Wikipedia:COI List

This is a failed proposal.

Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.

Shortcut

WP:COILIST

This page in a nutshell:

Wikipedia prohibits the posting of personal information about other editors, as a form of harassment.
A special mailing list is to be created, for the purpose of privately submitting evidence in investigations of conflict of interest and undisclosed paid editing.
Consequently, such investigations can be conducted efficiently, but without ever needing to post personal information on-site.

Proposal: To create a new Functionaries mailing list, for the purpose of privately submitting evidence that cannot be posted on-site because of the policy against outing, to be used in investigations of conflict of interest (COI) and undisclosed paid editing.

Scope

Evidence that may be submitted must satisfy all of the following criteria:

It must be directly and exclusively related to an investigation of conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing, that has been opened at the conflict of interest noticeboard.
It must meet the definition of personal information about the editor(s) being investigated.
It must not in any way be posted on-site at Wikipedia.
It must further the investigation in a substantive, and not incidental, manner.
It must not be used to further a dispute between editors, to influence a content dispute, or in any way other than the orderly investigation of conflict of interest editing where there is a financial or business interest on the part of the investigated editor(s).

Any submission that fails to meet all of these criteria will be declined, and repeated or bad-faith submission of inappropriate material will result in sanctions according to the harassment policy.

Membership

Membership on the COI email list shall be limited to current members in good standing of the Functionaries mailing list. Membership shall be voluntary. Because the COI mailing list will not be dealing with urgent matters, it is not necessary for the list to be continuously monitored.

This proposal shall have no effect on the criteria for appointing Functionaries, or on the criteria for evaluating continuing activity. No Functionary shall be appointed or retained for the primary purpose of participating on the email list. Participation is to be secondary to the existing responsibilities of Functionaries.

Evidence submission

Before submitting any evidence to the mailing list, you are responsible for making sure that it satisfies all of the criteria listed above in Scope.

Open a discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard about the alleged conflict of interest.
State that "evidence has been [or will be] submitted privately". You may name the usernames of the editor(s) involved and the page(s) or topic areas involved, and say that "there may be a conflict of interest", but do not state anything more about the nature of the private evidence, and do not make any statement that violates the harassment policy.
You are free to discuss information that the editor(s) have voluntarily posted on Wikipedia, that has not subsequently been redacted, but do not allude to how it relates to any private information.
Send an email to [email address for the list], concisely stating your evidence, and providing a link to the specific section of the noticeboard where the discussion is taking place. Do not include superfluous information, and do not denigrate the editor(s) you are reporting. Just provide the information in an objective and businesslike manner.

You are solely responsible for making sure that the computer from which you send the email is appropriately secure, and that no one may access the private information from your computer or email account in an unauthorized way.
Under no circumstances may you send this email to other Wikipedia editors, or discuss the evidence with other editors privately, or post about the evidence at other websites. If it is discovered that you have done so, you may be sanctioned according to the harassment policy.
You are not permitted to submit the evidence to an administrator, instead of to the designated email address. Administrators who receive such messages must immediately and completely delete the emails from their computers and email accounts.

Procedures

Any Functionary in good standing who has volunteered to join the mailing list may evaluate and respond to emails that are received. All procedures should be followed with careful attention to minimizing the risk of compromising the security of the mailing list and the confidential information that it contains. Subscribers to the mailing list who do not handle a particular email must never retain that email on their own computers or email accounts; delete such messages immediately and completely. Likewise, discussions on the mailing list among Functionaries should not be retained if they contain or link to private information.

First, determine whether or not the message complies with the requirements listed above at Scope. If the message is non-compliant: (1) reply to the editor who sent it that it has been "declined", giving the reasons, (2) if there is already a section at a noticeboard, post the word Declined in that section, without providing further information, and (3) immediately and completely delete the email from your computer, your email account, and any WMF systems. You may consider sanctions against the editor sending the message if there is repeated inappropriate messaging after a warning, or evidence of bad faith.
If the message is in-scope, evaluate whether it is likely to be correct or incorrect in supporting the allegation of a conflict of interest or paid editing. In particular, consider whether it is likely or unlikely that the off-site information actually corresponds to the editor(s) being investigated, or may actually be someone else. If you discover any information that has been inappropriately posted on-site, make sure that it is oversighted promptly.
If you believe that the evidence is unconvincing, post the words Not likely or Inconclusive at the noticeboard discussion. Do not make a definite statement about guilt or innocence; just refer to likelihood. Then immediately and completely delete the email from your computer, your email account, and any WMF systems. You may explain your reasoning via email back to the submitting editor.
If you believe that the evidence is material and convincing, post the word Likely at the noticeboard discussion. Do not make a definite statement about guilt or innocence; just refer to likelihood. Do not describe the nature of the evidence. If appropriate, you may take further actions, such as oversighting edits, deleting content, or enacting page protection. Unless there is an urgent need to do so, you should not block any accused editors. Instead, simply post your finding of likelihood and allow the normal on-site processes to proceed.
After a finding of "likely", you must prepare an anonymyzed version of the email that you received, removing all identifying information, and forward it to the editor(s) who are accused, so that they may understand the basic nature of the evidence against them and be able to appeal if they wish to do so. In particular, consider the possibility that you might be sending personal information about a third party to an editor who was misidentified, and redact private information accordingly. If the editor(s) do not have email enabled, place a message on their talk page(s), inviting them to email you. Once you have sent these emails, you must immediately and completely delete all of the emails from your computer, your email account, and any WMF systems.

Appeals

An editor who believes that a finding about them of "likely" is incorrect may appeal the finding via email. Normally, the first appeal should be to the Functionary who made the finding, followed if necessary by an email to [email address for list], or to the Arbitration Committee.