Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 1 May 2021

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.

• WT:COI/N
• WT:COIN

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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

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

Specific disclosure of paid edits

Hello - I posted this at WT:PAID, but it looks like this page might have more visibility. If a paid editor makes a general declaration that he/she edits for pay on behalf of a media company that contracts with other clients, does that editor need to specify who those clients are (i.e., which specific people/organizations are asking for this media company to make paid Misplaced Pages contributions)? It's not clear to me from the WP:PAID guideline whether "client", in this case, merely means the company that employs you to make paid edits, rather than the subjects of that editing that are doing the actual paying to the company that you work for. So, does the declaration have to be, "I am paid by Foo Company to make edits on Misplaced Pages", or "Foo Company pays me to make edits on behalf of the following people: A, B, and C."? Chubbles (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chubbles I think it is, "Foo Company pays me to make edits on behalf of the following people: A, B, and C." WP:PAID says, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship. Generally, the more transparency there is about who is paying a paid editor and why, the less likely they are to violate the policy. Z1720 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

yes to what Z1720 said. Possibly (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Follow-up question: Does that disclosure need to be made (somewhere) on Misplaced Pages, or is it sufficient to make the disclosure elsewhere - say, on one's own personal website? Chubbles (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

As it says at WP:PAID, in the section on the terms of service, the disclosure must be made in one of three places - on your user page, on the Talk page of the article in question, or in the edit summary. All three of those things are on Misplaced Pages. Posting it on your personal website, on a sign in the middle of a desert, getting it tattooed on your forearm or whispering it in the wind where only the daffodils will hear would not be sufficient. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping that was the answer. Thank you. Chubbles (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor (paid) § Template colors

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Connected contributor (paid) § Template colors. Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48

single-purpose IP editors

To me it seems that if an editor wishes to evade any and all COI-related scrutiny, there is a simple solution: just edit while logged out.

In other words, our current first point appears to be entirely toothless:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors

The policy doesn't just tell us to avoid making problematic edits, but to avoid making any edits at all. (If the edits are problematic in any way, we just revert them. This is about otherwise uncontroversial edits except they are likely made by the article subject (or their families, friends etc).

I recently reported an IP editor that is making edits to a single article almost solely (20 out of 24 edits made to single article, remaining four made to add mention of said subject to other articles) after repeated attempts to start a conversation about disclosing any possible COI. My response from this noticeboard? A shrug.

I really think something is missing here. Either we enforce our policies or we make it more clear (that is, clear at all) that uncontroversial edits are fine even about yourself, your family and so on.

Why aren't we requiring IP edits to disclose any possible COI? Why isn't the policy discussing this case?

Link: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_170#Anders_Fager Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

policy vs IP editors

The COI policy is unusually hazy about sanctioning. It provides very little guidance as to when and where it is appropriate to engage IP editors. It says nothing about the case when you're wrong and the editor actually isn't violating COI.

What I mean is that logically when you post COI templates on a user's talk page, a response is warranted, right? (Unless the user decides to just stop contributing entirely, of course).

The policy isn't helping when I'm trying to figure out if we're supposed to force the user to either disclose their COI or actively go on record as saying "no, I'm not violating COI". Or how are we otherwise getting any resolution?

There are several editors that just ignore COI warning templates. Being registered at talk pages is a weak sanction. If you are registered, you can be blocked, but it doesn't appear COI violations lead to IP blocks?

What am I missing here? CapnZapp (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

CapnZapp, mostly a lack of administrative capacity. Do you have specific pages or IPs that need to be dealt with? (reminder to everyone watching - you're always welcome to ping me to COIN discussions if action is clearly needed and nobody's doing anything). GeneralNotability (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your engagement but with respect: no. If we can't enforce our policies, we need to relax them. Having rules that only the unlucky need to follow is unacceptable. If this is "only" a case of a backlog, then say so clearly at the top: "Due to a lack of administrative lack of capacity: please be patient for before concluding your report has been left with no action" (and obviously changing the archival parameters to match). But if it's more than "just" a case of backlog, and editors can't rely on their reports being followed upon, we need to change our policies so make this clear. Besides, let's not discuss individual cases - it only deflects from the greater issue. (I will, however, say this: how about instead of editors pinging you - effectively making you the "real" COI noticeboard - we instead report cases on COIN and you having that page watched?) If we agree the COI noticeboard can't uphold our COI policy, we need to take this discussion to an appropriate venue where changes to make theory meet practice can be discussed. Best regards and no offense to you intended. CapnZapp (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I will also note that you basically changed the subject. What is your response to my questions above, GeneralNotability? The COI policy essentially forces registered users to either disclose their COI or at least go on record denying any COI, right? What about IP editors? If there's a difference, what do you think about that? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

New anti-promo tool

I have created a new tool with the ability to detection promotional articles which I believe to be the first of its kind. I am conducting a scientific study to test it's efficacy with will start on Friday, April 9. If would like to have access to the tool, you may register for the study by posting a message to my talk page. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"Create discussion" button is broken

The "create discussion" button seems to be trying to create a template. - Bri.public (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bri.public Are you using desktop or mobile? The button seems to work for me with desktop. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Also desktop at the moment. Maybe it was transient, I don't see the error now. It was trying to create Template:COIN notice which I see has been created and deleted; probably due to the same issue in December 2018. - Bri.public (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Bri.public I saw another button problem at Misplaced Pages talk:Correct typos in one click#Error in Type, hopefully that has also resolved itself. TSventon (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Help please?

Hi. So, in the not-hypothetical scenario that I have a user who has disclosed they have a COI but I believe has failed to disclose that they are being paid, what kind of evidence do I need to gather to that effect? Undisclosed paid editors get blocked all the time, but I am struggling to find any information concerning under what circumstances. (If any sockpuppetry is involved, I won't have enough evidence to prove it unless certain administrators return from their sudden absences, so that route is unavailable to me.) —Compassionate727  21:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)