Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 10:30, 19 August 2024

Shortcuts

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

This page was nominated for deletion on 2010-09-13. The result of the discussion was snowball keep.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 6 sections are present.

Click here to post a question to the Conflict of interest noticeboard

Runza

Hello. I am seeing a probable COI edit on an article that I'm watching, Runza, here. Could someone with experience in such matters contact the editor please? I would do it myself, but I'm not familiar with the procedure and I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment. P.S. A related article that the editor has not changed, so far anyway, is Runza (restaurant). Thanks. — Mudwater^(Talk) 14:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Mudwater^(Talk) 17:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@Midwestern 89.199.101.252 (talk) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what happened with Saudi Arabia trying to edit Wikipedia?

I'm looking into the issue but I can't find any sources/articles on it here, or any centralized discussion of the whole problem. Does anyone know where I can find this? 35.2.38.93 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This board is for discussion about the operation of the COI noticeboard. Requests for help should be made at the Help Desk. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation on COI

I've issued a public invitation to an online meeting where I will give a presentation on conflict of interests. That invitation was posted within one of the investigation discussions and so that it's not lost to page watchers, I thought I'd post it on this talk page.

The New Zealand Wiki community has its monthly online meeting later today. Anyone can join in and we usually have a few Australians turn up, i.e. it's not just a domestic meeting, with overseas editors most welcome. I'll be talking about COI editing so that we as a community learn something from the investigation that's going on, with a goal of achieving broader understanding of how to manage COIs. Anyone watching this page is most welcome to join in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Aotearoa New Zealand Online/49#Conflict of interest editing. I've asked the organiser to be on the programme in second slot so that there's an approximate time available for those who are only interested in this topic; tune in from 12:15 h NZT, which is UTC+12:00. Time zone conversion link for your convenience. Schwede 66 20:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the presentation; feel free to use the presentation and modify it as you see fit. It went well; there was a healthy amount of interest. The editors who spoke gave feedback like "I've learned a lot", "I'm definitely going to add conflict of interest statements to my user page", or "that was really useful, thank you". Schwede 66 05:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of potential interest

Editors who read this noticeboard may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Performing a random pages test on business articles, regarding how to best obtain a random sample of Wikipedia articles on companies for the purposes of assessing problems like undisclosed COI editing. – Teratix ₵ 16:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear starter-template output

When filing a new COI report using the "To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:" item, the user is given Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Template as the skeleton. It has bullet-entries:

{{pagelinks|article name}}
{{userlinks|username}}

Those seem pretty clear to the filer how and where to enter the relevant details. But the results of those templates when published are:

Article name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The outputs are very similar, but the concepts are quite different. Unless I recognize the differential link-sets, or the article name and username themselves, it's not clear which entry is for an article and which is for the involved user. Articles could be named for a person and editors could have non-person names, and there are cases where unrelated users have the same username as articles. I think it would be clearer if either each bullet-entry were tagged with what it is:

Article: Article name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

or the article(s) vs user(s) were in separately-identified lists:

Article(s):
- Article name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User(s):
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am only an occasional user of COIN, which makes this unclarity more noticeable to me but I also don't want to BOLDly change a tool that regulars might be expected to be a certain way. Thoughts? DMacks (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a reasonable improvement to me. (I also have the nagging half-memory that there are other noticeboards that use a similar format that might also be improved in the same way...) ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preference among the two approaches? Either one completely solves my concern, so I don't have a preference. I can see pros and cons of both, in terms of readability, compactness, consistency with other notice-boards, etc. DMacks (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024

Jake Braun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
97.119.137.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article was tagged with Wikipedia:Autobiography because of extensive edits by the subject. The subject attempted to remove the tag and had their account blocked indefinitely. See the COI noticeboard discussion at Cambridge Global and Jake Braun and the user discussion at User_talk:Spartaneditor. An IP address user has again attempted to remove the tag.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.15.211.66 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 :Thank you. <span style="font-family: cursive;">— [[User:Mudwater|Mudwater]]<small><sup> ([[User talk:Mudwater|Talk]])</sup></small></span> 17:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 :[[User:@|@@]]Midwestern [[Special:Contributions/89.199.101.252|89.199.101.252]] ([[User talk:89.199.101.252|talk]]) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
-== Reports with no prior engagement ==
-There are a least three sections currently on COIN, where reports have been raised with no prior attempt to notify the editors accused of having a CoI of our policies, to ask them to abide by those policies, nor indeed to welcome them to Wikipedia. What's more, in each case the accused editors have mode only one edit.
-As I have pointed out in those sections, a note at the top of the page states quite clearly: {{Tq|1="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."}}
-We are losing the opportunity to turn such editors into the beneficial, policy-abiding, contributors, which at least some of them could become. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 21:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
-== Suggestions for Improvements in COI disclosure requirements ==
-I was told that WP:COIN was the appropriate place to make suggestions for making COI disclosure for "Paid" editors, more appropriate.  Right now, there is one template (Paid) which is used to apply to many different situations of COI which do not really apply, or only indirectly apply.  This can be at the least, misleading, and sometimes can be completely incorrect.  IMO, Wikipedia should provide other templates which would be more appropriate than the "Paid" template.  '''''For example:'''''
-. According to Wikipedia, even if you're just a '''volunteer''' for a company, you're required to use this disclosure, which 'incorrectly' states that you were paid for the article.<br>
-. Likewise, if you're even a part-time '''employee''' of a company, and have never been paid by the company for the article, you still have to use the paid template, which is misleading.<br>
-Here's my suggestion for alternatives that may be more appropriate in these cases:
-<u>Rather than:</u><br>
-'''Paid:'''''UserName'', in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they have been paid by ''CompanyName'' for their contributions to Wikipedia.<br>
-<u>Sometimes, more appropriate alternatives would be:</u><br>
-. '''Volunteer:''' ''UserName'', in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they are a volunteer for ''CompanyName''.<br>
-. '''Employee:''' ''UserName'', in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that they are an employee of ''CompanyName''.<br>
-This way, the editor can correctly state their relationship to the company and the article.
-[[User:Ising4jesus|Ising4jesus]] ([[User talk:Ising4jesus|talk]]) 14:36, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 == Does anyone know what happened with Saudi Arabia trying to edit Wikipedia? ==
@@ Line 65: / Line 38: @@
 Editors who read this noticeboard may be interested in the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Performing a random pages test on business articles]], regarding how to best obtain a random sample of Wikipedia articles on companies for the purposes of assessing problems like undisclosed COI editing. – [[User:Teratix|Tera]]'''[[User talk:Teratix|tix]]''' [[Special:Contributions/Teratix|₵]] 16:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
+== Unclear starter-template output ==
+When filing a new COI report using the "To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:" item, the user is given [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Template]] as the skeleton. It has bullet-entries:
+{{box|
+* <nowiki>{{pagelinks|article name}}</nowiki>
+* <nowiki>{{userlinks|username}}</nowiki>
+}}
+Those seem pretty clear to the filer how and where to enter the relevant details. But the results of those templates when published are:
+{{box|
+* {{pagelinks|article name}}
+* {{userlinks|username}}
+}}
+The outputs are very similar, but the concepts are quite different. Unless I recognize the differential link-sets, or the article name and username themselves, it's not clear which entry is for an article and which is for the involved user. Articles could be named for a person and editors could have non-person names, and there are cases where unrelated users have the same username as articles. I think it would be clearer if either each bullet-entry were tagged with what it is:
+{{box|
+* Article: {{pagelinks|article name}}
+* User: {{userlinks|username}}
+}}
+or the article(s) vs user(s) were in separately-identified lists:
+{{box|
+* Article(s):
+** {{pagelinks|article name}}
+* User(s):
+** {{userlinks|username}}
+}}
+I am only an occasional user of COIN, which makes this unclarity more noticeable to me but I also don't want to BOLDly change a tool that regulars might be expected to be a certain way. Thoughts? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 18:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
+:Sounds like a reasonable improvement to me. (I also have the nagging half-memory that there are other noticeboards that use a similar format that might also be improved in the same way...) [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 18:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
+::Preference among the two approaches? Either one completely solves my concern, so I don't have a preference. I can see pros and cons of both, in terms of readability, compactness, consistency with other notice-boards, etc. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
+== Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 ==
+<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
+* {{pagelinks|Jake Braun}}
+* {{userlinks|97.119.137.18}}
+<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. -->
+This article was tagged with [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]] because of extensive edits by the subject. The subject attempted to remove the tag and had their account blocked indefinitely. See the COI noticeboard discussion at  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_164#Cambridge_Global_and_Jake_Braun Cambridge Global and Jake Braun] and the user discussion at [[User_talk:Spartaneditor]]. An IP address user has again attempted to remove the tag.
+<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/100.15.211.66|100.15.211.66]] ([[User talk:100.15.211.66#top|talk]]) 00:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)</small>