Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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. Schwede66 20:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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". Schwede66 05:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)