Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:54, 4 April 2015

Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks

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

In general, edits that are justified in terms of maintaining WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:VERIFY, or WP:OR are not to be taken seriously, but are rather evidence of the COI of the other editor.

A few common criticisms in edit summary reverts by advocates include

unsourced or poorly sourced, see MEDRS
trivial mention, nobody cares
hell no, POV
whitewashing quackery, see Fringe/PS
unproven, need RS
no consensus, discuss on TP
no OR
not supported by source

Oftentimes the best way to identify editors with a COI is that they attempt to uphold Wikipeida’s policies and guidelines on reliable sourcing, biographies of living persons, and NPOV:

How to identify a COI duck: …the bad behavior elevates and the edit summaries that revert your edits sound more like frenzied quacking...revert,quack revert,quack not a RS,quack violates MEDRS,quack blatant BLP violation,quack...

COI ducks will abuse PAG, particularly MEDRS and FRINGE guidelines if they believe they can gain advantage by preventing negative material from being included in the article.

Its ok, and frequently desirable to ignore WP:CONSENSUS, as COI is so common here that the most likely explanation for the fact that other editors don’t agree with you is that they have a COI:

if you notice a correlation of topics and/or habitual characteristics such as tendentious editing by one or more editors working in a concerted effort, and also notice or experience other questionable behavior by some or all of the same editor(s) on TPs, noticeboards and forums where they continue to quack away at a targeted editor like ducks chasing a June bug, you may have wandered into a flock of COI ducks.

Advocacies almost always involve tag teams so they can sway consensus, control the article and make it appear as though you are the one disrupting the community. They are experts at gaming the system and switching blame to the opposition. Such behavior is often driven by paid or unpaid advocacy and helps explain why edits that don't support their POV are consistently reverted and offending editors are made to feel unwelcome as collaborators. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it probably is a COI duck. quack, quack

Wikipedia’s dispute mediation and disciplinary processes are not to be trusted either as the Admins are easily fooled and / or are part of the conspiracy.

Tactics typically include attempts to switch blame by casting aspersions or making spurious allegations followed by initiating unwarranted WP:3RR, WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AE, and WP:ARBCOMcases against their opposition which are usually void of diffs, and/or the piling on of diffs that do not support their argument, the latter being a tactic to inundate admins and possibly fool them into believing they truly do have a claim. There is a slim possibility they may be working in tandem with an admin who may also be an advocate of the same cause and/or also involved in paid editing, but that is the last thing we want to believe. If you suspect there is a problem, see WP:ADMINACCT.

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

In fact, the discussion leading to this essay can be found at Sarah (SV)'s talk page here, with the original idea stemming from this recent ANI. (Although the link you provide is of interest too, in that it shows a list of bullet points exemplifying the subject of the essay in question, which happen to be edits made by Formerly98.) petrarchan47 t c 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS AN UNSIGNED RESPONSE BY ESSAY AUTHOR ATSME AND NOT PART OF THE NOMINIATION)

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

COI statement
I fully support and adhere to Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy. I abstain from editing articles in which I might reasonably be perceived by others to have a conflict of interest or objectivity issue if they knew my personal details. This includes both situations in which I have a financial interest and those in which I might have emotional bias, such as articles covering former employers. I hold a Ph.D. in chemistry, and have worked as a medicinal chemist at several biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. The most recent of these positions ended nearly a decade ago and all of these companies are now defunct.
In my personal life I am a strong proponent of several causes, including pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches to reducing malaria, dengue, and other tropical diseases. I've worked as a foster parent and have a strong interest in domestic violence. I tend to stay away from these articles on Wikipedia, in part to avoid issues of WP:ADVOCACY.

(END OF UNSIGNED RESPONSE BY ATSME)

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

Mentioned Elsewhere

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

Also at

Should get a nice wide consensus here then! Alexbrn (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SURVEY

~~OPPOSE~~ KEEP - and respectfully request that this AfD be removed immediately, and that Formerly 98 be reminded that his behavior here ironically demonstrates some of the issues mentioned in the essay he just proposed for deletion. While we appreciate his knowledge, expertise and contributions to the encyclopedia, he does not hold a trump card over other editors. Perhaps he should read this essay as well as some of the related essays, beginning with WP:COI, and WP:ADVOCACY. Hopefully he won't be proposing any of them as AfD as well. Atsme☯^Consult 04:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it runs counter to the aims of our Project, as the nominator explains. Alternatively, rename it to WP:TINFOIL and/or WP:REDSUNDERTHEBED and leave it (with a suitable hat note) as a kind of exemplar of a bad essay and conspiracist thinking to guide editors on how not to partipate on Wikipedia. (Add: it is just so deliciously ironic that this essay advances the case that "ducks" can be easily identified by a self-appointed corps of COI-finders-general, and then has a lead illustration of a flock - of geese!) Alexbrn (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact that's what Domestic ducks look like. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never! I must eat my words then. Alexbrn (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP/OPPOSE DELETION or USERFY - Problems with COI need to be addressed. The WifiOne case discussed on Jimbo's page here languished for 3 years because not enough was done, jeopardizing the credibility of the encyclopedia from COI editing. This essay is to address such problems. Formerly98 has not been collaborative in making suggestions to improve the essay, but instead simply rejects it outright. This is not a productive approach. Formerly98 needs to make a good faith effort to address any concerns about the essay before taking such an all-or-nothing approach. The same applies to User:Alexbrn who also has shown no interest in improving the essay. Userfy is a much better remediation to concerns raised arguing for deletion. The essay is in my opinion more in the draft stage rather than publication stage, so more work is warranted before publication if that is how essays typically proceed. (I have never dealt with user essays before and I do not know the steps of the process, but I did think the publication of the essay was premature without more feedback.) However, I am again greatly troubled that those who take issue with the essay have not first made efforts to propose constructive criticism and instead bash good faith efforts to address the kind of COI we found with WifiOne. Solving the serious problems of COI is not done by sweeping the problems and all proposed solutions under the rug and allowing the status quote COI behavior to continue. I urge that everyone who says this essay should be deleted make good faith efforts to be very specific about how to improve the essay and propose real solutions. David Tornheim (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC) (revised 14:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)).[reply]
- Yeah, because poorly-conceived essays like this really help to "address such problems" as with WifiOne. (Clue: that was actually addressed by meticulous hard work and presentation of evidence, not hand-waving about editors that seem too keen on policy). Alexbrn (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I created a COMMENT section below. Please restrict future comments to that section. Thank you. Atsme☯^Consult 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is stuff we can do about COI but this is not it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I stated above, I would like to see constructive criticism of the essay on the talk page of the article rather than this rush to Judgment. David Tornheim (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I look forward to the next essay collaboration by the same authors, "Problems in the Big Pharma Cheque delivery system" -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 08:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just noting the obvious fact that I support my own proposal. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 09:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Essay does not contain good evidence. It appears to promote the use of poor quality sources and hinders those trying to promote the use of high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete it lacks logic and objectivity--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely incoherent and actively unhelpful to anybody trying to navigate the murky waters in which the "ducks" purportedly swim. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think JzG says it best. This page confuses, obscures, and hinders the effective ways of determining who has a conflict of interest and making sure that Wikipedia pages follow Wikipedia policy. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soapy coat. The essay is obviously written from the perspective of a group of editors who want to incorporate unverified and unreliable content into Wikipedia that is either pseudoscientific, promotional of alternative medicine ideas, or both. This muddies the water and opposes a number of policies and guidelines on this site and therefore should be removed and the writers trouted. jps (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy I think the essay is largely nonsense, and lists behaviour that all regular medical editors do, and most good ones in other fields. I'm not quite sure what grounds for deletion of an essay are, & this could remain in userspace. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I think the author of this essay was premature in establishing it as an essay before getting feedback. It is too broad-brush and fails to make an effective case. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to clarify, I am a former paid editor. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - for those saying "userfy" there already is a draft is userspace whence this came - see here (last dif blanked it - see the history and its talk page). This is really about deleting the essay. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JzG, who summarizes in a few words what I am about to expand further: this present essay deals incompetently with only one type of coi problem, what we have normally called Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing--as explained in that excellent long-standing essay. In contrast, this one deals with the problem in a way that does not helpfully distinguish constructive from unconstructive editing behavior--people trying to maintain a neutral POV use similar arguments, and use them much more frequently that the POV pushers do. POV pushing by a group of paid advocates for a single POV that are not obviously socks is rather rare; true believers are much more common and characteristically concentrate on nationalistic or ideological topics. The big pharma situation is a special case, and there I would rely completely on DocJames's view that this essay is not how to deal with them--dealing with them requires actually knowing the science in order to identify false arguments and misleading references. Most paid COI editing is by single paid editors who are trying to promote a company or whitewash its reputation, and are usually best distinguished by the actual content of their edits, rather than their arguments. (And even here, allowance is needed for those good-faith editors who want to write about a company and assume that the typical COI article is the model for how to do it, because that's most of what they see on Wikipedia.)
delete and salt I work the WP:COIN board and am on the ground dealing with COI issues every day here in WP. There are behavioral signs of COI editing, but none of them are described in this essay. This essay grew out of a comment by SV here (in a section about my putative COI) recommending that we lower the bar for pursuing editors with claims of COI. This specific realization of that idea, is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP (see here) and is an example of why lowering the bar is a terrible idea. People fling changes of COI way too easily in content disputes. We don't need to feed that unfortunate tendency. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENTS

Comment - this MfD request is a knee jerk reaction by its opponents considering the request was initiated the same day the essay was added to mainspace, and without any prior discussion with its author or other editors involved in its creation. To my knowledge as creator of this essay, there has not been any GF attempts to improve the article by any of those who are now criticizing it, most of which is unwarranted blanket criticism that lacks the quality needed to delete the work of another editor. One of the first questions our deletion guidelines ask is if there were any attempts to improve the article? The answer is clearly a resounding no with regards to its opponents. I also ask that any editor who participates in this survey to please make known potential COI with any of the topics mentioned in the essay. What I'm seeing now is a beehive attack with unwarranted blanket statements of criticism, some of which are not even supported in the essay, and are clearly POV. When statements like this [1] appear on the TP of an article that is heavily debated, it justifies the need for this essay and the clarity it brings to the issues. There is a recurring problem on WP as the essay brings to light. It did not just appear in mainspace without extensive discussion as implied in some of the comments above. In fact, the essay was born on the Talk Page of (SV) beginning here: March 30, 2015 and continued through a lengthy discussion with a break here: [2] and continued for a few days thereafter. The content was also open to discussion while in my sandbox prior to coming to mainspace User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery. Coretheapple, you were actually pinged during the discussions here [3]. The broad brush approach you mentioned here [4] is actually more descriptive of the beehive approach we are experiencing here now. Atsme☯^Consult 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 * comment - for those saying "userfy" there already is a draft is userspace whence this came - see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery here] (last dif blanked it - see the history and its talk page).  This is really about deleting the essay. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' per JzG, who summarizes  in a few words what I am about to expand further: this present essay deals incompetently with only one type of coi problem, what we have normally called [[Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing]]--as explained in that excellent long-standing essay.  In contrast, this one deals with the problem in a way that does not helpfully distinguish constructive from unconstructive editing behavior--people trying to maintain a neutral POV use similar arguments, and use them much more frequently that the POV pushers do. POV pushing by a group of paid advocates for a single POV that are not obviously socks is rather rare; true believers  are much more common  and characteristically concentrate on nationalistic or ideological topics. The big pharma situation is a special case, and there I would rely completely on DocJames's view that this essay is not how to  deal with them--dealing with them requires actually knowing the science in order to identify false arguments and misleading references. Most paid COI editing is by single paid editors who are trying to promote a company or whitewash its reputation, and are usually best distinguished by the actual content of their edits, rather than their arguments. (And even here, allowance is needed for those good-faith editors who want to write about a company and assume that the typical COI article is the model for how  to do it, because that's most of what they see on Wikipedia.)
+*'''delete and salt''' I work the [[WP:COIN]] board and am on the ground dealing with COI issues every day here in WP.  There ''are'' behavioral signs of COI editing, but none of them are described in this essay. This essay grew out of a comment by SV [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=653939988&oldid=653938702 here] (in a section about my putative COI) recommending that we lower the bar for pursuing editors with claims of COI. This specific realization of that idea, is actually an effort to create a tool to allow COI to be used as a cudgel to get FRINGE health claims into WP (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASlimVirgin&diff=654923474&oldid=654885765 here]) and is an example of why lowering the bar is a terrible idea. People fling changes of COI way too easily in content disputes.  We don't need to feed that unfortunate tendency. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 15:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 <!--add comments below -->
 ======COMMENTS======
 *Comment - this MfD request is a knee jerk reaction by its opponents considering the request was initiated the same day the essay was added to mainspace, and without any prior discussion with its author or other editors involved in its creation.  To my knowledge as creator of this essay, there has not been any GF attempts to improve the article by any of those who are now criticizing it, most of which is unwarranted blanket criticism that lacks the quality needed to delete the work of another editor.  One of the first questions our deletion guidelines ask is if there were any attempts to improve the article?  The answer is clearly a resounding '''no''' with regards to its opponents.  I also ask that any editor who participates in this survey to please make known potential COI with any of the topics mentioned in the essay.  What I'm seeing now is a beehive attack with unwarranted blanket statements of criticism, some of which are not even supported in the essay, and are clearly POV.  When statements like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organic_food&diff=642670065&oldid=642669844] appear on the TP of an article that is heavily debated, it justifies the need for this essay and the clarity it brings to the issues.  There '''is''' a recurring problem on WP as the essay brings to light.  It did not just appear in mainspace without extensive discussion as implied in some of the comments above.  In fact, the essay was born on the Talk Page of {{u|SlimVirgin| (SV)}} beginning here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=654256883&oldid=654256518 March 30, 2015] and continued through a lengthy discussion with a break here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=654703072&oldid=654697182] and continued for a few days thereafter.  The content was also open to discussion while in my sandbox prior to coming to mainspace [[User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery]].  {{u|Coretheapple}}, you were actually pinged during the discussions here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SlimVirgin&diff=654069292&oldid=654050698].  The broad brush approach you mentioned here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Integrity&diff=prev&oldid=654909823] is actually more descriptive of the beehive approach we are experiencing here now.  <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font><font color="gold">&#9775;</font>[[User talk:Atsme|<font color="green"><sup>Consult</sup></font>]] 15:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)