Template talk:COI/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"Badge of shame" language

The template instructions currently say:

Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors.

This language about "badge of shame" was added in this diff, by User:Insomesia who is indeffed and was a sock of Benjiboy per the SPI, a person who was relentless in promotional editing on topics where they had a COI.

The language is bullshit and has been from the day it was added. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The diff you cite was five and a half years ago; many people - including you - have edited the documentation during that time and none - again including you; until it was pointed out that you were acting in breach of it - have seen fit to challenge or remove it. Furthermore, we are not here to shame our article subjects. At least, I'm not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Not in breach of it. We do need to change this so it cannot be further abused; it has always bugged me as "protesting too much" which indeed it turned out to be. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes you are in breach of it. You've edit-warred to restore the tag without any attempt to identify the problems that should have been the automatic consequence of the tag's application. The badge of shame language that you want to see removed from here is actually reflected in the documentation for all cleanup templates, added by WhatamIdoing five years ago. The only bullshit is your naked attempt at removing guidance that checks your out-of-control behaviour in shaming any article that you think might have been touched by an editor that you disapprove of. That has to stop now. --RexxS (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This language is common to all of the neutrality tags, and I'm sure that I did little more than copy it here from another. As was discussed in great detail back in the day (perhaps it was at Template talk:POV?), there are two requirements for adding these tags:

1. you sincerely believe that there's something wrong with the (current version of the) article, and
2. you have to give future editors a fair chance at figuring out what needs to be fixed, by leaving a note on the talk page.

The required note can be a single sentence, or maybe even half of one, but it's got to identify something that can be fixed. "Pete Paid touched this article" doesn't count for any neutrality-related tag (because, due to failures of the WikiProject Time Travel group, we cannot yet change the past), but "Violates NPOV because it's stuffed with name-dropping" definitely does (and if Pete Paid is the editor who stuffed it full of promotionalism, then this is the specific POV-related tag that I'd recommend using). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

COI disclosure required here

I've added to the top that disclosure is required here for editors with a COI (it specifically states PAID), and that this is the wrong venue for specific articles/editors, which is COIN. It's just verbatim from Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest and already applied here. Widefox; talk 21:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

When not to use this template?

The current documentation for this template specifies some of the dos and don'ts of its application, but I am wondering if maybe we should have in the "don't" category something like, "Do NOT use this template to mark pages where the editor who edit or created the page has already made a COI declaration on his/ her userpage, the article talk page, or in the edit summary of his/ her edits unless the article requires additional editing for neutrality— in other words, do not use the template to simply mark an article as having been created by an editor with a COI but rather to mark such articles with content neutrality problems which, once resolved, would allow for the removal of this tag." I don't get the sense that this talk page gets much traffic, so may need to open this up for an RfC if no one responds to the discussion. KDS4444 (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

If the article has issues related to COI, just because an editor has declared they are paid on the talk page does not void concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

As requested. That's true, James. But there is a genuine concern expressed by the indeffed paid shill above that the template might be (ab)used by being placed merely because an editor had a COI. The primary purpose of all maintenance templates (of which this is one) is to clean-up and improve the article. Putting some onus on the tagger to actually identify at least one specific neutrality concern relieves some of the burden on those editors who will come along and do the clean-up – I mean, why make them duplicate the work of finding the neutrality concern(s)? Otherwise we risk ending up with lots of articles tagged and not enough gnomes arriving to do the clean-up. Eventually, the tag will lose its impact, if overused. Tags that lead to a talk-page discussion expounding the tagger's reason(s) are surely much more likely to fulfil their primary purpose? FWIW, I don't agree with the wording as it was, but I think your cut trimmed out too much of what I genuinely worry about. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed this text "Do not use this tag simply to mark an article which you believe or even know with certainty was created or edited by someone with a conflict of interest if the editor with the conflict has already made a declaration about this on his/ her userpage, the article talk page, or in a COI edit summary, as this disclosure makes use of the tag redundant."

The problem is that this appears to imply that simply disclosing does not mean one needs to write neutrally. This text is also not needed as we already say "the article may be biased by a conflict of interest" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

When I place this tag, I usually add the following to the talk page:

I've added a conflict of interest tag to this article. This signifies to readers that the article has been extensively edited by someone with a conflict of interest, and is likely to have bias, in the form of missing negative content, overemphasis on "positives", non-neutral language (all of which are violations of the WP:NPOV content policy), and is likely to have unsourced or poorly sourced content, in violation of the WP:VERIFY content policy. It is likely that the content promotes the subject of the article, in violation of the WP:PROMO policy. Independent editors need to review the article and correct it, and then may remove the tag. If you do so, please leave a note here. Thanks.

usually i do the clean up myself, but when the goal is to actually do a full review (if the article has been created in mainspace by a conflicted editor or passed through AfC with what is clearly a poor review) it takes time to do that, so sometimes I just tag it -- for instance when going through work of a sockfarm. The tag really should stay until somebody does that work. It really is true that conflicted/paid editors generally omit negative stuff and spin controversial stuff. That is often why they come. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

"likely to... likely to... It is likely..." As you have been told several times in the last few hours, the template's documentation requires that if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning. That's "what is non-neutral"; not mere supposition about what you believe to be "likely". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, your views here are not mainstream and indeed reflect your pervasive paid editing. You can bold all you want and it does not make your stance any more valid. There was already intensive discussion about the tag at Talk:Martin Saidler when you removed it - all your actions here are the worst sort of wikilawyering. Really. The worst -- nothing to do with the spirit of things. The article was the product of direct paid editing and nobody had done the review at the time you removed the tags. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As noted by you, and only you, you mean? As for "intensive" discussion, there was only a single post attempting to justify the use of this template on the Sadler article when I removed the template, and it said, in full:

"The issue is that these articles are written by someone (a group of people) for pay. This is Wikipedia, we do not really allow "ads". We are supposed to be independent. These articles are not and thus they are tagged.

They have also not disclosed all the account that they have paid... So not exactly coming clean. If they did not wanted tagged articles they should not have bought them. They are simple contributing to our sock puppet problem"

There is nothing there that in any way meets the requirement to promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article; just as there is not in your utterly inadequate "likely to... likely to... It is likely..." boilerplate. The "spirit of things" is made quite clear in the yellow-highlighted text in the template's documentation, thanks. And you really need to drop the ad hominem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

On a related point, these tags aren't supposed to "signify to readers" anything at all, because warning the readers is a violation of WP:No disclaimers in articles. Our maintenance tags exist to help editors fix articles. This has been discussed before, and the community has been clear on this point: maintenance tags are meant to be temporary, and they exist to attract editors. To the extent that readers need "warnings", then those warnings are in the "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Another example

I wonder whether uninvolved editors would consider that "Issues with paid editing Are in need of review by someone independent. The article is also completely unreferenced. " [1] meets the requirement that if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article, with the emphasis on "what is non-neutral"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I would not hold that up as the epitome of an explanation. However, I'd be inclined to accept it as just barely sufficient, because that "explanation" does tell me that Doc James (who placed the tag) didn't identify any specific problem in the article. At a guess, I'd assume that he's concerned about informal language, such as "she was considered a Knesset member whose social agenda is very close to her heart" rather than about misrepresented facts. If the "discussion" was obviously stale – as it inevitably will become, when there's nothing obvious to fix or even to talk about – then the tag could be removed. While many editors think that 30 days is long enough to prove staleness, in most situations, I choose to wait 90 days. (Obviously, one does not remove tags that one believes are relevant and useful.)

One does, however, wonder why this particular tag was chosen. The editor that most recently substantially expanded the article has disclosed his/her status as a paid editor at hewiki, so it is not unreasonable to assume that the editor is working for pay here, too. But usually, we're working with just some editor's guess that the person is a paid editor, which is not necessarily any better than some other editor's guess that the new editor is merely an innocent fan or an enthusiastic member of the political party. OTOH, it is an undeniable fact that there are no independent sources on the page. If it were me, I'd have started by adding {{Third-party}}, as being a less drama-prone tag and more likely to result in practical improvements to the article. And, you know, unsourced material can be WP:CHALLENGEd quite easily. Fact-tagging unsourced puffery provides a straight, widely accepted path to its removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Both examples are typical of COI - overuse of primary/non-independent sources. The both have disclosed or DUCK COIs with serious content issues that need further review (this one has a very different version in the history with potential BLP violations which would need full review before reverting to). I second/third that the COI tag on both was warranted when placed. Widefox; talk 14:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Messy discussion

1. diff by SlimVirgin adding two paragraphs
2. diff WAID sticks a comment between those two paragraphs (WAID had just said they are having no problem following the discussion... hm)
3. diff series, discussion in response to #2 breaks SlimVirgin's 2 paragraphs yet further apart
4. SlimVirgin creates 2 subsection breaks
5. Slimvirgin re-unifies her comment from #1 so it fits in chron order as the page flows down...
6. Pigsonthewing moves comment #1 to some non-chron location
7. Slimvirgin puts her comment back in chron order
8. Pigsonthewing again moves it out of chron order
9. I put it back to its place in chron order.

human, all too human, messiness. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• and Slimvirgin just moved it so it next to what follows it (as opposed to what preceded it). OK then. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
  • so this is a dispute over the location of breaks and bits of broken-up comments on the talk page of a maintenance template, in a sprawling discussion about conditions for removing said template. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Had SV not already kindly fixed the mess you made, I would have reverted your edit number 9. You can find a guide to basic talk page formatting at MOS:LISTGAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The diffs above are quite clear as to how this specific mess got made. But thanks for the diff of the misrepresentation.Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Your diff number 9 was provided by you, and shows an edit made by you. It was that mess on which - taking your post as an invitation to comment - I commented. Your allegation of "misrepresentation" is yet another false one. Perhaps, instead of making such allegations, you could give your attention to the questions put to you above, which you have yet to answer, for example [2] [3]? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

diff. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

With regard to the two questions you link to there, I do realize the discussion is sprawling and messy. For example this section is about the order of comments on this page and the little edit war over them. I'll respond to the questions below. Jytdog (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

"I'll respond to the questions below." You didn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

See below.Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Two issues

There are two issues here:

1. should there be an explanation of the tag on the talk page
2. who can remove the tag

We are going around in circles with these being treated like they are one issue. They aren't.

I spoke to #1 here back on the 22nd. Just pulling that out of the mess above, as it appears that Andy at least didn't see it or forgot per this). There is no dispute about this as far as I can see.

The dispute is about #2, and that is what the RfC is for. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

More misrepresentation: I replied to your post of the 22nd (in which you remarkably claimed "The BLP policy isn't relevant to article cleanup.") here. As to "who can remove the tag"; the template's documentation is quite clear: if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning - that's any editor, without qualification. Your wish to change that condition - for which you have made no cogent case, and certainly demonstrated no consensus - notwithstanding. And I ask you again: Under what circumstances do you envisage that that would not be possible for the person placing the tag to start a talk page discussion to explain what is non-neutral about the article? And why did you not start such a discussion when you were recently edit-warring to restore the tag on an article where I had removed it on the basis that there was no such discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand that you disagree; there is no need to keep repeating yourself. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I repeated my questions because you wrote above "I'll respond to the questions below", yet you failed to do so. Just as you have again failed to do so in your latest post. Will you answer them now? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I know you don't like the answer. I have answered. Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Simply dumping your thoughts below a question does not constitute an answer to it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)