Archives

Threads older than 18 days may be archived by MiszaBot II. Search above, or see also the merged page's 2006 archive.

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

• Davis, Michael and Stark, Andrew (eds.). Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001.
• Krimsky, Sheldon. "The Ethical and Legal Foundations of Scientific 'Conflict of Interest'", in Trudo Lemmings and Duff R. Waring (eds.), Law and Ethics in Biomedical Research: Regulation, Conflict of Interest, and Liability, University of Toronto Press, 2006.
• Lo, Bernard and Field, Marilyn J. (eds.). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice, National Academies Press, 2009.
• Stark, Andrew. Conflict of Interest in American Public Life, Harvard University Press, 2003.

The following new addition removed as questionable:

"Do not work outside the advice provided here and hound the conflicted editor in Talk pages across the project, which can boomerang and can lead to sanctions against you."

First, what the heck is "Do not work outside"? I may work wherever I want, unless against wikipedia goals and major policies. Second, accusation is wikihounding cannot stop me to watch over a COI person. This the whole purpose of the discussed disclosure: a paied editor requires extra scrutiny, even if AGF and all. If I am abusive, you have prove it, not vice versa. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. There is no reasonable basis for the additions, which undermined the ability of editors to police conflicts of interest. They placed restrictions upon editors that were completely unreasonable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please read discussions in the three sections directly above. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did read. And this reading prevented me from knee-jerk reaction to revert the whole addition and limit myself to the encroachment of my rights to protect wikipedia from spam. This policy is supposed to restrict COI POV-pushers, not me. If and when anti-COI vigilantes go amok, then we will think how to deal with this new abuse. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have no rights on Wikipedia - at all. Period. Dot. WMF has decided that it is harassment to out a user and doing so, whether you suspect a COI or not, is going to get you blocked. You may follow the approved channels, only, and take private information to Arbcom. That is what is meant by that line.--v/r - TP 02:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrry, I am not native English speaker. Are you being ironic? If a community of contributors has no rights in wikipedia and more than 300 major editors will feel this way, aren't we running off the cliff into a major schism fork? When Jimbo was "benevolent dictator", he had certain moral rights of a pioneer. But somehow I don't feel that WMF inherited these rights. Besides, you know, monopoly is a screwed thing, even if based on noble ideas. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no irony. You have no legal or otherwise rights to this encyclopedia. Each time you hit the "submit" button, you waive even your own copyright rights to your contributions. You just have none. There can be no encroachment on your 'right' to protect Wikipedia because that 'right' doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 22:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Staszek meant "ability" not "legal right," so there's no need to bite his head off over this. Coretheapple (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably right, but after patrolling ANI for so many years, 'my rights' just makes me shake my head.--v/r - TP 01:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Staszek Lem I understand where you are coming from. But please understand that there are strong feelings on many sides of the paid editing issues. People who have been worried about policies like the new ToU - which are a significant chunk of the community - have valid concerns. One concern, is that if an editor discloses a COI or paid contribution, other editors will follow the conflicted editor around the project and will attack the conflicted editor -- that others will focus on "contributor, not content" which is a bad thing. We are a community and we have a responsibility to at least try to see each other's point of view and to actually try to find ways to work together. Now that we have stronger disclosure requirements, it makes sense that we have stronger warnings against outing, personal attacks, and harassment. We all need to focus on content, not contributors. Yes it is fine to scrutinize a conflicted editors contributions, but it is not OK to attack and hound the conflicted editor, personally. Right? Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it is, paid/COI editors who have done great damage to the project invariably cry "harassment" when their depredations are countered. What you are proposing makes it harder to deal with the problem, and gives more tools to bad-faith COI editors and more roadblocks in the path of volunteer editors seeking to curb their disruption. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i don't agree with what you write above nor the rhetoric in your edit notes, but i am fine with the actual changes you made to the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is right. I have also changed the language at the top of the page to conform with what I and everybody else agreed to at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I agreed to certain language, all of us did, and now it is there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not agree to any language that said I was paid to edit. I agreed to language that said I had a conflict of interest. I've reverted your unilateral changes - someday I hope you will learn that you shouldn't WP:BEBOLD on controversial changes which you know are going to be opposed.--v/r - TP 02:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed[1] to the precise language that I have just inserted at the top. We all agreed to it, including you. I have put it back up as it is what I agreed to, and as honorable people we keep our promises, and that includes administrators.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insert the links to the disclosures that were in the original language, even though we all agreed to them, in the interest of comity and to put an end to this matter. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For rhetoric I apologize. I am not native English speaker, so my texts are blunt, unfortunately. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is kind of you to apologize.  :) Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I basically agree with Staszek, even if I would express it differently. I think the recently added sentences which Staszek removed or qualified do not have consensus, at least. I think I agree with most of what Jytdog added, though. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One example of standard behaviour which those sentences would seem to limit would be G11 CSD filings. The sentences [2] say that one should not go beyond the advice given for dealing with paid contributions. It also says that it is "generally unwise" to make accusations of paid contributions without a disclosure from the editor. Filings for CSD G11 are almost always accusations of paid contributions: That's exactly what is being claimed—that the editor is including "Unambiguous advertising". And these filings are never made on the basis of a disclosure from an editor. It's rather more or less the "duck" test. And the practice is certainly beyond the advice given. G11 CSD filings are very common; I can't quite tell how many I've filed myself, however.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor in this discussion had read the recently added material, perhaps they could've avoided a block. This is existing practice by the wider community. Practice is dictates policy. Policy does not dictate practice. Don't include it if you don't want to, doesn't mean the folks at ANI arn't still going to block editors who throw around COI accusations w/o evidence the first time if neccessary.--v/r - TP 05:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atethnekos thanks for the reasonable discussion. The stuff I added in cases where there is not explicit self-disclosure says "consider going to WP:NPOVN" and in my mind, CSD G11 is indeed about content (not contributor) - it specifically references WP:NPOV. The section of the guidance on not explicit self-disclosure also does the leave the door open to going to COIN. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this guideline is to curb COI editing, not to curb enforcement of the guideline. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figure I don't agree. This guideline tells the whole community what constitutes COI, how people with a COI should act, and provides guidance to the community how to handle possible or actual COI. There are appropriate ways to handle it, and inappropriate ways to handle it. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The preexisting language is fine. I realize that you were unfairly naggged for COI, but that would have happened no matter what kind of language exists in this guideline. You went overboard in your language. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this guideline is to describe community practice in handling conflicts of interest. It is not to make up new rules, it is not to limit it to just a certain topic. It is a reflection of community practice. If community practice is to discourage outing and harassment when accusations of conflicts of interest are made, community practice should be reflected here. If there are any doubts about that, read WP:Policies and guidelines which exactly describes what policies and guidelines are.--v/r - TP 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community practice that forbids outing and hounding is covered in the corresponding policies. No need to repeat it repeatedly and verbosely and threateningly in each and every other guideline. A brief reminder would suffice. This was basically the point of my change. Otherwise the changed policy section became full of threats against me and ridiculously pussyfooting around paid editors. (I am fine with the current version.) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin, Jytdog, and Dank: Hey guys, where are we on this RFC? Are we moving forward?--v/r - TP 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm out, TP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that based on the inability to generate any kind of consensus (by editors who actually understand some of this stuff) around what an RFC might ask is that there's no real need for one. We have a Wikipedia policy on disclosure of paid contributions. It is codified in the TOU. What remains to be accomplished is the establishment of some reasonable guidelines around preferred disclosure process, etc. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up. The rancorous and unproductive discussion among the few editors who tried to draft an RfC left me even more convinced that WP is incapable of governing itself on COI issues. My suggestion for avoiding the dead end - to entrust someone to draft and post an RfC - was not taken up. I really don't know how to proceed.Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, am I free to assume that trying to develop consensus on RFC wording failed because of a few who filibustered and I should proceed with my original intent of filing an RFC by myself? Would you oppose me using your own proposal?--v/r - TP 23:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are asking me in particular but I will answer for me. What i had hoped is that everyone would agree to step back and allow a trusted noninvolved editor (or admin) lead a process to obtain community consensus on confirming the ToU or putting something definitive in its place as our "alternative disclosure policy". You withdrew your original RfC, which I am still grateful for, and you are free in my eyes to do as you will now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TParis, it's not something I'd have an interest in initiating, but I posted a draft here of an RfC with just one question. Anyone is free to run with it (or any other). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... I'm very surprised, but I'm back in. The new Arbcom case involving the Foundation and RfCs means that I don't have to be making judgments on things that are far above my paygrade, I'll follow whatever guidance comes from that case. FWIW, I'd recommend waiting a week (till the evidence phase is over) before filing an RfC ... even better would be to wait until the workshop phase is over, which might be 3 weeks. I apologize that I was slow on the uptake earlier; I've done better with past RfCs, and I'll try to do better with this one. I completely understand SV's reservations about my lack of distance ... but now I can let Arbcom deal with those tough questions where I might have had a hard time finding the neutral path. As always, I'm open to any suggestions that I might not be the right person for the job. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the pertinence of that arbitration case? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'll encourage the voters to vote on the issues and not "for" or "against" the Foundation, but for the closer(s), the Arbcom case is pertinent. It's possible the Foundation will disagree with my close ... given the votes last November, it's way too early to prejudge the outcome. If you read what's been written in that Arbcom case so far, you'll see that there's a track record of awkwardness in similar situations. I don't think anyone ... including me ... would have been happy if I had tried to handle that kind of conflict myself, that's clearly in Arbcom territory. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked is because there is no dispute that we have the explicit right to create a different COI policy than the one stated in the TOU. So I do not see a conflict with the Foundation here, nor any effort by the Foundation to directly intervene with its personnel as in the arbitration case. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't see any connection between that case and an RfC about the ToU. Holding RfCs to determine alternative disclosure policies was the Foundation's idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Foundation said anything about RfCs but did not prohibit them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys aren't seeing the intervention because, in the other cases, it came after the RfC, not before. We won't know till it's over. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the preliminary statement by 28Bytes indicates an action that just does not seem within the realm of possibility here. Even if it were to happen, how does that affect what we do now? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't affect what voters do now or during the RfC (hopefully). My preference would be not to say why I think the odds are higher that they may intervene after the fact, because my opinions might influence someone's vote. If it bothers anyone that I brought it up to the point where they think I might not being doing a good job, I'll tell you the things I was concerned about that caused me to withdraw earlier (but that aren't a concern for me, now that other people are dealing with these things in another place). - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you brought it up, though I'm still not quite "getting" it. I will look closer at that arbcom case. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia's Terms of Use were updated on 16 June 2014 and included, in Section 14, a prohibition on paid contributions without disclosure. The opening section of the FAQ page notes: "Some contributors do receive payment for their edits. These contributors improve the overall quality of the projects when they edit with a neutral point of view ... On the other hand, paid advocacy editing - i.e. paid editing of articles to promote companies, products, and services - is strongly discouraged or banned on most, if not all, the projects."

An ANI complaint has been started over a series of edits I carried out at A2 milk—an article that was a low-quality stub. I was paid a fee to edit the article to improve it, and have posted a disclosure notice at my user page. The intention was not to promote the product and at that ANI I have described the context in which I began. I am now accused by several editors of trying to inject a promotional tone, although the editor who lodged the ANI, User:Stalwart111, has since agreed[3] the article is not now promotional — an achievement reached fairly rapidly through the normal collaboration process and mainly due to the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing. (Once he left it all turned to shit).

So here's my difficulty: I have honestly attempted to work within the rules on paid editing. Though I don't attempt to promote A2 milk, other editors have seen this as an issue of Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. The ANI has now produced a proposal for a topic ban on A2 milk. Given the long-standing antipathy towards paid editing, it strikes me that any kind of paid editing, however well intended and though within the Terms of Use, could be interpreted as paid advocacy, PR and marketing. Those taking the high moral ground will always assert that someone in my position is driven by a requirement or agenda to promote, which in a discussion board where the hounds are baying for blood, is a position rather hard to fight.

In short, the rules may allow paid editing, but the community may not. If that's the case, why have the rule? Is there in fact a need for a better forum than ANI in which to examine claims of paid advocacy? I'd appreciate some thoughts. BlackCab (TALK) 05:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the New York Times' handbook for their employees, "Ethical Journalism", they say: "34. Staff members may not accept employment or compensation of any sort from individuals or organizations who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise." Pretty much all respectable publishers have a policy like this. And for good reason: Such conflicts of interest destroy the trust of readers. Some people who are tempted to make some amount of money in such a way rationalize their behaviour with the thought that they are not promoting, that they are just hired to write neutrally about the topic, and that that is all they will do. This is of course rejected by the experts who have studied the effects of conflicts of interest: No one is immune, even when one is not consciously aware of being affected by their conflict of interest (Moore & Loewenstein 2004 [4])

This seems to be exactly what has happened in this case. One person does not understand why everyone else who has looked at the edits has judged them to be paid advocacy. To quote Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

My advice would be to follow the recommendation of this guideline, which says that we should not make such edits. We shouldn't make such edits: It's wrong because it hurts this encyclopedia. It's not a bad faith action which makes it wrong, it's just well-documented human psychology as Moore & Loewenstein note. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• BlackCab, you've conveniently paraphrased that section from the FAQ. It reads:

However, some contributors do receive payment for their edits. These contributors improve the overall quality of the projects when they edit with a neutral point of view. This includes many contributors associated with institutions such as universities, galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. On the other hand, paid advocacy editing - i.e. paid editing of articles to promote companies, products, and services - is strongly discouraged or banned on most, if not all, the projects.

You don't work for a museum or art gallery - you work for a public relations and media management firm for whom the company in question is a major client. Your employer is not some benevolent institution seeking to expand Wikipedia for the good of humankind. It's a multinational corporation with a commercial agenda. And that's fine - you're still not prevented from contributing using the same requested edit templates as every other COI editor (my talk page archives are littered with requests from COI editors with whom I have a good working relationship). But no matter how many times that is explained to you, you continue to think of yourself as being part of some special third category where you can do what you want and everyone else is wrong. Then you started edit-warring. So I asked for you to be topic-banned. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts (see talk header) are that we do have a better forum, WP:COIN; COI editing is never to be punishable in itself but only as an aggravating factor of other punishable behavior; the transparency of the disclosure should be considered to determine how aggravating the factor is. The theory is that the community will not prevent paid editing when the disclosed editor pursues the highest standards of editing (almost the bright line), but the practice is somewhat lacking and needs time to be worked out. Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Stalwart111 correctly pointed out at ANI, your edits were in fact promotional. Paid editing is really superfluous to this discussion. You used Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Coming here and making your supposedly "neutral" edits a paid editing issue is disingenuous. If you hadn't disclosed, editors would still rightly assume in their own minds (even if they could not say so outright) that your sudden passion for this brand of milk was not based upon chugging it down, but compensation. Yes, we must assume good faith, but we are not stupid. If anything, there would be a greater feeling for a topic ban, as people would feel, in their heart of hearts, that you were not coming clean. That would be the case whether or not the TOU required disclosure. No, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, one cannot and should not persecute or hound people who are paid editors. But when editors act as advocates, whether they admit that they are paid or not, they are going to be topic-banned. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? On first offense, as judged by advocacy watchers only, after nearly 10,000 edits, and while trying to make reparations? A topic ban would shut down discussion of a content issue where there is not consensus and would not stop any paid editing in any other area. The new paradigm is that WP works with COI editors, including working with them if they fail the highest standards. But little of this discussion relates to this page. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Advocacy watchers"? No, the correct description is "editors with no connection to the subject." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figureofnine, how much time did you spend looking at the diffs yourself? It's never safe to assume that any participant in a dispute that's reached ANI is giving you the complete picture. Even if they're acting in perfectly good faith, they're only going to tell you about what they think is "relevant", which is never what the other person did right. Speaking only for myself, I have a hard time understanding how a catalog of one company after another getting into legal trouble or going bankrupt is "promotional": it sounds like most business partners of BlackCab's employer's client are cursed.

I haven't got the time to follow that dispute; it's unfortunately just one of many on my watchlist. I'm more concerned with the behavior, i.e., wholesale reversions of well-sourced changes because one portion of the changes did not meet our most stringent sourcing guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the description of "advocacy watchers." It describes the issue perfectly. Busy bodies who spend too much time trying to find problems based on a false believe that paid editing equates to paid advocacy. That might be the first line of a new upcoming essay.--v/r - TP 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was an obvious reference to me because I happen to have also taken an active role in an AFD about a promotional article Frieda Beamy wrote; the suggestion being that I lurk somewhere under a wiki-bridge waiting for a tasty COI goat to innocently wander past. Um no - I participate in a couple of AFDs a day (often more) and I found my way to A2 milk via WP:FTN. Besides which, I didn't revert those initial edits - an editor with a history at that article did. Much of what was being included had been discussed on the talk page previously. Like WhatamIdoing, I don't have an issue with the addition of corporate background and the details of bankruptcies. But it's disingenuous to suggest that's all the edit aimed to do. In restoring the "uncontroversial" material, WhatamIdoing added back only 17k of a 53k byte promotional edit. 35k bytes of disputed promotional nonsense wasn't restored - about 2/3 of what BC originally tried to insert into the article. I have no issue with paid editing, in fact I have a track record of helping COI editors make requested edits to corporate and non-corporate articles. Guidelines have been established to allow COI editors to contribute effectively and 99% of openly declared conflicted editors comply. BC believes they are not required to do so. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the ToU is BC not complying with? And BC may have made it in reference to you, but I had others in mind. I've never known you to be a busy body, Stalwart.--v/r - TP 01:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Frieda Beamy made the reference, but anyway. It's not a matter of compliance with the declaration portion of the ToU. The ToU FAQ states - "paid editing of articles to promote companies, products, and services - is strongly discouraged or banned on most, if not all, the projects." It makes it clear that the question of compliance or not is a matter for the projects. In this case, EN:WP; in this case, WP:NOPAY. The ToU requires only declaration. EN:WP goes further. It's not enough just to have a valid license from Massachusetts - you still need to comply with the speed limit in Pennsylvania if that's where you want to drive. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologized for the phrasing, which came from an old name, and was intended to apply to the three editors who had supported the topic ban, although I probably should not have generalized from Stalwart's two cases to "watching" and had no such fairy tale in mind.

I don't think paid editing is limited to just paid advocacy here, and GLAM and Reward Board there. The idea of ethical paid editing is that you don't edit as a representative but as an independent Wikipedian who is taking up some interesting subject on the prompting of an outside party; that's the goal anyway, though many fall short, especially the first time. So I'm having trouble connecting the dots between "paid advocates may edit talk" and Stalwart's idea that topic ban improves things or that NOPAY is stronger than the TOU. I am interested to see whether I am misunderstanding NOPAY. Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's "stronger" - it's another step further. The ToU simply requires declaration; WP:NOPAY also suggests declaration and additionally specifies "you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral" but that such editors "may use the article talk page". I have, from the start, only asked that BC comply with those guidelines. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my obtusity, but in the boxquote above the TOU FAQ says the same thing as NOPAY about "strongly discouraged" ("very" adds nothing), so NOPAY should be regarded as no stronger. Also NOPAY does not forbid direct editing, the bright line would do that, but it's not the guideline here. (Now, Stalwart, if you're simply a WP:BRIGHTLINE advocate and you didn't realize that it wasn't policy, I apologize, but I don't think that's what happened with your reading of NOPAY.) BlackCab may have made some simple errors and backed down from them, and for your part this is exactly the right page for getting clarifications about what COI means, so I am very hopeful for a good outcome here. Frieda Beamy (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the agreement on the header disclosure text as drafted by User:Jytdog. I agree with there being a header but I don't agree with its being so large and repetitive and I thought a permanent top section would have been better as originally proposed. Please also see edit summaries on my bold cutback and Figureofnine's reversion. Figureofnine agreed with my edit but feels the text should be left alone.

I am going ahead with recombining and styling the two boxes without text changes. I think the sentence "The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page.", the repetition of the COI quote (instead of simply "the obligation quoted above"), and "Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure:" are overmuch. (I also swapped "paid editor" with "paid to edit", which is what COI says and is subtly different, but I see Figureofnine is right that an editor implied preference for the ambiguous version instead.) I would trim more, but we can start talking with that. Everyone in the previous discussion should still be around. Has it been an eyesore long enough yet? Frieda Beamy (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with the standard "connected contributor" box or the one I drafted over at COIN. The big clunkiness of mine comes from the extra text intended to warn editors against abusing the disclosure, not to highlight the disclosure! :) But really either way is fine with me. It was FigureofNine who swapped the standard box that CorporateM had installed, for the one I drafted, not me. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I have now also cut back redundancy in the archives section without losing anything significant, which does a great deal for appearance. If I were suggesting a draft about COI right now it would look like this:

"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." —WP:COI. To satisfy this obligation, new contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be definitive and not speculative. This list is not here to promote personal attacks, outing, or harassment, or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants. Participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid editors, include: BlackCab, CorporateM, Frieda Beamy, TParis.

I don't think connected contributor would work with the large number of connections expected. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I got the ping, but I abstain per WP:COIMICRO. I have already spoken my piece regarding privacy and have no plans of being a regular on this page. Regarding the above, it seems there is a delicate balance between the requirement for disclosure of an act that is itself "very strongly discouraged" therefore any disclosure will lead to "discouragement". CorporateM (Talk) 03:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]