Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 2008-02-11. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents


Archives


[edit] COI link additions (COIBot)

Hi, I have written a bot that matches links (domain) added to articles with the username adding the link. The bot (m:User:COIBot) is still being tested, but is doing quite a good job. Its output can be seen here. It has blacklisting and whitelisting capabilities (resp. linking names to domains when they are not the same, and making it ignore overlapping names and domains).

People might want to have a look there every now and then to spot new cases. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to host the report page locally, so that it can be transcluded onto the noticeboard and someplace where Wikiproject Spam finds it useful? MER-C 10:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have claimed the account user:COIBot on this wiki, I am thinking about making it report the en.wikipedia-cases on this wiki, which is easier to watchlist for people on this wiki. But I'd like first to make the recognition mechanism stronger, and to have it run continuously from toolserv. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: I have split a part of COIBot into a second bot (COIBot2), which is now monitoring #en.wikipedia on irc.wikimedia.org (all edits to pages), at the moment it parses edits to pages, matching pagenames to usernames, and reporting everything that has significant overlap. Reports are now in subpages, per day, under COIBot's COI Reports. To see the real-time reports, join us on the IRC linkfeed or IRC spam talk channel. Most people there are also capable of commanding COIBot so it can generate e.g. user or link-reports (see COIBot's UserReports and COIBot's LinkReports).
I am Still waiting for a toolserv account to make it run continuously (it is now only running when I am online/awake) and then I will ask for a WP:BRFA to report all en-cases somewhere on this wiki. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
User:COIBot is now reporting on this wiki as well, for the moment under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports, per day. It updates the page when 25 records are collected (collecting 25 pages seems to take between 15 minutes and 1 hour, depending on the moment of the day).
I am still thinking about how to rewrite a bit of the code so that it will always report to one page, which it automatically archives i.s.o. directly to days (makes it easier to watchlist). If you want to stay up-to-date with the reports at the moment, please watchlist the next couple of days. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Having it auto-archiving isn't really a good idea. The editors acting on the reports should archive the stuff once it is dealt with, not on some arbitrary time frame. It's annoying enough to have to revert one bot daily. MER-C 08:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I will leave it as is for the moment. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Bot operators (in the spam talk channel on IRC) can make reports on users and links. I have made modification to the bot so that they are stored here on wikipedia as well, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, respectively. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to have a link to it, with a description of its functions, in its own section at the top of the noticeboard as the AlexNewArtBot section is now? — Athaenara ✉ 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GRIEF

I highly recommend the above essay by Kafziel, I think it's brilliant, and definitely applicable here. RJASE1 Talk 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Very much so, both this one and Durova's The dark side. — Athaenara ✉ 11:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot archiving this page?

I was thinking of having one of the various archival bots archive this talk page (not the main noticeboard!). However, I have no idea what the "expiry" time should be. Comments are welcome. MER-C 09:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do set that up, I'd suggest an expiry time of 28 days. EdJohnston 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks for COI/VSCA only accounts

There's a proposal at WT:BP#Blocks_for_COI-only_accounts to block, indefinitely, accounts that exist solely for the purpose of self-promotion. Please share your opinions there. MER-C 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Show/hide boxes are unnecessary?

In spite of their cuteness, the show/hide boxes that we use here to designate closed issues are a bit annoying. The reason is that, if you want to post a diff for a closed issue somewhere else, then clicking on the diff link won't find the actual issue. (Probably because of how Javascript works). It just leaves you sitting at the top of the archive file that the issue was removed to. The diffs at AN/I don't have this problem. A diff for an issue that was considered at AN/I, and is now archived, will still find its target when clicked on, and the heading of the issue will be aligned at the top of your browser screen. Ironically, if you turn off Javascript in your browser, close it, and relaunch, the COI/N diffs will work as expected. (Since all the show/hide boxes are permanently expanded).

EXPERIMENT: Open up Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 8. Click on the first item in the TOC, which is 'Optical Carrier'. Nothing happens, right? You have to manually traverse down, then hit 'Show'.

Now it happens that AN/I doesn't close any issues, they just let them get archived, but some other noticeboards do have the ability to close things, the way it is done at AfD. One pair of templates that can do this is {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}. An example follows:

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Very big example issue, created by Ed Johnston, now closed, but available for viewing for a while at COI/N.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


This would have the virtue of letting the issue sit around for a bit, and still be visible, after it is closed, while still letting diffs to archived issues do the right thing. Please let me have your thoughts. EdJohnston 02:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Community sanction noticeboard has been nominated for deletion

For those who follow such matters, see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard.

...This board is no longer used to discuss pressing issues for the community but rather a brand new version of Wikipedia:Quickpolls... (Ryulong)

... There is no way to truly know if a user is community banned without ratifying it - this is the ideal place for it... (Ryanpostlethwaite).

The significance of the WP:CSN was that it allowed some discussion of long-term problematic editors without the full Arbcom process. As you see from the above, opinions differ as to whether it was useful. EdJohnston 13:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Cause

There are two Common Cause sections (#3 & #4) in COI/N Archive 8, one marked resolved, the other simply inactive. One of the previous COI SPA offenders, though duly warned on the user talk page in March, April and May, returned after two weeks to add yet another CC website link. This one was added as a reference where there had been a {{fact}} tag on "chapters in 36 states and 300,000 members" in the first sentence.

Should I bring back the archived sections, or should we open a third which cites those discussions, or what? It's as if they know when they're no longer on the noticeboard and tiptoe back in. — Athaenara 15:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Open a new case, linking to the old ones. This user needs to be blocked as an SPA/COI (adding), but this edit is very innocuous. We should wait for something more serious before requesting a block. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Starting small, I removed their numbers and website link, addressing the COI SPA issue in an explicit edit summary. — Athaenara ✉ 09:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It came back today for two more edits. The first added some personnel changes, the second removed the {{advert}} tag. I reverted with some NPOV edits which almost justify leaving the advert tag off and added the {{primary sources}} tag. — Athaenara ✉ 19:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
And again today (reverted). — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I've archived the third Common Cause discussion. The COI SPAs, if they proceed as before, will soon show up again. Their edits will be reverted: the article is on several NPOV editor watchlists. — Athaenara ✉ 05:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dealing with bot-listed pages

I've been coming in and checking through the bot-listed collection semi-regularly, and was wondering what we should be doing with the stuff on the list, with regards of indicating whether there's a problem with it or not.

Should we be weeding out the redlinks on a regular basis, or is a bot handling that at some point? Would it be good to point out on the list whether something has been PRODed, speedy tagged or otherwise dealt with?

Just curious for thoughts on that. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I used to archive all the red links daily, but can't for the time being. MER-C 04:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like they are already included in the bots archives - the bot list appears to be listed both here and in the archives, so that all we should need to do is delte redlinks. Am I seeing something wrong here? Pastor David † 16:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The stuff dealt with, including the red links, all goes to the archive page indicated on the transcluded section. Ignore and revert the auto-archiving, as the page is severely backlogged. MER-C 09:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move bot list to bottom for easier scrolling?

Can we move the bot list to the end of the file. This would help usability. Also, can we train the bot to automatically archive deleted articles? This would save a lot of time! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so, as the default behaviour is to archive after five days (extremely annoying). I usually archive the list manually, but that task requires two hands. MER-C 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That thing is *huge* - it would be better on its own page with a highly visible link to it on the noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 16:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes! Please! We can put a big, bold link at the top of the noticeboard. Isn't it already it's own page? We just need to replace the transclusion with a link. Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Today the transcluded page is over 50 kilobytes long (the noticeboard itself is currently ~65 kilobytes and is often ~100). I took a clue from WP:BOLD and got a start on this.
The section could also use a clear description of its purpose. — Athaenara ✉ 22:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Ed Johnston added a description. — Athaenara ✉ 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental COI2 tag

I just created an experimental COI warning tag, Template:COI2. (The existing Template:COI assumes non-notability is an issue, so I felt one would be useful that warns about COI per se, whatever the notability). Thoughts? Tearlach 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your COI2 template is excellent, I think. Several times, I've not used the other COI template because the presumption of non-notability does not always apply. The "will categorise tagged articles into Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance" line from the other template should probably not be retained. — Athænara ✉ 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The new template fills a need. Thanks for making it. -Will Beback · † · 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI templates proposed for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 18. Tearlach 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:COI and Template talk: COI2

Resolved.

User:Barbiero asserts that a rewrite of these templates is now "required" and has set himself up as the boss of this process. I've objected strongly. The person who sought to delete the templates should hardly be the one to coordinate a rewrite. Please see the above pages. Jehochman Talk 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the editors involved may have come to some sort of understanding. Jehochman Talk 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI Templates

"Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 18#Template:COI and Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Template:autobiography

Does anyone else think the above template should be modified to automatically add tagged articles to Category:Articles which may be biased? RJASE1 Talk 22:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias or COI is not the same as writing about oneslef. So No. Bearian 21:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Superfast section bloat

Over 20 posts in 2 hours in 1 section on the noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 06:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Some editors apparently just don't know how to use the "Show Preview" button, because it looks like some of them made 4-5 consecutive edits to complete a single comment posting. :-) —68.239.79.82 09:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Show preview button, I see that a lot, hehehe. Seriously, I think people avoid previewing for two reasons; one is to avoid edit conflicts, and two is to artificially increase their edit counts. It would be great if the wiki engine automatically grouped consecutive diffs by a single editor. I waste a lot of time with repetitive clicking just trying to see who changed what. (Requestion 15:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
"artificially increase their edit counts"? ROLF! Well, that is Something New that I've learned today ... having chosen to remain an anon (with my IP changing at random intervals), such a concept has never occurred to me ... I pity the fools still driven by their ego, neither do I "suffer them gladly" ... BTW, I use a sandbox for composing Very Long replies, so I don't get edit conflicts any longer. :-) —68.239.79.82 19:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith. Some of us are just plain impatient, and think our spelling/typing/grammar/formatting abilities are better then they really are. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Khitrovo Gospel

I added a prod template to Khitrovo Gospel, one of the fragmentary articles created by a staff member at the European Library. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_11 for the now-archived issue, one that I believe is not yet resolved. EdJohnston 05:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was going to say I'll bring it back but I looked in the archive, preparatory to doing so, and saw again what a large section it had become during the first two weeks of May. I agree, The European Library issues are active and need additional attention on the noticeboard, so which shall it be? Bring the old section back or initiate a tighter, sleeker new one? — Athaenara ✉ 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The prod of Khitrovo Gospel was contested by two regular editors, and I'm thinking about the issue some more. Having a small, stubby article for an actual art work may be acceptable. I'd suggest not bringing the issue back yet, until I've looked over all the other examples. User:Fleurstigter has not edited since 13 May. EdJohnston 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This should be taken to Afd in the normal way, except that it shouldn't because the article is no worse than many other IM stubs. You obviously aren't used to the area! Most of the content is now post-Fleur anyway. I would probably say the same for at least most of her other articles, which I did look at at the time. I don't think they should be speedied; ALL are certainly notable as far as I can remember. I don't create these short stubs myself, but I don't approve of their deletion. Many eventually turn into fine articles. Johnbod 14:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions in Noticeboard/Header create a problem

I've encountered a problem with the instructions for using the Noticeboard ...

To report a possible violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline
  • Create a new section with the article name
=={{subst:Coiwatch|Article name}}==
  • Describe the dispute using the following format:
* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation ~~~~ or
* {{userlinks|username}} - brief explanation ~~~~

By using =={{subst:Coiwatch|Article name}}== for the header, it is impossible to create a wikilink directly to the discussion ... case in point, I wanted to leave messages on several Talk pages in regards to WP:COI/N#Paul Ulrich (i.e., the four articles' pages and the author's page), but that link would not work until I edited the section header to be ==[[Paul Ulrich]]== ... the problem is that there is no way to properly format a string following the "#" if the template is used in creating the section header!

I believe that that the correct instructions should be:

To report a possible violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline
  • Create a new section with the article name
==[[article name]]==
  • Describe the dispute using the following format:
* {{article|article name}} - the article in question
* {{userlinks|username}} - the associated editor
… a brief explanation of the issue …
Submitted by ~~~~ - sign your post
  • Notify the author and other editors by placing {{COI}} at the beginning of the article in question, and consider leaving a message with a link to [[WP:COI/N#article name]] on the author's Talk page as well.

This way, both the article and author are clearly identified in the body of the section, and the submitter is clearly identified (some signatures tend to be rather obscure when appended to the last line of the explanation.)

I was about to change it on another header before participating in the discussion, but decided to do some investigation and post a comment here first, instead of following the motto, Be Bold, and just modifying Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/header without soliciting feedback.

If someone knows why the {{Coiwatch}} should be in the header (and thus in the TOC), I wish that they would explain it … otherwise, I invite Some Other Editor to "second" my suggestion here in this thread, and then either make the change themselves, or else tell me {{Sofixit}} ... to be quite honest, it seems like a rather useless template, anyway ... all that it appears to offer is a way to add/remove an article from your watchlist without looking at the article, which already has watch and unwatch tabs ... I mean, the links don't even work in the TOC, but just appear as useless text, the same for every entry ... what's up with that?

On a related topic, we should have more standard templates that can be placed on both the author's Talk page and the article's Talk page (with links directly to the discussion, and not just the top of the Project page), and their use should be part of the instructions ... in the absence of an established protocol, editors are failing to tag articles with {{COI}} (because they don't even know that it exists), and only as a courtesy will they sometimes notify the author with a vague "I've posted this on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard" message, leaving it for some poor nugget to scroll down and visually search the Very Long TOC to find the discussion ... that is why I have suggested including it in the instructions ... the author should have the article on their watchlist, so even if the submitter does not leave a message on their Talk page, the author would still have trouble justifying a complaint that they were unaware of the problem due to lack of notification.

Happy Editing! —72.75.100.232 08:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this complaint. I looked into it a few days ago with {{Sofixit}} in mind myself, thinking to at least replace the deadly pipes with bullets, and, believe me, it's not trivial.
Have a look inside {{Coiwatch}}, {{Coi-links}}, and {{Blplinks}}.
And just try writing a normal internal link with all those pipes in the section headings:
"[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Biomedcode (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]]]"
becomes "Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]" and will not reach its target.
There's some very healthy resistance on the noticeboards against the instructions to use the templates, and I've joined it: I used to add noticeboard format where it was missing, but no more.
In reports, the {{article}} links and {{userlinks}} are extremely useful, but the unnecessarily elaborate albeit very pretty section headings have no utility. — Athaenara ✉ 08:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I replaced that particular part with the simple wikilink until someone comes up with something better. MER-C 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On the BLP/N header, I followed MER-C's example. — Athaenara ✉ 04:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Use for COIN

After a recent report involving VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) of the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Anonymous IP Gnome has helped organize a project to have the article-link pairs reviewed for possible re-addition. This raises a policy question. Do we want to encourage responsible editors affected by COI to list proposed edits in their own userspace, and then post a notice here asking COIN patrollers to consider their requests? Is it better to be proactive?

WP:COI currently tells editors affected by COI to use that article talk page. However, talk pages don't always work because some articles don't get much traffic, and many editors aren't familiar with COI issues. By centralizing requests at COIN, we can apply more expertise, and better maintain Wikipedia's content policies. Jehochman Talk 13:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As the subject of a COI warning, I think the instruction to use the talk page is misguided. It should always be acceptable for any editor, even those with a COI, to add or remove information to improve an article IF it is notable, properly sourced and not unduly POV. For example, as the CEO of my company, I have access to secondary sources that other editors will have trouble finding. If I have a source about my company in a magazine such as 'Newsweek' then there really should be no need to discuss the addition of the source with other editors first. In another case, where I am a published expert on a disputed conviction, I have had other editors try to use COI to as a way to stop and slow down my editing their POV edits. As it stands COI is being used by some editors to say 'You've got a COI so stop editing completely', which I believe is not helpful to Wikipedia's growth and accuracy. Editors should always have a chance to improve articles.
Rather than labeling editors with the frightening COI tag, it would be far better to warn them on their talk page and give them the chance to improve the article directly while alerting COI watchers on these pages to look at the page and give guidance to the editor about WP content policies. Uninvolved editors can remove text if it is spam, libel, etc, or in well-sourced POV cases the text can be discussed on the talk page, or taken to RFC, or to the kind of space suggested by Jehochman. This would refocuss COI on the text, rather than the person.
I also think the COI template should be reflect this comment, and have posted my suggestion here [1]. -- Sparkzilla talk! 14:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Your position will never be accepted as the consensus because COI editors tend to selectively add material to articles. Even if the edits are perfectly accurate, they will selectively add facts that support their own interest. If a COI editor asks me to add something to an article, I may do so, but I will also look for an opposing view and add that too if it will help the article. The siren song of the COI editor is always "I just want to help improve Wikipedia." Thanks for thinking of us, but we have to maintain WP:NPOV, so please, please avoid self-serving edits in articles.
Doesn't this agree with what I said? If an editor adds something NPOV, then you (an uninvolved editor) added something to counteract that. It doesn't really matter if it's on the article page, the talk page, an RFC, or on a special COI text page. Saying someone has a COI doesn't really help, when everything falls back on content policies anyway. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
That said, almost every editor has some sort of potential COI somewhere. You should not view COI as a mark of shame. Just understand your limits and don't cross them. Jehochman Talk 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think there is a lot of confusion between a "conflict of interest" and a plain "interest" For example, published experts in a field may well have an interest in the field, but it is only when they cite their own material that there is a conflict of interest. Again, a focus on the text, rather than the person would help in these cases. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Being an expert in a subject does not automatically create a conflict! Jehochman Talk 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Asking someone with a COI to get consensus on the talk page prior to their additions is regular practice and a good idea. (H) 15:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Back to the topic

Do we want to encourage conflicted editors to post here for help if they can't get a consensus on the article talk page? Jehochman Talk 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, having more uninvolved editors looking at text is a good thing. -- Sparkzilla talk! 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the current system can leave needed changes undone. The only other solution I can think of is making it a project, so that random editors can review the proposed changes as well. However, this is just an alternative means of drawing attention to low-traffic talk pages with such proposals. This might even draw in editors who don't frequent this board. However, absent a problem (such as an already-overwhelmed COI board) your suggestion works just as well -Lciaccio (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D-Lib Magazine article

It appears that this article, Using Wikipedia to Extend Digital Collections, could cause numerous COI problems. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Unusual_university_spam. --Ronz 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I do think that librarians should be encouraged to add content to Wikipedia, not just links. However, per Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked points 2 and 3, I believe links to research libraries' collections of digital images or collections of personal papers/corporate records qualify as useful external links. And once you admit that the link is useful, what does it matter whether the link is added by someone who works at that library or someone who doesn't? Given that librarians are information professionals and their job (some might say their passion!) is to point patrons to solid, useful information wherever it may reside, I think the risks of a COI (defined as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor") are low. Also, adding pointers to this type of original source material is a terrific way to increase the value/reputation of Wikipedia as a great place to begin one's research :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookgrrl (talk • contribs) 13:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Case of Censorship

This should not be construed as a complaint against User Duja but rather as my dissatisfaction with his decision. For example, he deleted Anti-Bosniak Sentiment article (even when people voted to keep it) and called it "crap". This is absolutely not fair. User Duja even called our article "crap" when deleting it, he clearly acted without good faith. Please note that Bosniaks were prevented from having Bosniakophobia article, and then also Anti-Bosniak sentiment article. Serbs and Croats are allowed to have their articles on this topic, and Bosniaks are not. This is nothing more but a censorship. Read my comment to Duja and my thoughts on this. Other admins could help us restore the article. This is a case of pure one-sidedness in admin decisions and absolute case of horrendous censorship. Bosniak 22:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a case for deletion review, down the hall to the left. Videmus Omnia 22:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep it here, as I don't know where else to place this. Someone could help us, couldn't it? Bosniak 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are you raising this issue here and now? Duja's edit was made six months ago, and another administrator already chastised him for it at the time. And how is this a conflict of interest? —Psychonaut 22:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Psychonaut, I already answered that question here. Bosniak 21:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I see no answers to my questions there. From what I can tell, you're simply dredging up an old, long-settled incident, and have failed to indicate why you have chosen this venue. —Psychonaut 23:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noticeboard archiving

Just a note that because of mouse issues I won't be archiving for awhile. I know others will pick up the slack. — Athaenara ✉ 00:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty funny in retrospect. I was doing what I could to keep COI/N under 100kb when possible, and it's over 250kb now. — Athaenara ✉ 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Business FAQ created

A Business FAQ has been created. Please take a look and help improve it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope / Backlog

I think this page is going to be perennially backlogged unless we try to stick to the scope defined up at the top, i.e., situations requiring outside intervention, not any and every example of someone editing their own article. I think if we go down the list and close out the ones that don't involve tendentious editing or long-term problems, people will get the idea. Thoughts? -- But|seriously|folks  05:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything that subtle would work for new people coming here with the fresh excitement of having caught an autobiographer in the act. But perhaps a big scary framed warning at the top to the effect of "Do not start a report here unless you have tried talking directly to the offender (say, with {{uw-coi}}) and it didn't help" would. –Henning Makholm 02:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation needed

WP:COI simultaneously refers to two things:

  • The existence of a conflict of interest; and
  • The conflict of interest policy

This leads to unnecessary confusion: WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to certain procedural limitations, but other editors misread that to believe that the existence of a conflict of interest violates WP:COI, leading to a lot of time wasted on the COI noticeboard. (For example: WP:COI requires editors with a conflict of interest to discuss edits on the talk page. An editor left a lengthy report accusing me of violating WP:COI because I was discussing edits on the talk page while I had a conflict of interest.) Someone can be subject to WP:COI and comply with WP:COI: it's a two-part inquiry, and some sort of disambiguation is necessary to distinguish the two to avoid these problems. THF 08:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for guideline addition WP:COI/N

At Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#SBC.2FDSB_Proposal_.235_-_Can_we_get_consensus_for_this_addition.3F, there is a proposal that would (1) strictly limit the ability of editors with a COI to participate on a talk-page, and (2) greatly expand the role of COI/N to include resolution of content disputes. Please comment. (For the record, I think it is a bad idea.) THF 22:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Ted, you are really acting in bad faith. First, on Village Pump you said we are proposing a change in policy, when you well know we are proposing an addition to a guideline. Second, you come here and say we are proposing a "Giant expansion" of COI/N's role, when in reality the guideline proposal simply tells people that if there is a COI problem, go to the COI notice board, which is what they should do anyway.
  • Actually, the proposal is one that is typically expected: That if a person who has a Conflict of Interest (say, someone who wrote an article they want included on page, such as Ted did above), that they bring up the proposed addition/edit on the Talk page (already a guideline), raise their COI (already a guideline), raise their reasons and merits for inclusion when they initiate their proposal (not yet a guideline, part of the suggestion), and then sit back and allow others to discuss and debate the merits of the proposal, being strongly encouraged to not debate their own COI proposal except to clarify misunderstandings or address questions directed at them. This is pretty much already an expectation, and we are proposing it for a guideline, not a policy. So I changed Ted's mistaken title this article. Comments and consensus welcome.

--David Shankbone 23:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

David, please WP:AGF. I am going to WP:AGF and assume that you're not familiar with the problem of excessive use of COI/N by people making inappropriate reports, and that is why you falsely claim that the rule change does not expand the intended scope of the COI/N. Please restrict your defense of the policy to WT:COI instead of spreading it on multiple talk pages. THF 23:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Ted, your good faith ran out this week, and with the way you have framed this issue, as I mention above. I would venture a guess you don't have good faith with a lot of people at this point. And you misrepresented what was being discussed; you are acting in bad faith, Ted, as you have this whole week, and has been pointed out to you. --David Shankbone 23:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving -- somebody has to do it, but who?

There are now 97 open items on the noticeboard, and the size is up to 229 kb. One of these days somebody will listen to my perennial proposal, and let me set up bot archiving! That will help us keep up with the newer, trendier noticeboards such as WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:WQA, WT:WPSPAM, WP:CSN, WP:FRINGE and WP:RSN. EdJohnston 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got no theoretical objection to that. DurovaCharge! 23:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for it. Is there a way to have the bot only archive closed threads? There are old threads on here that should stay on here until they're resolved. THF 00:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Entry on wikia/wimimedia finances

While I can see that the issue is of interest and worth discussing, this noticeboard is for COI involving editors and edits, not the administration of wikimedia or wikia. It surely shouldn't be here. SamBC(talk) 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not? And if you have strong opinions on the operation of this board, please help run it. Theoretically, though, I see no reason why the board couldn't accommodate it. I'd also be happy if, sometimes, an editor who had a declared conflict of interest posted proactively to request assistance before a complaint emerged. DurovaCharge! 23:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
To quote from the top of the noticeboard:

This noticeboard is for reporting and discussing the application of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline to incidents and situations where editors may have close personal or business connections with article topics.

This specifies editors, and the guideline in question also refers only to editors and editing, not to internal management of the wikimedia foundation. SamBC(talk) 03:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helpful web application: Wikiscanner

This Wired News article profiles a web app that searches for companies and their ip addresses, and shows what they've been editing. Some on this site might find it useful. David Fuchs (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] spam links

COIBot is picking up links added in the {{spamlink}} when that template is added to WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN. From that moment COIBot is monitoring those links, and when they get added to a page a report is created (watch Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, this page gets updated when a monitored link gets added; within approx 5 minutes after the addition .. if the bots are running, that is).

Would it be of interest to WP:COIN to have in the header of the page the {{spamlink}} mentioned (of course, cases of plain spamming should be reported to WT:WPSPAM)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] collapsing long comments....

hi folks - i noticed that the guidelines recommend a 200 word response - i don't think there's any major problem if people respond more verbosely, but I quite like the idea of being able to include their comments in a collapsible section. - i know this doesn't improve the page size, but it helps clarity and readability imo. You can see the effect in the 'Gothic Chess' section - thoughts? - Purples 08:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is a good idea, and is reasonably common practice. Hut 8.5 20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
It's also perfectly in order to ask someone to provide a short summary of an over-long comment. The idea of using collapse boxes for long exchanges was tried in the past on this noticeboard, but not with complete success. (The words the editor originally typed no longer remain visible on the page, which feels like a violation of WP:TALK). Some of us deal with extra-verbose comments by not reading them :-). EdJohnston 21:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] When to close?

I'd like to help with the perennial backlog on this page, but don't know when to mark an issue as "closed." After we've warned the user? Deleted the page? Everyone agrees? (That last one was only half a joke.) Or do we simply use our judgment as to when we think it's taken care of? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 17:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just closed three cases that didn't really need to be here. I suggest we close cases quickly, but leave them hanging around for a while before archiving. Once the situation becomes clear and we know how to resolve the matter and no further discussion is needed, that's when to close. Leaving closed cases on the board for a while helps ensure that everybody has a chance to see the case. If something is closed too soon, it's very easy to remove the {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}} templates. - Jehochman Talk 02:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of bot archiving on the noticeboard

There have now been two successful nightly runs of MiszaBot to clean out old issues. Though opinion has not solidified as to whether this is a good idea, it saves all the labor taken up by manual archiving. One point to notice is that issues will go away after 14 days if no-one comments on them. This should increase people's attention to items near the top of the noticeboard. If you believe an issue has gone away prematurely, just copy it back from the archive (no need to delete the archive copy). EdJohnston 21:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that bot archiving has run for a few days, I keep noticing all the resolved items that haven't gone away yet. (The bot takes an item away 14 days after the date of the last date stamp in any comment). Would anyone object if the timeout were reduced from 14 days to 10 days? (I have been impatiently archiving a few large items by hand, to save space in the noticeboard, without waiting for the bot). Please comment if you think reducing the timeout is a bad idea. EdJohnston 02:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do the Template:COI tags remain on articles too long?

This noticeboard does not get around to dealing with all the submitted COI issues. We place {{COI}} tags on articles which may accumulate over time. There are now about 300 of these, and 120 articles tagged with {{COI2}}.

This cloud of unaddressed COI tags occasionally gets attention from someone who doesn't like it, as in the September 26 issue on ANI where Jehochman complained about User:Fredsmith2 removing COI tags from three articles. Re-checking this complaint, I prefer that COI tags get removed (if at all) in accordance with COI guidelines. Fred removed three tags, and I sympathize with the removal of the first (the yacht club), and probably disagree with the removal of the other two (since both articles that had been tagged are now deleted). The attention provided by Fred might have led to the deletions; I don't know the specifics.

Does anyone suggest what can be done with the 500-or-so articles that are still tagged with one of the COI templates? One option is to expire them into other tags, after (say) three months. For instance {{Notability}}. Another option is to study them in batches, and try to convert them en masse. I think Fred would like to abolish the templates. Your comments are welcome. EdJohnston 03:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem. A COI editor comes in and junks up our encyclopedia. People aren't too motivated to clean up those self-serving articles, especially where notability is borderline. I think we should go through these and use Wikipedia:Deletion process to reduce the numbers. Then the rest can be reviewed, repaired and retagged with other maintenance tags as needed. Coul Fred help us organize a group of editors to review and repair or delete these articles? - Jehochman Talk 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I just took care of one article. If we get some more people to help out, we can mow through this backlog. To help increase visibility, I created a new section at the top of the Noticeboard. - Jehochman Talk 03:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
It is too easy for someone to put a WP:COI tag on an article. Prior to placing such a tag, editors must be able to show that they have taken the proper procedure under "How to handle conflicts of interest" WP:COI prior to adding the Template:COI. Many of the editors of the articles in question have not been treated with the respect laid out by the WP Admin. Before COI editors become the police, judge & jury it's important to the integrity of WP that these guidelines be followed. I believe it would be a fair practice to remove all COI tags that were placed where the editors did not following the Admin's guidelines. This would reduce many of the superfluous tags, giving validation to those tags which should truly be there. HollywoodFan1 (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fellowship of Friends

Please see IP block at the Fellowship of Friends page due to COI. Yamla, an administrator, suggested to take this case to COIN. Thanks. Mfantoni 00:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I have semi-protected the page because it is becoming clear the IP author of the R Family Vacations thread is using COI/N as a platform to continue a campaign of harassment and WikiStalking against User:Benjiboi. I would like a review of the semi here. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USER: SJR2008 Conflict of intrest issues

Hello user BlueAzure,

Is it a conflict of interest for publication of a person place or thing? As a publicist who wish to write factual information about a actor, athlete, organization, and or company. Is it a conflict of interest?

If this is the case then one may say that the Wikipedia article written about NBA athlete Michael Jordan, actor Michael Cera, and singer Britney Spears or even singer M.I.A. (artist) are all conflict of interest. All are informative information of living people.

If you can please be more clear in regards to COI. I wish to avoid making the same mistakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SJR2008 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's give up on usage of the 'coiwatch' and 'coit' templates

People have stopped using {{coiwatch}} and {{coit}} in the complaint headers for various reasons. I suggest that the instructions at the top of the page (which still say to use these templates, at least in the hidden text) might be updated to agree with current practice. The old system made the headers complicated. This affected the ease of archiving and made it tricky to refer to COI complaints when posting elsewhere. Let me know if anyone disagrees with updating the instructions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed template change

I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox. MBisanz talk 13:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fathom SEO's Career Education Corporation spam

Hi. This one should probably have started out here, but it went to Talk:Wikiproject Spam first, probably because it first looked like link-spamming. There may be some link-spamming but it turns out this is really more about an SEO firm adding articles about their clients, burnishing their spin and then search-optimizing these articles with lots of internal wiki-linking. The internal wiki-linking makes a lot of sense and by itself is not necessarily a problem for us since we're supposed to be doing this for all our articles (see "Build the web"). The potential problem, though: when someone searches for "elite+small+college+new+england", a search engine will return our "Acme Polytechnic University & For-profit Diploma Mill" article high in search engine rankings (and above other Wikipedia articles). When the searcher then clicks on the search result link, they go to a POV article speaks of Acme PU&FDM in glowing terms.

Collectively, this firm's accounts have received planty of warnings and requests to stop.

Anyway, there's a lot already written on this at:

There was also a WP:ANI report, now "resolved", at:

I think we should probably centralize all of our information in one place. I propose to keep working on this on the WikiProject Spam page since there's already a lot of data there, but if others think otherwise, let me know.
--A. B. (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally have confidence in the WikiProject Spam editors, and I'm sure they will have our sympathy as they deal with this issue! Articles on private trade schools that don't have any reliable sources commenting on their significance might be candidates for deletion. Our article on Career Education Corporation seems to contain a good bit of well-documented criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Why doesn't Miszabot archive sections with the resolved tag sooner than 10 days after last edit? MBisanz talk 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The archiving timeout was originally set to 14 days, but it now is 10 days. MiszaBot takes away each complete thread as soon as the timestamp on the last edit is 10 days old. There is a proposal for the bot to take away resolved items quicker, and it's on Misza's to-do list. WP:AN and WP:ANI could use this feature as well. If you see an especially verbose thread that is resolved but still hanging around, you can always archive it manually. My suggestion is to wait 3 days after it was marked 'resolved' in case anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] User:Ideasintoaction

(Moved to Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Ideasintoaction) --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This report really should go on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page, I'll move it tonight unless someone else beats me to it. MBisanz talk 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes and thanks. I'm really far to busy to be trying to patch together reports like this between real life stuff. I'm glad I can rely on editors like you to help. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A bot that notices possible COI edits

A hard working bot deserves a refreshing glass of motor oil!
A hard working bot deserves a refreshing glass of motor oil!

This edit shows an example of PseudoBot reverting the addition of a red-linked article name to the March 13 date article. The person whose article didn't exist was Robert Povey, a British heavyweight boxer. (I know nothing about Povey, but his article has never been created). Sounds like a helpful activity! The bot is operated by User:Pseudomonas, and the bot already shows two barnstars on its user page. It appears to devote its efforts to cleaning up the date pages. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a great tool Ed, but boy - the day we start give awards and medals to robots, I cringe to think about it! Tiggerjay (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to cringe times.[2] -- SEWilco (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)