Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

George M. Church

George M. Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am moving here a discussion on my COI/POV and OR objections to Prof Church and his wife Prof Wu being the most substantial contributor's to Prof. Church's article here at the English Wikipedia. The discussion at the BLP noticeboard is not moving in any solid constructive direction. My request that these two editors be asked not to edit this article is not being discussed. The matter that Original Research is required for primary sources to be used to make claims vis-a-vis being first in a scientific discovery is not being discussed. And the fact that such claims, whether based on primary or secondary source, constitute COI and POV issues when the person making the edit is the author of the article (or his wife) is again not being discussed. Instead, focus has been on technical matters, or why I have not just fixed the tens of issues myself. I ask this noticeboard to address the basic claims of COI, OR, and POV issues. Following is the collapsed introduction to the issue, and links to the other discussions that have already taken place.

Extended content

There is a disagreement at George M. Church (see talk page for discussion) that concerns a BLP. Leprof 7272 insists on putting COI/POV tags on the article, despite the fact that the subject has not edited the article since 2007. His partner has edited the article more extensively, lastly in July 2013. The article has been edited in-between and since then by multiple other editors. I note that the simple fact that someone with a COI has edited an article does not necessitate a COI/POV tag, if that person has not edited in a POV manner. There are also "primary sources" and "original research" tags on the article. Despite repeated requests, Leprof 7272 has not given any concrete examples of POV or OR, just stating that these problems are present and resists removal of the tags. The opinions of editors here are welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) R'kitty offers a superb summary of her position, along with a misrepresentation of mine of equal quality. First, note, that I am a strong scientific proponent of the work of Profs Church and Wu, and of their joint work, scientifically and educationally at Harvard. I have no personal or professional bone to pick. I simply believe that Prof Church's and Prof Chao-ting Wu's (his spouse/partner's) populating the largest part of the Church article, personally, has lead to a promotional sense in that Wikipedia article, such that it mis-uses WP as an extension of Prof Church's faculty and other self-managed webpages. And, contrary to R'kitty's statements regarding repeated requests for concrete examples of POV or OR, I have repeatedly made clear (i) that per WP policies, primary sources cannot be used to establish the primacy of a scientific discovery, (ii) that to use them in this way is to conduct OR, and (iii) for a scientist and his partner to populate the vast majority of the article, and to do so with only such attributions to establish the primacy of scientific discovery consitutes, prima facie, a gross COI and POV issue. In addition, I note that there is no mention of anything negative in any material posted by these two (no mention of controversies following any of various statements or writings by Prof. Church). Here, in fact, is the last explicit statement made to R'kitty on this matter: "Let's step back, and begin reading each, what the other writes. I do not claim all tags need ultimately remain, but I do argue that all are currently germane and speak to substantive issues, and so should remain until other interested editors besides us alight on the article to address the matters raised. (Tags are not a means of expressing personal displeasure; they are a means of alerting readers to issues, and drawing WP editor attention, and that is how I am using them.) I make no claim whatsoever about news coverage of the scientist (i.e., that it is [generally] lacking); rather, I claim that what does appear is one-sided, ignoring otherwise clear controversy surrounding the article subject. Then, in re: the actual issue stated with regard to primary sources: To use primary sources to establish primacy of scientific discovery involves, per WP policy, original research (see discussion in re: use of patents and primary sources); when this is done by the article subject and his partner, this constitutes a COI and POV issue. Note, I added the "[generally]" here in clarification; for the original, and further discussion, see [1]. Finally, the thing we do agree on is that "The opinions of editors here [at BLP] are welcome." Very welcome. I encourage editors reading this to skim the Talk page just linked, and to review the Edit Summaries for the article, noting the vast proportion of appearing material introduced en masse by Prof Church and his partner (vs. the relatively minor changes and additions made by others). Then, to examine my claim of the article's—Profs. Church and Wu's—reliance on primary sources to establish Prof. Church in the list of "firsts" that appear, vs. WP policies: WP:REDFLAG ("Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: ... claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest", etc.), WP:PSTS ("All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.", etc.), etc. —regarding the interpretation/OR that appears implicitly in all Church primary source claims. As well, to search the word "controversy" in the article, and then to look in (via Google or other search) on the various controversies that have followed Prof Church's ideas (real or media engendered, re: neanderthal comments to Der Spiegel, ideas in Regenesis, etc.), which, if they appear, receive only a single, positive line or two. Bottom line, we cannot delete self-promotional text/articles offered by small personalities and organizations, but allow them from esteemed ones. The rules are made for everyone. A WP article largely created by the article's subject and his partner, an article that lacks any critical commentary/discussion of others in re: the subject's life and work, and that makes claims for primacy of discovery based on the article subject's primary publications, is, prima facie, a clear case for COI and POV review. I stand by my earlier, opening request at that Talk page, [2], to ask that these two editors no longer contribute to an article that so clearly personally interests them. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Although Leprof 7272's post is very long, she's done an excellent job illustrating the problem. --Randykitty (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion appears, as already cited, at the George M. Church talk page (linked in the Extended content), and here, at the BLP noticeboard, [3]. There, comments by FreeRangeFrog and NinjaRobotPirate are particularly useful (see also my responses). At the original Church Talk page, data are given indicating that more than 65% of all current content originated with Prof Church and his wife, her latest entry contributing about half in 2013. There is occasional whittling away at editorializing and POV matters (e.g., see [4]), but who has time and interest to move the article to objectivity, if these two interested parties contribute so?

Thank you here at COI for your attention to the matter, of the non-independence of a Professor and wife contributing the largest part, and so tone and direction, of the Professor's English WP page. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: There already has been an extensive discussion above and at COIN at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and at the article's talk page, and there is a clear consensus that these attention tags do not belong in this article. If you have any remaining concerns, it would be far more productive fix what ever deficiencies you think are present and move on. Boghog (talk) 05:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of Boghog's attempt to tell this forum what should interest them is addressed below, in response to the substantive content from Keithbob. In re: the singualar "just fix it" point from Boghog: I have addressed this twice already at BLP, and this editor chooses to ignore the argument there, and re-raise the matter here. This is indicative of the bias, wastefulness, and lack of focus on the fundamental issues.

My original proposal — that Profs Church and Wu desist from edits to this family-related WP article — is intended to set the stage, so that the article can indeed move in the direction of objectivity via third part ("just fix it") edits. But first things first. Right now the article is a mix of autobiography and spouse's positive biography, and decidedly non-independent. Whether it is allowed to continue this way — for these two to make intermittent large biographical data dumps that others then have to analyze and deal with — is the COI matter. I again invite editors to address the facts of the case — proportion of non-independent material, reliance on primary sources published by the non-independent editors themselves to make arguments in the article, tone of article as a consequence of these editor's contributions (ignoring media controversies), etc. Once the fundamental problem is addressed, such a "fix it" course can of course be pursued. Until the fundamental issue is addressed — e.g., until WP makes clear that it wants persons other than the subject's family providing the bulk of material for the family article — than the article remains one by and for this family, non-objective as a consequence, and a significant wste of time as a focus of other editors who would wish to contribute. See also above in re: controversies. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue does not belong at COIN. The controversy is about LeProf's overuse of clean up tags which was discussed on the article talk page AND discussed again at length at BLPN [5] where I was first introduced to the issue. From what I've seen most people (including myself) disagrees with LeProf and it appears they are forum shopping. Furthermore, my understanding from the talk page is that the article subject has not edited the article for years.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

First, the matter of fact regarding the involvement of the non-independent parties is misstated by otherwise respected Keithbob; while it is true that Prof Church has not populated his page for several years, Prof Wu (spouse of Prof Church) doubled the size of the article in 2013 (see Talk page at George M. Church for records of their edits). Together, they have contributed >65% of all the accumulated bits of information, but even this is deceptive, because the vast majority of the rest is markup apparatus. In terms of actual biographical content in the article, the vast, vast majority comes from these two non-independent editors. And as repeatedly noted, thier contributions set the purely positive tone and create the Church-promotional nature of the article. (While Prof Church may indeed have discovered/first reported all of the things currently listed in the article, that he or his wife are the ones saying that he did, and based almost entirely on citation of his own published primary sources, should, objectively speaking, constitute a serious issue for WP. It certainly does, on a regular basis, for small, less illustrious enterprises.)

Second, the BLP noticeboard has not dealt with fundamental COI/POV issues, or I would not have taken the matter here; to the extent it has, there is not yet a clear consensus. What consensus seems to be developing regards a negative view of tags — and not the fundamental COI/POV issues raised (see below). Moreover, much discussion there has a decidedly personal, and off-point (and as noted there, involves "followers", such as Launchballer, Boghog, and RHaworth, and not unbiased, objective third-party editors). As a consequence of this personalization — which broadly objects to my tags, and long explanations of the same, and to my relative illiteracy with WP tech like linking — the issues are not receiving due attention. That three editors followed me to this discussion, on an article they have never edited, is not germane to the fundamental questions of Profs Church and Wu (spouse) involvement in Prof Church's page.

Third, in terms of history, it was I that proposed to Randykitty that we take this matter to a Noticeboard; she then selected BLP without discussing with me. As one of the two editors initiating this matter, this would have been, and is, my first choice of Noticeboard; I am not forum shopping. It is up to the participants in this forum to decide if the matter falls under the jurisdiction of this noticeboard, and not for others to circumvent your attention.

Finally, as I have repeatedly and clearly have stated, the issue is not the tags, which I concur can be consolidated, and some removed (later, or sooner). The issue is the fundamental question of whether a Professor and his wife populating the vast majority of content of the Professor's wikipedia article page constitutes COI, given that the populating has set the tone of the article, and has introduced repeated cases where the article essentially says "I discovered..." (with sourcing to the professor's own primary sources). This is the fundamental issue not being addressed at the other Noticeboard, and hence I ask that it be addressed here, where the stated aim of the Noticeboard is to attempt to address such issues. Again, it is up to the participants in this forum to decide if the matter falls under their jurisdiction, and not for others to tell them it is not. Thank you for your kind attention. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is the most important "diff", to show what was added in the 13.8 kb text addition by Prof. Wu (Prof. Church's spouse, see Church article lede) in June 2013‎. Thanks to another editor for making clear the importance of this, and how to best present it to this noticeboard. See: [6]. Here is the diff comparing her contribution, to today's version: [7]. Note, because of changes to citation formatting, the post-Wu contributions seem more significant than they are; the sections misalign in the diff, and indicated changes are substantially to format and referencing. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The above post is clearly forum shopping. Boghog (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The matter of forum shopping is addressed under Third,... above. I began this discussion, yet have no say in which Noticeboard it should be considered? BLPN was not my choice, and it clearly has not produced discussion addressing the fundamental COI/POV issues. Please, consider leaving it to this Noticeboard's participants to decide if they wish to review the matter. Stop ordering others about. I have taken it with humour; others may not. Otherwise declare your bias. Yes, you are an opponent of tagging to mark articles with serious deficiencies. But you also have a continuing personal issue with me, that leads you to follow me about. Please, stay out of the discussion. Can't others at Wikipedia be trusted to find the right, without your pronouncements? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the problem is cannot be seen because there is too much noise concerning some philosophical point regarding an edit made in the past. The only disruption at George M. Church at the moment appears to be coming from an editor who is fighting for a principle—please drop it, as what matters is the article content. It's quite understandable that someone might add material to a bio at a wiki—it's not illegal, and there is no policy or ToU clause that prohibitss it. It's only a problem if an advocate disruptively insists on owning the article, and that does not appear to be happening, except for some pointless bickering over tags. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A contradiction?

I was just noticing that WP:COI says "If you want advice about a potential conflict of interest, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard" however, the description of this noticeboard only says that its purpose is for "determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline." In other words, at WP:COI, we tell editors with a COI to come here for help or advice, but then when they come here, we tell them that the only purpose of this board is for reporting violations. CorporateM (Talk) 21:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:COIN also says "This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period." It would be appropriate to post on WP:COIN if you first tried posting on the article talk page, requesting some edit, and after a week or two, nobody responded. The general idea is not to use the big hammer until other things have failed. John Nagle (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it always appropriate to notify everyone involved?

Note: This section was prompted by User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2014#COIN. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I just got a message on my talk page that I was suppose to notify all the users involved in my report, which was this one: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#SavvyMedia. However, first of all, the vast majority of these accounts are stale by several years. Second, it's obvious in this case that these accounts are not here to contribute. Thirdly, several of them likely are sockpuppets, and we usually don't notify sockpuppet accounts about sockpuppet investigations. Finally, if there is a reasonably possibility of blocks, it's better not to notify so that they don't go on a spamfest before they actually get the block.I don't think it's always appropriate to notify the involved editor. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If you are listing out the names of suspected sockpuppets, you should already be wikilinking to their username anyways so automatic notification. Even if someone is 'not here' that's your assumption (of bad faith even if it is warranted) until the community or admins have determined there is indeed sockpuppetry going on (i.e., leave open the possibility the accusation may not be true). Basically, your first point does have some sense to it (but best to link the account anyways). The remaining points are either irrelevant, or very inappropriate given your last one. Regardless of the behavior issue, the involved editor does need to be notified of a discussion that is discussing them being blocked. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, that's news to me - does a simple wikilink result in a notification? If I post, say, User:Kingofaces43, do you get a notification? I thought I had to use {{reply to}} or {{ping}} or one of those templates. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it does notify them Oiyarbepsy. There are other alert methods like you mentioned, but I like to use this one because when replying to a person, the syntax for it will usually be in the person's signature unless they have some custom formatting. In some cases it is better to leave a template we are provided to put alerts of discussions on user talk pages, but in the cases of many editors especially, just using this alert at a minimum lets the person know they were mentioned. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I guess I was fine, since I did wikilink all of the usernames. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Other contact information

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Other contact information. The main question is whether the WP:OUTING policy should give an example of "other contact information". Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Odesk, etc

I recently became aware of Odesk and I searched it for "wikipedia". I wonder if it would be kosher to post, from time to time, a list of articles requested there, maybe some place like COIN, to alert people that paid editing was likely on those articles, to help us better police undisclosed paid editing. Or maybe that already exists somewhere? Thoughts, in any case? I wasn't even sure where to post this question - this seemed to be a reasonable place.... Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree it would be a good idea to do this. Another thing we could try is requesting that Odesk and Elance take down these types of jobs. I will try to get a hold of people at these organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be amazing. I have wondered why the WMF hasn't contacted these folks and asked them not to use the Wikipedia name... I ~think~ they could do that... not sure. But I am interested to see what other folks think of this. i wouldn't want to create clutter with this sort of listing. Jytdog (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think its a great idea and if their tagged as COI/paid editors (on articles) from the beginning we can all take turns watching them--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm pretty sure that you can't prevent people from using a trademark that way. "I want to hire someone to write a Wikipedia article" is just as legal as saying "I want to hire a caretaker to drive Grandpa to Tim Hortons for coffee and a doughnut every Friday morning".

I thought the list was interesting for the number of times that Wikipedia was used as a reference ("If you don't know what this is, then read Wikipedia"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Great news. They have taken down the first account that I notified them of after I explained it infringed upon our terms of us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks!!! Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Most ads on ODesk won't run into the terms of use, as they permit (disclosed) paid editing. Spam, vote stacking and blocked editors will, but the bulk should still fit into the current wording. Presuming that I'm reading things correctly. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Most are not disclosed paid editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. But you can't necessarily tell that from their ODesk profile. - Bilby (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm reading through the ODesk job ads. Wikipedia articles are solicited for "developingfilmmakers.org". (Wikipedia doesn't appear to have one), "Hotel Kuber" (not in Wikipedia), and for about five other subjects not identified. Except for one ad, the prices offered are very low, in the $5-10 range. In that price range, articles posted will probably be obvious cut and paste jobs and will be rejected via the usual processes. John Nagle (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a list of about 10 paid editors on Elance who are undisclosed and using sock puppets on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

CompanyDude - Self-Promotion

Jeraphine_Gryphon

I'm not Jacob Caravaggio... Please leave the drafts until I can add more notable stuff in it... I'm still doing research... The story behind the LR Apps was I was watching one of his videos and clicked on his Wiki user link in the description and noticed the deletion, so I decided to research it, make an account then write about it. Remember, if you can please leave the drafts.

--The Man Of Companys... CompanyDude 20:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CompanyDude (talk • contribs)

You posted this at the wrong place, it's okay to leave your response right under my post here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#using_several_draftspace_pages_as_webhost.2Ffor_promotion.3F so the discussion is all at the same place. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor

Is Template:Connected contributor appropriate at Talk:Acupuncture where some editors are applying WP:COI in a novel way that is not generally accepted by the community? WP:COI says that topic-expert editors, who edit articles about their own profession, do not have a COI. However some editors disagree, arguing that if you earn money from your profession, you automatically have a COI because you could benefit from edits that make your profession look good, and that this applies particularly in acupuncture because of debate over its effectiveness. However in the "real world" practicing acupuncturists who write MEDRS's are not considered conflicted in this way, any more than any other medical professional writing about controversies in their own area.

I don't have a problem erring on the side of caution and having a template at the top of the page for every practicing acupuncturist, but I'm not sure it's appropriate either. The purpose of "Template:Connected contributor" is to inform, and the issue has been discussed thoroughly (with editors in multiple venues, including here and WT:COI, being about evenly split among "no", "maybe" and "yes" as far as whether COI exists). --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 18:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cmt from involved editor. Middle 8 appears to have declared a COI. See User:Middle 8/COI. There was a past discussion on Acupuncture. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. If an editor has a COI I recommend they read WP:COIADVICE. QuackGuru (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is just another page turning, in a longer running dispute. (see WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Acupuncture and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Middle_8, each of which was not closed, so we have no readings of the community's consensus on this.) The tagging is secondary to that question. I think it is about time for a community-wide RfC on the question of "whether being a practitioner of CAM creates a conflict of interest on articles related to the method practiced." That is pretty much exactly how I would frame it. Would the two of you be open to an RfC with that phrasing? Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC) (left out key word, redacted it in Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC))

I have a simple general question. Are COI editors (or largely SPAs) allowed to aggressively edit articles? QuackGuru (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you know that WP:COI advises editors with a COI to not directly edit subjects where they have a COI. SPA accounts are generally advocates of one kind or another; they will eventually get called out for a topic ban at something like ANI where, as you know, a SPA editor at Electronic cigarettes was recently almost topic banned when he voluntarily stepped away. or Arbcom. Your account, QG, could be considered an aggressive SPA account with respect to your work on alt-med topics. But I think that where you are going is this: a determination that alt-med practitioners have a COI, would mean that they should no longer directly edit those subjects, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with COI/SPAs directly editing any article but they should not be allowed to make controversial edits such as deleting several relevant MEDRS sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no bar to SPA accounts doing anything. They will just get busted eventually if they edit tendentiously. There is a bar to editors with a COI directly editing articles. Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8 what are your thoughts on an RfC to settle this, finally? Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Jytdog, sure, let's have an RfC on that. Caveats/issues that come to mind: (a) the evidence base and sphere of usage vary among CAM's. (b) We should distinguish between practitioners who profit from CAM and those who don't (e.g. due to retirement). (c) A "yes" finding for acu'ists in such an RfC would mean that WP is adopting a standard that's more stringent than Cochrane's, which would be comically pretentious.

That said, I find QuackGuru's remarks above to be part of a long-standing pattern of disingenuous and IDHT:

• QuackGuru's mention of deleting MEDRS's relates to this diff, which he has posted more times than I can count. In that edit (as noted in the ES) I cut-and-pasted text from an earlier version and in so doing accidentally deleted a source. QG suggests that this edit demonstrates my COI-motivated desire to remove criticism of acupuncture, and Alexbrn concurs. Now look at that diff again, scrolling to article text, here. Note that paragraphs 2 and 3 are, after the first few words, identical, and dwell on acupuncture's risks. Yet the implication is that I made this edit on purpose, or with some semi-conscious desire to puff up acupuncture? This is how deep the obsession with COI runs among some editors; they see it lurking everywhere, and this ironically distorts their views in the same, pervasive way that a COI itself would. "To the impure, all things are impure".
• Re me and COI: QuackGuru knows really, really well that what I meant by that COI declaration is a general/potential COI or ADVOCACY issue that doesn't rise to the threshold of WP:COI: the explanation is right there in my signature line. In retrospect, my framing that as an actual "declaration" probably confused more than it clarified. Anyway, QuackGuru's question is disingenuous because he's asked, and I've answered, several times: (asked | answered twice); (asked); (asked | answered). In light of that, QuackGuru, I have a question for you: at what point do you think this kind of IDHT/harassment is sanctionable?
• I think that QuackGuru's bad-faith comments are consistent with a cynical desire (not unique to QG) to use COI as an excuse to exclude editors with whom they disagree, and thus prevail in content disputes.

--Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 21:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

i struggle with this. several editors have said that they think you and other CAM practitioners have a COI and the past discussions have a not had a clear outcome (we should have gotten someone to close them.... everybody failed with that) I don't see that you have a COI, but I don't see how to resolve this without broadening the discussion. I had thought of maybe bringing this to Arbcom as a clarification under the CAM case, but then I reflected that Arbcom is really about behavior and they don't - and shouldn't - make this kind of policy-ish decision. Do you have any other ideas about how to lay this to rest? (I want to add, that if it were clear that CAM practitioners do not have a COI I think you could bring a case at ANI under WP:NPA, but because the past discussions have been divided, it would devolve into a mess) Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)I'd thought ArbCom too -- maybe they'd take it anyway, because it does go to conduct: some editors think CAM editors are violating COIADVICE. If we do an RfC I want the input to be as broad as possible, and unfortunately a lot of the editors who will comment will be self-selected CAM haters, risking a skewed sample. I can't think of any other appropriate avenues than RfC and ArbCom. Well, we could try again here, I guess, but it might not be broad enough.

No, no ANI. I would NOT want to get into conduct diffs re NPA and so on; that should be saved for referenda on particular users. Just the PAG question, stipulating that we want to know because it goes to acceptable conduct, and there's been some arguing (no praise no blame no diffs), and we want to resolve it and move on.

Part of me would like to see this resolved and part of me is inclined to say screw it and stick with the metastable status quo, with which I am ethically comfortable because of Cochrane's precedent (and why that doesn't settle the issue for acu, I have no idea). Apart from occasional complaining and trolling (like that template -- who cares really), the status quo works OK. But resolving this would save trouble in the future. It's not hard to cue up if it's just the PAG question. We could go RfC then ArbCom if anyone's unhappy with the result. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

sounds like you are on the fence. i agree that it is risky - we will need to publicize it broadly which I know how to do. Maybe you want to think about it a bit? Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, yes, let's not pull the trigger just yet. It's the right idea I think, just a matter of when/how. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

My mention of deleting MEDRS is about the e-cig pages. Middle 8, I was not referring to an old resolved dispute. You got the wrong diff. I said "deleting several relevant MEDRS sources". QuackGuru (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

QG, you are not going to get anywhere pursuing a COI case with the community this divided on whether it applies in this case. We need to settle the general question before you can make a claim that he or anyone else is editing tendentiously due to a COI. So there is no point going on with that argument... it is clutter. Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks QuackGuru for your comment; now that I know you read my earlier comment including the 2nd bullet point about me and COI, I know for sure you won't need to keep asking about COIADVICE. In fact to make it clear I've changed the template at Talk:Acu from a qualified "yes" to "no, but see my comments" [8] (and I don't care whether the template remains for now). Which is intended to be read not as a change in my position re declaration, but as a less confusing way of stating it. Got that? I'm not declaring a COI -- mainly because practicing acu'ists at Cochrane aren't considered conflicted, and I feel comfortable following that precedent -- but I do recognize the concerns others have about it. And I'm all ears as to why WP should pretend to be stricter about COI than Cochrane. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 10:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You changed it from yes to no essentially but with qualifications. I got that, I guess. What is the purpose of the template when someone declared they no longer have a COI? I don't know the answer to that question. I think you want the template:Connected contributor close to the top of the acu talk page removed eventually. Maybe there can be a discussion for removing it at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or a RfC. For now I think we are done here. Of course, others in the community may still think you have a COI at acu-related articles. QuackGuru (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There's a spectrum of COI, and my position was/is that whatever COI I have falls beneath WP:COI's threshold (following Cochrane's precedent). As with any situation involving a spectrum, if forced to say "yes" or "no", one could reduce one's answer to either "yes but..." or "no but...". First I went with "no but", and people complained ("what do you mean, obviously there's an interest"). Then I went with "yes but" and the same thing happened ("how can you say yes and not abide by COIADVICE"). Funny how skeptics are supposed to be clever yet this tiny degree of subtlety apparently eluded some of them. So that's that. I don't feel very strongly about the template; if/when a community consensus emerges it will become obvious whether it's appropriate. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 03:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny things are happenings at the acupuncture page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=432921812&oldid=432888398 "usually due to poorly-trained practitioners" is original research This was way back on 6 June 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Acupuncture&diff=prev&oldid=614725740 " therefore preventable with proper training" is also OR added on 28 June 2014. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Statement_by_QuackGuru if you think Middle 8 does not have any sort of COI.

According to this comment by User:JzG Middle 8 does have a COI. But now Middle 8 claims he no longer has a COI? QuackGuru (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The connected contributor template is unlikely to be appropriate in this case as the COI editors are not widely identified as significant figures within the world of quackery. I find Middle8's claim to no longer have a COI rather implausible. People tend not to make sudden complete career changes and yet still to continue to advocate for their former commercial interests as a primary activity on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

QG please keep content disputes out of here. That is WP:CAMPAIGNING/hounding. Just stop it. With regard to the tag... Guy I don't know how much of the background you know here (I linked to past cases above) but briefly, there is an open question as to whether practitioners of altmed have a COI due to their profession itself. There have been at least two community discussions on this and neither came to a consensus. On the "no" side is that there is no other profession in WP where you are considered to have a COI on matters related to your profession, generally. (Certainly, a professional would have a COI if they use WP to promote their practice or institution or their views or research... but not one for the field in general -- heck we actually love WP:EXPERTs generally) On the "yes" side is the perspective that alt med is FRINGE and practitioners have a need to legitimize their field so that their businesses will be viable, and they do have a COI on the field itself. As I said there is no consensus on this. Putting the "connected contributor" on the article was a somewhat aggressive move that is legitimately disputable, since there is no consensus on the underlying issue. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with Jdog on this issue. You have to remember that the mainstream view, the science, shows that these Alt therapies do not have medical benefits for victims patients. The treatments are fraudulent. Contributions to articles on Alt-Med by practitioners or believers or quacks and fraudsters (for that is all they can be - the evidence does not support their beliefs or practises) are therefore suspect, questionable. Motivation of somebody who is a practitioner of Alt-Med, presumably for profit, to edit the article about their woo of choice is highly questionable. Pointing out that these people are editing the article as good faith editors is just letting people know. thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Roxy the dog I am not taking a stance on the issue of whether Middle 8 has a COI nor whether altmed practioners have a COI. I described where the community stands on the issue, and in light of the lack of consensus, placing the tag is controversial too and legitimately disputed. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

My point is a general one, no names or pack drill. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a content dispute if any editor repeatedly adds original research over and over again over a period of years. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Middle 8 previous wrote on 07:58, 8 January 2015 (fresh page) that "The short answer is that there is obviously a COI for anyone who stands to benefit from a topic they write about. So yes, I do have such a COI, and hereby disclose it, and rely on my fellow editors (and especially collaborators) to let me know when I'm doing it wrong."[9]

Middle 8, how could your previously declared COI suddenly change? A discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard might clarify the COI concerns. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed style noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at the village pump about creating a noticeboard (similar to the RSN, ORN and NPOVN) for people with questions about how to implement Wikipedia's style policies (WT:MoS and its many subpages). The proponents say that one centralized board would be easier for editors to find than many talk pages, and opponents say that it might be a venue for forum-shopping and drama. Participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope!

Hi! I am a volunteer mediator at WP:DRN. We have a DRN case (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Beepi) which involves someone with a declared COI. I believe this is the first time DRN has had such a case and I am trying to figure out the best way to approach it. In the case, I wrote:

Here is what I propose as a way forward. [Editor with COI] copies the article to a subpage in his user space and edits it until it is just the way he likes it. At that point I will look it over for any obvious problems, and will ask a couple of other uninvolved volunteers to do the same If we think it is better than what we have now (possibly after suggesting a few improvements), I will replace what we have now with the draft.

Would some Jedi someone here be willing to pop over to DRN and give an opinion on the proposed changes to the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

oy. done. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Were they the droids you were looking for? -Roxy the black and white dog™ (resonate) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI, Guy Macon, i went over there an offered an opinion as requested. Jytdog went over there and declared final verdicts and made 20 or so edits to the article itself. SageRad (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Atlantic on paid editing of Wikipedia

If you haven't seen it yet, follow this in The Signpost's newsroom. — Brianhe (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The growing problem of open paid editing, or they're not incompetent any more.

I wrote a note on WP:AN#Business_picking_up_at_WP:COIN about the growing problem of open paid editing. All freelancers hired by a PR agency are in some sense sockpuppets, but we have no way to block the PR agency, and that's a problem. John Nagle (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a way to more easily delete their spam? See Wikipedia_talk:Spam#Proposal:_a_new_task_force_to_ID_spammy_entries_on_companies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd really like it if we could be a bit more proactive about using WP:Blacklist. I don't think it should be a "last resort", as it says on the page; I think blacklisting an URL should be an admin tool like any other. It's an extremely effective way of stopping linkspam cold, and would have the added advantage of acting as a deterrent. Just reverting linkspam means the worst-case scenario for the companies/PR agencies involved is that their spam doesn't make it in, but they can try again later; there's really no incentive for them to stop trying. If we could aggressively blacklist spammed links, companies might think twice about risking it. --Ashenai (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a bad idea while the blacklist is as technologically hamfisted in practice as it is. e.g. I've previously had to go into contortions to correctly list an archive.org version of what is actually a good reference link because the base URL has been blacklisted for later abuse - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is this issue fixable? I just really want to see a better solution. There has to be a better way to get random-spamsite.com off Wikipedia than relying on RC patrol people to serendipitously notice it being added to articles in real-time. We have so many brilliant coders and technical people, I refuse to believe that the best solution for excising spam links is "uh, revert them when you see them, I guess." --Ashenai (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Learning opportunity

I have documented the histories of some COI editors here. Some of these were active Wikipedians for a decade or more, and not all of them started out as black hats. It might be interesting to look at these case histories more closely to see what can be learned about what turns editors to the "dark side" and what could have been done to a) deter and dissuade b) detect and c) disrupt their activities.

I've also been working off-wiki towards starting a software workbench/toolset for COI investigators. If you think you'd be interested, ping me via email. — Brianhe (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Where are the new COI templates?

I briefly saw about four new COI warning templates then lost them. I think they were escalating requirements for answers to the question "are you editing for pay" and had names like coi1, coi2, coi3. Can somebody point them out to me? — Brianhe (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

These {{uw-paid1}}, {{uw-paid2}}, {{uw-paid3}}, {{uw-paid4}}? — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Shouldn't these be at WP:WARN and in category:Wikipedia conflict of interest templates? Brianhe (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

They are at WP:WARN. They were added on September 7th.[10] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I was still searching for "coi": brain fart. Brianhe (talk) 05:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah nice. I'll see if we can get them added to twinkle. SmartSE (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Essay on how to deal with COI problems

I've written an essay, Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems, which collects some experiences I've had working problems from WP:COIN. Please comment and edit. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on {{uw-paid1}} deletion discussion

The series {{uw-paid1}} - {{uw-paid4}} series is under discussion at WP:TFD see [11]. Jbh^Talk 01:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

(has been closed as keep. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ToU compliance warning template series

Since there seems to be a regular problem with getting admitted paid editors to fully comply with the disclosure requirements I would like to propose a series of warming templates much like the uw-paid series. I have edited text from {{uw-paid2}}-{{uw-paid4}} as a starting point. I also made explicit reference to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure since that is the English Wikipedia's implementation of the ToU and is what is binding on paid editors.

Sample {{uw-paid-comply2}}

You must comply with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. as set out in the English Wikipedia's paid disclosure policy. You can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Example, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:{{paid|client=Who paid for your edits|employer=Who pays you}} and by placing {{Connected contributor (paid)}} in the form:{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=Youruser name|U1-employer=Who pays you|U1-client= Who paid for the edits|U1-otherlinks= Any additional information}} on the talk page of each relevant article. You must should also disclose your paid editor status in the edit summary of any edits relating to your paid status, such as on the article, its talk page and deletion or noticeboard discussions by including Paid edit as part of the edit summary. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia.

Sample {{uw-paid-comply3}}

You still have not complied with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. as set out in the English Wikipedia's paid disclosure policy. If you make any additional edits without complying you may be blocked from editing.

Sample {{uw-paid-comply4}}

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without making all of the mandatory disclosures of employer, client and affiliation as required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use and set out in the English Wikipedia's paid disclosure policy.

Pinging @Primefac, SlimVirgin, Alakzi, Coretheapple, and Mdann52: who were involved in the discussion on {{Connected contributor (paid)}} and are familiar with creating templates. Jbh^Talk 16:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to ask the stupid question, but what makes these significantly different from the uw-paid templates other than a bit more bold? Having two sets of templates that say (pretty much) the same thing doesn't make much sense. Personally I think these messages are overly Borg in nature; the existing templates still have enough oomph to get the point across. I can see these being redirects, but that wouldn't necessarily need consensus. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the language is a bit strong. A lighter touch might be appropriate. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

They are pretty much taken from the uw-paid templates. The difference is the uw-paid series are requiring a response to the question "are you a paid editor or not?" while these are for people who are already known to be paid editors but have not given the proper disclosures. There should also be a {{uw-paid-comply1}} that is more fluffy like {{uw-paid1}} but for the most part these are intended for editors which have already gone through the equivalent of the uw-paid series and are now balking at proper disclosure rather than at admitting a PAIDCOI. Jbh^Talk 01:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here are good at handling COI matters and have good communications skills. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Does being a paid member of an organisation make you have a COI?

Just a general question really, I'm a paid up member of The Tolkien Society, which we now have an article about. Would it be a COI for me to edit on this page, as the fiscal relationship is in the opposite way? GimliDotNet (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

GimliDotNet, being a paid member of The Tolkien Society does not necessarily create a close personal connection with The Tolkien Society, such as being a voting member of the board of The Tolkien Society, or business connections with The Tolkien Society, such as where your money or service can influence a direction in which The Tolkien Society moves. As a comparison, being a non-paying member of Wikipedia does not create a COI with Wikipedia. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Uptick in anon complaints?

There seem to be more and more new COIN cases brought up by anon editors–four already this month. I'm concerned that this could be a reflection of unspoken fears. Don't take this as an assault on anon editors, but if these are folks with regular en.wiki accounts, it could show GF editors' reluctance to engage in open and honest discussion, debate or reform. If true, this might need some discussion as COIN was never IMHO meant to be an anonymous tattleboard, but rather a genuine forum. And fear could be a symptom of an unhealthy community with impact outside of COIN as well. - Brianhe (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Village pump discussion of COIN

FYI: A discussion opened in the last day or so at WP:Village pump (policy)#Conflict of Interest (permlink) asks quis custodiet ipsos custodes? – Brianhe (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The conversation now is archived at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 124#Conflict of Interest. IMHO the most sensible statement was "I think we need to tighten up some of our policies regarding CORP and BLP so that it's less easy to exploit WP for gain" by LaMona but this was in the midst of some fairly contentious debate over inclusion/deletion philosophy and other things, so a specific proposal didn't really make any headway. - Brianhe (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Institutional knowledge and memory: towards some solutions

@Elaenia: Replying to the discussion above; a new title here to hopefully get a fresh start and focus in a bit on what we can accomplish together. I'm more than willing to explore solutions. Here are some ideas I'm tossing out for starters. If you and others want to, please expand the list. Pinging DGG, Jbhunley, Joseph2302, Jytdog, Nagle, Tokyogirl79 for additional input.

• Metadata gadget: Your point about institutional memory is a good one. I've proposed elsewhere that we should expand the Metadata gadget concept to show an article's COI history, which is perhaps a partial solution. What's cool about this, to me, is that it could make every article reader a potential solution-builder, instead of relying on a static group of "fixers" who hang out at the COI noticeboard.
• Collaboration tools for investigators: I've been thinking of ways to make collaboration/shared-workspace tools for COI regulars as well. This would probably need to involve some private workspaces as well as public ones. I've started working on and circulating to a very small circle a private handbook for investigations; this is our only formal institutional memory that I'm aware of. We'll get some negative feedback on this from people concerned about lack of process transparency, so being open about what is not open (!) is important, with an explanation of the boundaries.
• COI procedures guide: this was suggested during my RfA. It would be a "how to" for the general public to provide some depth to our bare instructions at the top of COIN. The exact words I used were "to promulgate the behavioral standards for COI volunteers in some systematic way". I think it's time especially to regularize how the COI and paid templates work and the consequences of not participating in discussion or not fully disclosing COI. I think a useful part of this would be an explanation of how perception of an editor's place in the Wikipedia ecosystem (per my editor taxonomy for instance) affects or is allowed to affect their treatment.
• Assistive bots: Another idea I think came out of the Doc James workpage discussion: bots to assist in COI detection. These would probably have to be tuned to be more sensitive on COI-prone articles in order to not overwhelm us with false positives on the broader set of articles, and this would involve some sort of learning procedure. AI-learning and pattern matching in general has been a topic of discussion for this problem. This is related to but maybe a special case of the institutional memory you talk of.
• Metrics reports: I manually composed User:Brianhe/COIN workload analysis for October, 2015. More regular reports like this, generated by some kind of automated tool, would be great for evaluating what's up. It's kind of hard to ask for resources if we can't even characterize the problem scope. Something that's sorely missing here is a characterization of the types of articles that have COI problems, for instance, top problem categories. This could become an objective part of our institutional knowledge of the problem, which is really almost entirely anecdotal at this point.
• Shared watchlists: Maybe we can start with something modest: how about a shared COI watchlist, which you sort-of suggested above. Can you expand on that and explain how it would work? I'd be willing to provide a subset of my private watchlist which has maybe 1,000 related articles for starters.

I'm excited to discuss these and see if we can get some momentum around any of these. For further inspiration/comments. - Brianhe (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I like these ideas, and I think they could help in stemming the tide. I'm especially intrigued by the idea of the bot. I think it would be entirely possible for a learning algorithm to pick up indications of "marketese" words and patterns, just like the anti-vandalism bots do now, especially if initially fed a series of edits determined to be clearly promotional. I think we do have to have a better system for watching articles targeted for spamming and marketing long-term; since the people doing that are often getting paid to do it, they can afford to be patient and extremely tenacious. They're not like vandals, who will get bored and move on after getting reverted and blocked a few times. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent points, thank you for the suggestions. Regarding the idea of shared watchlists, the problem I'm trying to address is certain articles are more likely to have marketing edits than others. An example would be a page on a company vs. a page on particle physics or Zika virus. It would be beneficial if more editors had articles with a history of marketing edits on their watchlists, but if an individual editor has to manually go out and find those pages on their own, coverage is naturally going to be spotty. A shared watchlist would allow interested users to easily obtain a list of articles to pay attention to. I think such a feature would need to be developed and implemented into MediaWiki, unless there's a way to creatively hack up a solution using gadgets and a list somewhere? Regarding the gadgets and bots, could it perhaps be better to start out modestly, maybe by creating or modifying a COIN template which can be placed on an article's talk page and include a permalink (or archive link) to previous COIN discussions? There's Template:Connected contributor but that focuses on specific contributors. A template which linked to a COIN archive would perhaps be more useful because it would provide more context. Category:All articles with a promotional tone could also be useful in characterizing the nature of the problem, as there are nearly 20,000 articles tagged. I don't have any objective evidence indicating which types of articles are more prone to COI edits, nor do I have a way to see the true scope of problematic marketing/COI edits. Anecdotally, it seems pages on companies, people, websites, and products are the largest group of occupants in the category linked above. There are also a considerable number of articles on places, government agencies, high schools, universities, hospitals, and other subjects which most people wouldn't think could contain COI edits. Arguably, having 20,000 pages on a watchlist isn't pragmatic though. Would a chart of problem articles similar to this be useful? I have a feeling there are too many for the list to be wieldy though, so a smarter organizational format would need to be used. Elaenia (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the existing Related Changes functionality is a 90% solution. Check this out as an example: Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Brianhe/COIbox27 Cheers - Brianhe (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh awesome! I wasn't aware of such a feature. Given RecentChangesLinked, could we simply generate a list of all pages ever brought up at COIN and link to it from the main COIN page to be used as continued monitoring of potential COI edits, long after the original case has been archived? One possible issue is I don't know how many pages RecentChangesLinked can handle at once. Elaenia (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Re COI guide: Last year I wrote Wikipedia:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems, which was more of a lessons-learned piece than a full COI guide. But it's a starting point. John Nagle (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Re COI bots: I have some misgivings about "work generator" bots, those that generate to-do lists for humans. Wikipedia has too many of those now. That could burn editors out. Think carefully about how much work the bot demands of its human slaves. John Nagle (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Nagle, of course that is a good bit of documentation on COI process that I overlooked. Sorry, my real-world life was in a lot of transition when I had read it the first time. Jytdog also put together his COI and advocacy notes on his userpage. Brianhe (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your concerns of demanding bots: not all bots tag articles and demand cleanup. See the IRC bot example at WP:CUV/T Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I frickin' love all of these ideas, particularly the procedures guide and the shared watchlist. The watchlist would be especially helpful, since you're right - there are a lot of pages that are frequently targeted for promotional COI edits. The procedures guide is the one I'm most excited about, since I've run into a lot of situations where people decide that they're just not going to respond or (in some cases) it's an obvious COI that they're lying about. Many of us have warned people about this, but we run into a lot of IDHT from people who openly assume that we're pulling stuff out of our butts. An official guide would be great and help sort of give some backup. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

We're outnumbered and ill equipped

Wikipedia's current policies on conflict of interest editing, which often involves promotional content, are really ill suited for the current reality. It may have worked a decade ago, but today's Wikipedia is very different and companies continue to view it as a promotional platform. COI editing is everywhere you look now, and is especially noticeable on pages about companies. The number of COI users editing also outnumbers editors capable and interested in spotting and removing the inappropriate content. The editors interested in removing inappropriate COI content are also ill equipped to detect inappropriate edits on over 5 million articles. I don't mean to be doomsayer, but it honestly seems inappropriate COI editing has become out of hand and judging by the COIN archives, it's only gotten worse.

If current trends continue, and there's no reason to believe otherwise, it's likely to become an unmanageable mess primarily used for promoting companies.

Can this noticeboard be improved? A few months after a thread is archived a lot of people forget the COI incident brought up. A few years later (once the editors involved in a particular incident are inactive or forget the details) the institutional knowledge of a specific COI incident is pretty much forgotten. The problem is, marketing and PR agencies never stop trying to use Wikipedia as a platform - they may be using new accounts or existing accounts on other articles. Elaenia (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been around less than a month. Is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

As a registered account, yes. Much longer on multiple dynamic IPs over the years. Elaenia (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I keep trying to think of how to reply to you, and I can't. maybe others will have something useful to say to you. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue surrounding COIN which I wanted to discuss was the lack of an institutional memory so once someone's COIN thread has been archived, the majority of people forget the issue. I visited a random archived thread, checked to see if there were any ongoing COI issues - and there were. Page now fully protected till April and talk page edit request from COI user. I'm guessing the user would have made the edits directly if the page hadn't been protected due to previous issues. The sourced criticism section is also gone now, although I haven't looked in detail on why. The page history shows a long history of edit warring and disputes on COI/advert/other related issues.

Another example for Neptune Orient Lines. The issue in 2012 was spammy promotional language. In 2015 a SPA inserted additional promotional language. It remained until today, when I removed it...

Another example for ACN Inc. from June 2009. Promotional (likely COI one-edit account) edit here just last month

So I guess the problem I'm trying to bring up is that just because a thread has been archived here, it doesn't mean the COI has ended. It'll likely come back, because those companies have a vested interest in promoting themselves on Wikipedia. And indeed, for some articles, even 5 years later COI issues remain - long after the involved editors have forgotten about it or have gone inactive. The reporting user for the ACN Inc. COI issues was Special:Contributions/Thatcher, who last edited in May 2015. Thatcher likely had the page on his/her watchlist, but that's of no use since they're gone. I clicked on 3 random threads. All 3 had COI issues years later. Elaenia (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess what I am struggling with is your Oh Shit We Are In Crisis postings. Shitloads of bad content gets added to WP everyday - some of it people with a COI, but the broader class of advocates of all kinds ("Trump is an ass." "Only assholes eat meat." "I hate gay people") as well as outright vandalism like blanking pages, as well as sneaky vandals who add plausible but fake content for kicks, as well as well-intentioned but ignorant people just writing things that are wrong. The Neuman University article is a crappy example for you, as it is well watched and the COI content has been rejected consistently.

Unless you want to make this "the encyclopedia that only identified and verified users can edit", this is the world we live in. Any article is only as good as the last person who worked on it. The fact that we have any good content in WP is due to the miracle of conscientious people paying attention, and there is no way to scale that. (that said, I did just propose that WMF build a bot to detect and flag 'advocacy editing' broadly speaking, and there is already COIbot that detects obviously conficted editing. There are some technology solutions. Brianhe already pointed you to DocJames idea page where lots of people have expressed their thoughts. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The posts on another user's talk page are about COI editing in general. However, judging by the passionate discussion every time paid editing is brought up, there appears to be a general consensus COI editing is a serious problem and needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. Outright vandalism is easier for bots to spot, whereas sneaky vandalism and COI editing to insert promotional language often goes undetected for months or even years. The Neuman article was the first one I randomly clicked and does demonstrate COI remains an issue, even after it was archived years ago. I'm certain dozens or hundreds of additional "archived" COIN threads can also demonstrate continued COI activity years later. Anyway, that's all beside the point - the issue of a case being closed and archived at COIN, only to have continued COI editing years down the road is the issue. People forget problem articles over time. I guess there's no solution aside from having more people watch (maybe a public list of articles which have a history of COI issues? shared community watch lists built into MediaWiki?). I read over the entire thread, but it's quite disappointing to see that, as far as I know, no concrete changes have resulted from the discussions held there. But alas, change takes time, so we can only wait I guess. Elaenia (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, unless you are proposing to change the nature of this place as an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" there is no way we can prevent - beforehand - the same or different people from the same institution from coming back and trying to add promotional material to the article about their institution. (replace "institution" with anything you like). The only other global solution is bots that detect certain kinds of edits. Other than that, it is just the vigilance of individual editors. Just like it is any for any bad content. Part of why i have struggled to respond to you is that you don't seem be dealing with the nature of this place. Jytdog (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the issues I brought up. Nobody is talking about preventing COI edits or spam beforehand, that would be impossible. Once again, the issue is there is virtually no institutional memory of previous COI incidents, so pages which were vigilantly being watched gradually lose watchers. I've already suggested a few ways to address the issue and was asking others to see if there was a way to address it. Elaenia (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

OK.... (archives are the institutional memory; it is great that you walked back through them). i've said my piece, maybe others will have ideas you like. Jytdog (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I came off as a tad aggressive. Reading over your userpage, I think it's fair to say we both understand the situation and actually agree on many points regarding the COI issue. I've been working on a JavaScript gadget which tries to see if there are matching entries in the COIN archives when browsing articles/the current noticeboard. Right now it doesn't work too well due to the sheer number of archives it needs to search through. I was also thinking of maybe a list of all articles ever brought up at COIN could be maintained, and a new bot can regularly query those articles' histories to see if there are edits reverted with edit summaries of "spam" or similar keywords (or maybe just check for new SPAs adding common promotional words). Elaenia (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we understand the situation the same way at all. Jytdog (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Elaenia: To address your question "Can this noticeboard be improved?" Yes, a good start would be for thoroughly researched reports to be dignified with a response. I spent significant time reading the instructions, attempting to follow them, and asking how I could do better when I received no response. The user in question appears to have taken the archival of the matter as a green light to continue with their paid COI editing, albeit using another account. I will not be wasting my time here again. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania discussion about paid promotional editing

Wondering who is coming to Wikimania and if people would be interested in getting together to discuss matters? WMF legal has said they would join. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I wish I could go, I hope there is great participation around this topic. - Brianhe (talk) 22:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Best of luck - I hope something concrete can come out of it. I think the above discussions - and bigger problem - is nicely summed up by Seraphimblade: I think we do have to have a better system for watching articles targeted for spamming and marketing long-term; since the people doing that are often getting paid to do it, they can afford to be patient and extremely tenacious. They're not like vandals, who will get bored and move on after getting reverted and blocked a few times. Elaenia (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed OUTING revision

There is an active discussion at WT:Harassment#Proposed OUTING revision (permlink) that will be of interest to COIN volunteers. Some of the proposed revisions (there are variants) could change the WP:OUTING policy in ways that would significantly affect COIN discussions. - Brianhe (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Current RfC wrt the template {{request edit}}

There is currently an RfC about Template:Request Edit on whether a somewhat substantial change should be made to the template, adding a counter and basic status indicator. That template is used to request COI edits, so I thought it would be relevant to this noticeboard. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 15:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC is now over —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to Be Sure

As a reviewer at Articles for Creation, I often encounter single-purpose accounts whose whole objective seems to be to get an article published about a company. (There are also ones whose sole concern is themselves or their band, but the ones who want to publish about a company are the stubborn ones.) Sometimes, either after they ask me what language needs to be trimmed out in order not to be promotional or after they just submit again with minor changes, I ask them whether they are affiliated with the company. I am assuming that this board (or rather, the board for which this is the talk page) is where to report them if they don't answer. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I run into these as well. It's usually a name plus numbers (john1234) and they never use that account to edit anything else. Do you post a COI notice to their talk pages? That's a good way to let them know they've been scoped. Then if they don't reply, take them to COIN. However, since they almost never reply, and only post long enough to get the article to a point where they get paid for it, there's not much that can be done. These are really hit-n-run accounts. What I think we need more than anything is a better way to keep all of these promotional commercial articles out of WP. I'm sick of dealing with them at AfC, AfD, and elsewhere. LaMona (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this noticeboard is the place to report users you think have COI and who are unresponsive to interactions on their talk page. As for articles which have been created, shorn and accepted, but which have COI input, placing {{Connected contributor}} with appropriate parameters on the article talk page is recommended; the template notes the identity of the COI user, and provides a date-stamp up to which the article has been checked by a neutral editor for NPOV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is the noticeboard. If the article creator doesn't reply to the COI notice on their talk page, it is a good to additionally add the COI tag to the article itself. It helps to warn other editors that the article may be promotional or may not comply with NPOV. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Though worth noting that {{COI}} should be applied to the article only when it is affected by COI ("It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.") If no cleanup is required, then the article tag is not appropriate. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

A related problem is AfD'ing a spammy article, a s lot of guys claim that spam can be dealt with "by normal editing". Unfortunately, nothing happens after such a statement "as AfD is not for clean up". Very frustrating as it lets clear COI-editors of the hook and stimulates advertising/spamming. The Banner talk 19:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This is great. We had a discussion about COI in draft space here and my sense of the consensus there was that it is absolutely OK for conflicted editors to create drafts and submit them through AfC.... in fact that is what we want them to do, if they want to be here.

You are raising the next step in the process - namely how a reviewer at AfC should handle concerns about WP:PAID and WP:COI in a context where they are nonresponsive. I am going to answer this in a broader context, if I may...

In my view the decisions should be based on content policies first, and behavioral policy/guidelines secondly. The PAID/COI thing is tricky when it is only likely but not actually disclosed by something someone writes or by their username. So I would say that what you do, depends on the content and context - all of this assumes that you already think there is a COI and have already asked, as stated in the OP.

• If the content of the draft is not good to go content/sourcing wise, and they are nonresponsive on the COI/PAID issue, I would decline the draft and include a message about your concerns about COI/PAID and their obligation to disclose in your notes about why you are declining, and ideally with a copy on the article Talk page. I don't think anyone would find this controversial. If this is the first go-round, it is not worth posting at COIN as I imagine there are loads of people who post and run. If they come back and try again

• If the content of the draft is good enough (it passes N, no real issues with NPOV/PROMO, fine per V, and RS/MEDRS) and you would otherwise move the article to mainspace' (which I imagine is rare), what to do then? Options:
  • Decline as there is a likelihood of a violation of WP:PAID and articles that appear to violate policy should not enter mainspace. In this case you would decline with a note to the editor about that making it clear that you would like a response on the PAID/COI issue, and yes, post at COIN, with notification to the creator.
  • You must accept the article based on the content; you can also tag it and post at COIN, and notify the editor.

Of those two, I imagine that the first would be very controversial, and would advise #2. But #1 is supportable, in my view. It would just likely cause a lot of drama.

• If the content of the draft is marginal (some questions about N, clear issues with NPOV/PROMO, V, and/or RS/MEDRS) and you are debating' (which I imagine is more common), what to do then? Options:
  • Decline always, with the reasoning starting with and emphasizing content issues, and also noting that COI/PAID editing seems likely, and noting the obligation to disclose. The reasoning for this is along the lines of what User:DGG says sometimes at AfD namely: "Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason (to delete). Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encyclopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia". And yes, post at COIN
  • Judge based on purely on the content alone with out taking the PAID policy into account, and either way, post here at COIN and notify.

Of those two, I imagine that the first would be somewhat controversial, but supportable.

Something like that. The point of all this is that a) most things are best managed interpersonally rather than on drama boards and trying more than once is good; b) post at COIN only if the article is ready or close to being ready , otherwise we will be overwhelmed. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What template do I use? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

For the article talk page, i would go with {{connected contributor}} (not {{connected contributor (paid)}} as my sense is we want to be cautious with that) and for the user's talk page the standard template is {{uw-coi}}. I usually put context around the uw-coi template like this in order to create a dialog, which the template doesn't do. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I also put {{coi}} on the article. (I occasionally use that on autobiographies also, but only on ones that have some resemblance to real articles. There are many stubs that look sort of like autobiographies and sort of like test edits.) I was wondering what to put on the talk page. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I also want to say thanks, madly and deeply - AfC is hard work. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree about not use cc-paid unless one is prepared to actually defend this. I have rarely used it. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The real problem is about marginal articles.I've done different things over the years. Lately, I've been not accepting unless this point the only ones I am comfortably prepared to accept is the article would be so important to WP that I'm willing personally to rewrite it, or when there that are in a field where I know people look at the articles and that it will be rewritten. In cases where I think it would be important, but it's in a field that I cannot rewrite competently, I avoid deciding on it at all and leave it for someone else--which is one of the reasons we really need to have some subject classification for AfCs. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

1 to subject classification of AfC's. I have neither the time nor desire to become expert in notability for military, sports, or porn figures. Then again, we might be able to recruit reviewers from those areas if they can focus just on what they care about. LaMona (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here are great with dealing with conflicts, must evaluate content, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Linking to other sites

Have started a RfC on this topic Wikipedia_talk:Harassment#Can_other_site_accounts_ever_be_linked_to Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft looking for feedback

I've started a preliminary draft about outing and COI procedures at User:Tryptofish/Drafts/COI List Draft. Feedback about it is welcome at User talk:Tryptofish/Drafts/COI List Draft. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal for a confidential COI mailing list. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And to be frank, if it ends up being rejected, you might as well close this noticeboard down. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

And to be very frank, your proposal seems to suffer from confirmation bias, and your dire predictions of the end of the word have been heard here many, many, many times before. Happy Editing! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal that may be of interest

Voting on a proposal that may interest editors working at this noticeboard is now open at meta:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Miscellaneous#Ask new users to disclose paid editing, through December 12. The instructions say explicitly that it is permissible, and not a canvassing violation, to post a message such as the one I am placing here, so I hope that interested editors will take part in the discussion. It won't happen unless editors support it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I hope that editors interested in this noticeboard will go to that proposal and support it (if you haven't already), before December 12, because I really feel strongly that it will help with the work here. It's just one of 265 proposals competing to get into the top 10! And there has been a lot of get-out-the-vote from other-language Wikipedias for other proposals that interest them. WMF will rank the proposals by the absolute number of support votes each proposal gets, and only the top 10 will be chosen for prompt development. The support for this proposal has been overwhelmingly positive, but we really need to get the number up for it to succeed. So if you haven't done so already, please go to the link above and vote "support". --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

With one day of voting to go, the proposal is currently number 24 out of 265. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2016 (UTC)