mission for what they are, and not just as something they can use to advance their external interest, would be great. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Except that Jennepicfoundation was blocked for promotional editing, not advocacy. The problem isn't advocacy, but breaking policies. Advocacy is not a problem in itself, but breaking policies is. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh Bilby. Advocacy means driving the content to one POV. For paid editors and editors with a COi that generally means promoting X. It can also mean denigrating X (for example in the case of WP:BLPCOI). The COI guideline just fleshes out one aspect of WP:NOTADVOCACY. WP:PROMO and WP:NOTADVOCACY go to the same section of NOT. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Advocacy can lead to problems, but in essence it is speaking for a subject. You are correct, in that it can lead to promoting X or denigrating X. But it can also mean defending X against BLP violations, pushing for NPOV on articles about X, or simply providing warranted coverage of X.
Advocacy creates a risk of promotional editing and other issues, but we have to be careful of not saying that paid and COI editors can't speak on behalf of a subject. We don't block for being an advocate - we block for issues that can be connected, but aren't the same. If we were blocking for advocacy we'd be blocking people everywhere.
I'm happy with the last proposal by Tryptofish, which doesn't state that advocacy is the problem, but that advocating to the extent of violating policies is. - Bilby (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
"But it can also mean defending X against BLP violations, pushing for NPOV on articles about X, or simply providing warranted coverage of X." just means being a good WP editor (or advocating for WP, which is not "advocacy"). Defining advocacy that way renders the word meaningless and it is a very important word in my view - it is the The Bad Thing that both unpaid advocates and conflicted editors do, that drives them to add non-NPOV, unsourced or badly sourced content to WP. Please reconsider how you use that term. But whatever, we agree on the language for the guideline. :) Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree - pushing for NPOV is being a good WP editor. That's my point. We shouldn't care why someone is doing that, we should only expect them to act in a way that improves Wikipedia, and to refrain from acting in a way that damages it.
I think we're using different definitions of advocate. Wikipedia tends to have a problem with redefining words or employing them exclusively in a very specific way, and this creates problems for people from outside. Either way, I guess it is a bit moot at this point. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the immediate task at hand is to decide about the possible revision. It looks to me like we may have consensus. Are there any objections? And do we need an RfC to implement it, or can we do it based on local consensus? In my opinion, the proposed changes are fairly minor (in terms of not changing the direction of the guideline) and non-controversial. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Company employees and paid editing

Would someone mind taking a look at CodeCurmudgeon? The user mentions they are an employee of Parasoft in their last post made to the a discussion on their user talk page. As can be seen, they have made this fact known on their user page, but I'm wondering if being an employee means they are subject to WP:PAID and not just WP:COI. They haven't really made tons of edits since creating the account and the account was fairly inactive until a few days ago, but there has been a recent spurt which has included some editing ofbeen pretty much only focused on Parasoft articles. Are employees of companies considered "paid editors" when they edit articles related to their companies? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC); [Post edited by Marchjuly to more accurately reflect recent edits made by the editor in question. -- 04:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)]

Shouldn't this be at WP:COIN instead of here? - Bri (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. Will move it there now. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Son of Orange Moody?

There is another similar new case - this time on the open web [6] Its likely if one case shows up on the open web, that there's at least a thousand that folks haven't bothered to report (or don't know that they are being scammed yet).

The text of the email on the new case is almost identical to the text sent during the Orange Moody case. See e.g. The Telegraph Sept 2 2015

It strikes me that this is evidence of a major paid editing campaign, probably by a person involved in the Orange Moody case. We should gear up for a major effort. The folks who dealt with the original Orange Moody case should definitely be called in for their expertise.

@Opabinia regalis, DGG, and Risker: could you let us know how to report this to the proper on-Wiki bureaucrats, functionaries, etc. and what they can and cannot do? Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, I use that software at home and it's pretty big software. They should probably have a Wikipedia article. I'm surprised they don't. I might write it.--v/r - TP 00:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I've asked them to forward the mail to arbcom. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Just forwarded the original mail to arbcom, I hope it helps! @TParis: Glad you like openHAB, it would be wonderful if you could help improving the draft article about it! Xthirtynine (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Great, thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to once I drive off more accusations of paid editing. It's just typical of the proponents of more text in this policy to attack anyone who disagrees with them and accuse them of paid editing. Not surprising anymore. Once that is resolved, I'm all over this article.--v/r - TP 21:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Xthirtynine: Unfortunately the Openhab posting makes the implication that supporters should come and advocate for it without understanding the "how" of wikipedia. I had to slap a WP:MEAT warning on the draft as there could be reasonable conclusions that there was a externally coordianted campaign. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Hasteur: I honestly think that this is no fair assessment. If you read carefully through the posting, all I have asked people is to engage in helping to improve the article in all due respect to the Wikipedia rules. I specifically asked only the unaffiliated users and excluded any developer of the software as they might be biased. What I read about WP:MEAT is that this is mainly concerned about gathering people for voting, I wouldn't see why it is unethical to ask people with knowledge on a subject to contribute to it. And calling it an "externally coordinated campaign" is really a bit disrespectful. Note that this is done on purpose in public to make sure that this is no "secret strike", but that all are nice citizens and follow the rules. I would claim that the majority of commercial companies actually DO coordinated campaigns by contracting many different authors for writing, but as all this is done secretly, nobody will ever notice... So again: The call here is to provide good, neutral content to make it a valuable article in the good faith that openHAB indeed HAS relevance, what I still believe in. So it is not about breaking any rules, but only to ignite some activity following all rules. Hence I think your assessment should be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xthirtynine (talk • contribs) 14:54, June 29, 2017 (UTC)
@Xthirtynine and Hasteur: Either way, guys, it's a moot point. Like I said, I use this software, I'm familiar with it. I'll write the article.--v/r - TP 23:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_26&oldid=1137406394"