Misplaced Pages

talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:19, 20 July 2012 editWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,699 edits →Pointer: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:30, 19 August 2024 edit undoMusikBot II (talk | contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators102,793 editsm Removing protection templates from unprotected page (more info)Tag: Manual revert 
(838 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NOINDEX}}
{{notice|This is the ] for the ]. Issues related to ] should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to ''the noticeboard itself''.}} {{notice|This is the ] for the ]. Issues related to ] should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to ''the noticeboard itself''.}}
{{shortcut|WT:COI/N|WT:COIN}} {{shortcut|WT:COI/N|WT:COIN}}
<center>] ''''''</center>
{{archives|search=yes}}
{{oldmfdfull|date=2008-02-11|result='''keep'''}} {{oldmfdfull|date=2008-02-11|result='''keep'''}}
{{oldmfd | date = 2010-09-13 | result = '''] keep''' | votepage = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (2nd nomination)}} {{oldmfd | date = 2010-09-13 | result = '''] keep''' | votepage = Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (2nd nomination)}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 6
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{NOINDEX}}
{{archives|search=yes}}
<div class="center">] ''''''</div>


== COIN Cleanup == == Runza ==

I have attempted to address as many outstanding reports as possible. I have marked several as either resolved or stale (in my opinion, the line between the two is very thin). If you get a chance, please take a look at them and make a note if you think I have closed those cases in error. If there are no objections, I will archive those reports in the next day or two as I feel that all the clutter may be discouraging people from getting involved. ''']'''<sup>]</font></sup> 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

:I have archived several resolved/stale sections. ''']'''<sup>]</font></sup> 16:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

== Template:COI ==

The {{tl|COI}} tag is nominated for deletion, see ''']'''. ]&nbsp;(]) 08:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

== Edit notice ==

I find that some users often come to this noticeboard and accuse another user of having a ] but present no evidence (unless the user's name clearly indicated a conflict per ]). Before requesting a change to the edit notice of the noticeboard, I would like to see what others think about this issue. More exactly, is it ] or in ] to accuse someone at a noticeboard like this without presenting any evidence? Outside of civility, it doubles the work done assuming the person making the report did any research into the COI.
Maybe it's something we can't change or isn't worth trying to change but I'm more interested in what others think about the issue of civility at this point. ''']'''<sup>]</font></sup> 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

:It's not this noticeboard alone. Some users in content disputes make accusations of sockpuppetry, or whatever else will (if believed) get their opponent blocked from Misplaced Pages or at least sanctioned from editing on the topic. If you can get someone kicked out, you needn't persuade him nor risk his winning an argument. Not a new idea in the world, is it? --] (]) 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello. I am seeing a probable COI edit on an article that I'm watching, ], . 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 ]. Thanks. <span style="font-family: cursive;">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></span> 14:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
::You're absolutely right. I'm not naive enough to think that we live in a fair world but that doesn't mean we can't strive for a fair world in our little corner of it. ''']'''<sup>]</font></sup> 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
:Thank you. <span style="font-family: cursive;">— ]<small><sup> (])</sup></small></span> 17:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
:If the discussion merely is an accusuation of COI without evidence, consider closing the discussion by adding <br>''<nowiki>{{Discussion top|1=Closed by -- ~~~~}}</nowiki>''<br> to the discussion top and <br>''<nowiki>{{Discussion bottom}}</nowiki>''<br> to the bottom of the discussion. -- ] (]) 11:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:]Midwestern ] (]) 05:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
::I've always been weary of doing a hard close like that. I'm not opposed to it though. I'll consider using that method in the future. ''']'''<sup>]</font></sup> 23:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
:::It's hard to know in advance where a discussion will head. When it reaches time for a hard close, the damage already might be done. -- ] (]) 06:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
*We absolutely need a new approach. discussion has been going on for 22 daysand any COI evidence has long since been presented and reviewed. COIN doesn't have anything set up to close such discussions. Seems that the COIN board will continue to be used until Toresbe is driven from the project. That isn't right. -- ] (]) 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


== Does anyone know what happened with Saudi Arabia trying to edit Misplaced Pages? ==
== seealso ==


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? ] (]) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Should the {{tl|seealso}} tag on the top of this noticeboard be changed? For example:
:This board is for discussion about the operation of the COI noticeboard. Requests for help should be made at the ]. ] (]) 18:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
:{{seealso|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cooperation|Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch}}
Cheers. -- ] ] ] 19:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


== Adverse effects to CT == == Presentation on COI ==
{{archive top|Treat this as what it is, a content issue, and stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must have an ulterior motive. Vague and unsubstantiated accusations of COI will be ignored with extreme prejudice. If you can't figure out that this is a collaborative project, then the CT dispute will invariably end with your being banned from Misplaced Pages. You now have your advice. ] (]) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:I understand this is a collaborative project, and I understand that COI editing is discouraged, and should be taken seriously, and that the COIN is a mean to resolve issues of COI editing, and a place to discuss COI matters. Am I wrong on any of the above?
:Is your advice - go ahead and file to the COIN with specific accusations? --] (]) 04:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
::If you actually have specific accusations and a reason beyond "they disagree with me", then go ahead. Otherwise, ]. ] (]) 04:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::Of course I have documented reasons for specific accusations.
:::I thought that according to the COI guidelines, it is good to discuss the issue first, and perhaps reach an agreement, but if that is considered a vague and unsubstantiated accusation, and is ignored with extreme prejudice, than I guess that the COI guideline is incorrect.
:::Thank you for your advice. --] (]) 04:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}}


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.
According to the header of the COIN: "This page is for reporting or <b>requesting advice</b> regarding conflict of interest (COI) incidents."


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: ]. I've asked ] 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 ], which is UTC+12:00. for your convenience. ''']]''' 20:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that COIs may be involved in the edits of adverse effects to CT. I have opened the discussion at the COIN in order to discuss the matter but the discussion was closed. No advice was given. Please advice. --] (]) 15:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


:Here's a ; 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". ''']]''' 05:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
:This is just more typical behavior from a ]. Just as he previously declared that everybody on ] was wrong while he alone was right, then did the same thing on ], ], ], ] and ], and now he is here saying that the volunteer who closed ] was wrong and that only he, Nenpog, understands the rules under which WP:COIN operates. His previous block says it all.


== Discussion of potential interest ==
:I fully expect him to continue his blatant ] in pursuit of someone who will tell him that the consensus at ] is wrong and he is right. I suspect that his next step will be ].


Editors who read this noticeboard may be interested in the discussion at ], regarding how to best obtain a random sample of Misplaced Pages articles on companies for the purposes of assessing problems like undisclosed COI editing. – ]''']''' ] 16:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Nenpog asked for advice, so here it is: ''']'''. I hope this helps. --] (]) 18:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks for your advice Guy Macon, however, I didn't ask for your advice, I asked for the advice of the members of the COIN. Stop tailing my posts please. --] (]) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
:The discussion included advise. Also, being on the losing end of a content dispute does not mean COIs may be involved in editing an article or that the content is a COI incident. My draft close of that discussion included a comment on ]. Since that was beyond the scope of the COIN notice board, I left that out in the posted close. ] and ] are issues for ]. -- ] (]) 13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
::I didn't see there any advice from the COIN. Please tell me the advice.
::Being on the losing side of a content dispute doesn't mean that there isn't a COI issue involved. A few editors admitted occupational proximity to the topic of the article, and a few editors have done edits that imply that they have a COI. The purpose of the discussion was to enable these and other editors to act in good faith and admit their COI, or potential COI. --] (]) 14:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
:::As has been explained to Nenpog before, the mere fact that someone works for ] and edits ] is not evidence of a COI. The "edits that imply that they have a COI" are simply other editors disagreeing with Nenpog.
:::In my opinion, COIN should ask Nenpog for specific evidence of a COI violation by specific editors, and if no evidence is forthcoming, make a ruling of "No evidence of a COI". After being warned by two different administrators to stop accusing other editors of a COI without evidence, Nenpog is now making thinly-veiled accusations against "a few editors", usually accompanied by a link to an edit one of his targets has made, and still without any actual evidence. --] (]) 13:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
::::Guy Macon doesn't know what my evidences for COI are, because I have never wrote to anyone, including him, what they were.
::::BTW, that person is following my contributions, and posts off topic negative comments about me after my comment in each discussion. Is there a WP:name or WP:policy regarding that? --] (]) 17:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::You have been warned by two administrators that continued accusations of COI without proof are violations of ] and will get you blocked if you keep making them.
:::::You are the one who decided to go ] with your accusations of COI. You can hardly expect that none of the editors you have accused will respond. --] (]) 09:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


== Unclear starter-template output ==
:::::You have already been informed before (on IRC) in extreme detail that your "evidence" wasn't evidence of a COI. The COIN is closed. If you opened a COI thread without disclosing the evidence, as you put it, then that amounts to pointless disruption. When you have numerous independent editors all telling you the same thing it's time to stop badgering the issue and work on something else. ] (]) 09:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::IRWolfie, are you a member of the COIN? --] (]) 11:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::There is no such thing as a "members" of any noticeboard, just regulars who comment. People might say members to refer to regulars, that is all. Personally, I don't see how it has any bearing either. ] (]) 11:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::IRWolfie, are you able to close COIN cases with a decision of a found COI? --] (]) 13:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::Of course he can. All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing and any editor can apply ] and close it. And of course he would close it with "no evidence of COI" -- nobody is going to make a finding of COI without evidence.
:::::::::The catch with anyone being allowed to make a determination and close the case is that if other editors disagree (zero chance of that in this case -- you yourself admitted that you have presented no evidence) or they think he is too involved (again zero chance of that in this case, IRWolfie has had no involvement) they can revert and discuss. See ].
:::::::::Just because IRWolfie ''can'' does not imply that he ''will''. It is perfectly reasonable for him to leave that decision to someone who regularly volunteers at COIN. Of course it is also perfectly reasonable for him to close this with a finding of "no evidence of COI". That finding is inevitable, because you presented no evidence and named no editor; it's only a question of who fills out the paperwork. --] (]) 15:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Aha. So, you say that I can revert Uzma Gamal's edit myself, so the discussion will continue. Interesting.
::::::::::Anyway, I am interested only in the opinion of the regular volunteers of the COIN. --] (]) 15:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::The above bears no resemblance to what I wrote. You are not an uninvolved editor. You are the disruptive editor who's behavior we are dealing with. --] (]) 16:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::OK, then do you say that I can ask any uninvolved editor in Misplaced Pages to review, and revert, and that editor will be able to just revert?
::::::::::::Anyway, I am still interested only in the opinion of the regular volunteers of the COIN. What you answer bare no NNPG:Weight. --] (]) 16:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::::::So you are asking me questions, but you say you are not interested in my answers. Play your games elsewhere. I am done with you. ---] (]) 18:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Long ago and before many days, at about 19:07, 30 June 2012, and in this section, I have written to you that I seek the advice of the members of the COIN, and that I am not interested in your answers. I am wondering if that message really got through. If so - Hallelujah. --] (]) 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


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 ] as the skeleton. It has bullet-entries:
{{archive bottom}}
{{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? ] (]) 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...) ] (]) 18:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
== Recent edit removing other editor's comments ==
::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. ] (]) 19:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2024 ==
Removal of another editor's comments on WP:COIN: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=500744338 --] (]) 06:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:Guys instruction to perform ]: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=500660854&oldid=500645404 --] (]) 06:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
:::BRD is about article space, not talk pages or noticeboards. ] (]) 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
== Pointer ==
* {{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 ] 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 and the user discussion at ]. An IP address user has again attempted to remove the tag.


<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)</small>
There's a thread at ] by an editor who, in the words of the COI guideline, has "a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization" and is unhappy about having his conflict of interest/activism pointed out in a discussion about POV pushing. It's possible that people familiar with the COI guideline might like to look over the thread. (Please ''do not'' reply here; there's no value in spreading the dispute across multiple pages.) ] (]) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:30, 19 August 2024

This is the talk page for the Conflict of interest noticeboard. Issues related to conflict of interest should go to the noticeboard, not to this talk page. This talk page is for discussing issues relating to the noticeboard itself.
Shortcuts
Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on 2008-02-11. The result of the discussion was keep.
Miscellany for deletionThis page was nominated for deletion on 2010-09-13. The result of the discussion was snowball keep.


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

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III 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 14:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. — Mudwater 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 Misplaced Pages?

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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Performing a random pages test on business articles, regarding how to best obtain a random sample of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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:

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:

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

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

This article was tagged with Misplaced Pages: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)