Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:48, 23 June 2007

Archives

• Archive 1   from December 2006

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 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 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 10:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COIBot is now reporting on this wiki as well, for the moment under Misplaced Pages: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 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 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 Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/UserReports and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, respectively. --Dirk Beetstra 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)

WP:GRIEF

I highly recommend the above essay by Kafziel, I think it's brilliant, and definitely applicable here. RJASE1 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 closed. 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.

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)

The Community sanction noticeboard has been nominated for deletion

For those who follow such matters, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

• The conclusion (May 9) was no consensus. — Athaenara ✉ 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Common Cause

• 208.201.146.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• COI/N Archive 8 - sections 3 & 4
• COI/N Archive 14 - section 1

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 (/_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)

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)

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)

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:Misplaced Pages 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)

COI templates proposed for deletion

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

Template talk:COI and Template talk: COI2

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 03:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

COI Templates

• (Forwarded message)

"Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Misplaced Pages: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)"

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 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 ==]== ... 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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline

• Create a new section with the 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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}}, {{Blpwatch}} and {{Blpwatch-links}}.

And just try writing a normal internal link with all those pipes in the section headings:

"]]"

becomes "Watchlist this article|unwatch) " 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)

Alternative Use for COIN

After a recent report involving VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · 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 Misplaced Pages's content policies. Jehochman 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 Misplaced Pages'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 . -- 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 Misplaced Pages." 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 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 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. 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 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)

D-Lib Magazine article

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

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)