This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Around two thirds of this noticeboard is currently taken up by an off-topic RfC. It's off-topic because, as the top of the noticeboard says:

"This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline.".

It means that those of us who watch this noticeboard for notices about CoI issues are having our attention constantly distracted by off-topic posts responding to or discussing the RFC.

I moved the RfC to this talk page, laving a pointer to it on the noticeboard, but have been reverted, with the charming edit summary "What utter horseshit is this?".

The off-topic RfC should again be removed from the noticeboard; if not to this talk page, then to some other suitable venue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Andy. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If any section get too big and thus makes a noticeboard harder to use, it should be moved to a dedicated subpage with a pointer. Moving it for that reason is fine. Moving it because you personally think it is off topic is indeed utter horseshit. If it was off-topic the participation wouldn't be so high. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Andy, the RFC is indeed "off topic" for this "noticeboard" which is clearly for "determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline". Your "logic" is flawed and your abusive language uncalled for. The Original RFC was on this talk page. We discuss changes to policy and guidelines on talk pages or general forums. Participation is in fact not particularly high, as these things go, and certainly not in any way related to its location on the COI noticeboard (anyone watchlisting one gets the talk page too). You advertised this on the VP, Jimbos's page, the Fringe Theories noticeboard and the RFC for Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I fully support moving it to the talk page, where it belonged all along. In fact it it should be closed already as it clearly hasn't got a chance. It was never a wisely constructed RFC to begin with, repeating the same request and getting similar response, and all that has occurred is both sides telling stories about AltMed. Guy, you made a newbie mistake plonking this in the wrong place, just accept that rather than warring and cursing about it. -- Colin°^Talk 09:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Guy, you made a newbie mistake plonking this in the wrong place, just accept that rather than warring and cursing about it.

As Jimbo Wales has not yet died and left you In Charge of Everything Right and Proper at Wikipedia, you don't get to make pronouncements like that.

Pro-tip: noticeboards are used for whatever people use them for, and there's no Higher Authority to appeal to. Pigsonthewing moving a running RFC to this page was, indeed, utter horseshit, as I stated in my edit summary reverting the move and both of -- edit and summary -- which I stand by, your pearl-clutching notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Calton - You did indeed use a profane and uncivil edit summary and are continuing to be uncivil. The statement that noticeboards are used for whatever people use them for is the nonsense. Placing an RFC at this noticeboard is off-topic, as several editors have said, and dismissing them with a profanity is inappropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Calton of the "horeshit" edit summary. I expressed my opinion, and concur with Andy. Unlike you guys, I'm not warring or cursing. You seem very upset about something. Perhaps you should you lie down somewhere. The intellectual level of correspondence by those who claim to be on the side of rationality is most disappointing. -- Colin°^Talk 14:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Colin - Please do not sink to the level of User:Calton in telling them to lie down. I agree with you that they are acting childishly upset. Please do not sink to their level. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

childishly upset and Please do not sink to their level.

Ah, so the "comment on content, not contributors" line you use has a personal exemption for yourself, I see. It makes your pearl-clutching even more amusing. Have you considered growing up? --Calton | Talk 02:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Calton your comment is hypocritical, you criticize someone for making personal comments in the process of calling out PAs, but you do the same thing by saying It makes your pearl-clutching even more amusing. Have you considered growing up? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC on The Noticeboard

User:Guy Macon - Colin is right that you made a newbie mistake in putting the RFC on an inappropriate place, and you are not a newbie and should have known better. There are several reasonable places for the RFC, and COIN is not one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

And the RFC is interfering with the primary function of the noticeboard, which is to discuss specific conflict of interest issues, not conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales: still not dead, still didn't leave YOU in charge, either. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the discussion didn't really belong on COIN, but moving it so long after is started was disruptive. Also hasn't it been over 15 years since Jimbo got a supervote on where things belong? If Jimbo did die, I think most of us would be fairly sad, but also say "um you're welcome to partake in any discussion, but sorry you don't get to decide anymore then Jimbo did" to anyone they 'leave in charge'. Incidentally, I still wonder whether our handling of COI problems is completely broken. I haven't look that well but a quick look makes me feel despite the massive amounts of energy spent on that RfC suggesting people care about COI, very few actually do much about the cases raised even where it's evidence of a COI. Of course wider policy related issues are always going to let more attention then individual cases, but I think there's something wrong when little is actually done about any of them (perhaps unless it happens to fit in one editor's pet peeve or people get lucky/unlucky). Maybe it's just because of that massive recently closed RfC taking up 7/8s of the page but my gut feeling is no. Probably because I'm also very often guilty of that even if not so much here. (I barely said anything in that RfC.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I found a user that has a username that is a surname (last name). This user has created only two articles and edited nothing else in 1 1/2 years. One article is a person with the same surname. Another is the professor that the person in the first article studied under.

It would be like if there were a user named Andersson who created an article on a not very famous person, Olie Andersson, then created an article on a professor that Olie Andersson got his Ph.D. under.

At this point, I am not notifying the user nor identifying the user.

What should we do? Nothing? Something? Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe AfDing the professor's article would be a start Daiyusha (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems the right noticeboard to record an item like the following: Feinberg, Ashley (2019-03-14). "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages". HuffPost Canada. Retrieved 2019-03-14.

The vast majority of the people who propose and make changes to Wikipedia are volunteers. A few people, however, have figured out how to manipulate Wikipedia's supposedly neutral system to turn a profit.

The story has a decent description of wiki-lawyering. XOR'easter (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This doesn't smell right. See WMF $2M grant and disclosures at Talk:Google Docs, Talk:Google Forms, Talk:Google Slides - Bri.public (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's not like funding the foundation gets them any special brownie points with Wikipedia. Not sure how this would be more concerning that any other typical paid editor COI. Btw, that press release was from 10 years ago. I don't know how much the foundation got this or last year, if any - Tides only gives detailed information up to 2016, when the foundation got $26,000. The most recent foundation financial report doesn't list Tides, but it doesn't really give that much detail at all of who gave what, except for a few grant givers that placed restrictions on the money. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

Which information is unreferenced to be exact? I would be happy to remove any incorrect information. Did you see the new resources I added including the Swedish National Encyclopedia? In there it is stated that Arne Norell was inspired by Danish design and that ‘sirocco’ is an example of it. As I see it all the information I’ve written is clearly sourced from the sources I’ve provided and the photos are taken by me personally of furniture designed by Arne Norell. The photo of Arne Norell is an original photo owned by me and my mother passed down from my grandmother. I don’t see what is the issue? Blue46789 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Blue46789 This page is for discussing the operation of the COI noticeboard; if you are intending to comment on a discussion, please comment on the main COI noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see there's a reply here. The corresponding section at WP:COIN#Removed has been withdrawn by me, as it has been created by me in error. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Twelve days ago, I came to COIN for the first time because I had stumbled upon an article with WP:COI and came here for advice, which I received. I added the board to my watch list as it was useful. I then began to comment on other submissions with common-sense questions and/or advice. However, in the last week, I feel I am the only one responding to new submissions. Is everyone on summer break? Or is there a tradition that the first person to respond to a submission becomes the "owner" of it? I'm a n00b here. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a good question: the few threads that I opened here since I created an account seem to not have gathered attention. There's probably few unpaid volunteers who have the skill and can sacrifice time to this... Moreover, a number of COI suspects don't disclose (with the benefit of the doubt) and the policy about editing is less strict than the mandatory disclosure, only a strong suggestion... This easily gamed, volunteers often feel helpless, other than reverting obvious promotion, nominating articles for deletion or dealing with edit war if it's an obvious enough problem. Especially that they usually couldn't care less about articles that only COI editors care about. Of course, when I say they (the volunteers), I don't accuse anyone, I'm part of them. —PaleoNeonate – 04:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Adding: The policy on outing, while great for many reasons, also plays a role. Some of the few editors who were proficient at dealing with COI eventually got bit, after dealing with so many cases day after day... —PaleoNeonate – 04:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

SVTCobra Don't feel too responsible for COIN. After starting a thread there I asked another editor how it works. They said that sometimes you get a response on thread, sometimes editors don't answer but make improvements to the article and sometimes nothing happens. Hopefully articles on COIN do get looked at even if the thread goes unanswered.TSventon (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I am one of those editors who does pay some attention to COIN and edit articles in response, but doesn't often comment on the noticeboard itself. This discussion is a good reminder to maybe do that a bit more often, thanks SVTCobra. Melcous (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The header of this noticeboard says your report[...] should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. When I click that link, I don't see a list. Is this text out of date? It looks like a while back, that page had a Categories of COI on Wikipedia top-level section - maybe that's the list that it was referring to? Colin M (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I think if you read "What is conflict of interest?" you will see it has four sub-sections. I am not sure why you were looking for a a "list" specifically, but I don't think the header is misleading. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I was looking for a list because the text refers to a "list". Those four sub-sections don't look like things a COI report would "focus on". Like, how/why would a report focus on WP:COI is not simply bias? In practice, it doesn't seem like any of the reports currently on the noticeboard refer to any of these four sections. Seems like WP:BLOAT. Colin M (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin M, I agree that there appears to be a discrepancy between WP:COI and WP:COIN. The "Categories of COI on Wikipedia" list in the 14 May 2015 version of WP:COI you linked to was reorganised on 15 May 2015. SlimVirgin, you made several major edits to WP:COI on 14 and 15 May 2015. It was four years ago, but do you remember the background and does the header of WP:COIN need to be edited for consistency with WP:COI? Thank you in advance for any help you can give with this. TSventon (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Colin M, SVTCobra, SlimVirgin, Eureka. The version of WP:COI at 02:13, 14 October 2012, has a section What is a conflict of interest? which is a list. Edits the same month moved the list out of the section. That suggests that the discrepancy between WP:COI and WP:COIN dates back to October 2012. I suppose that WP:COIN header should be reworded so it doesn't refer to a list which no longer exists in WP:COI. TSventon (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it would suffice if we just remove the word "list"? --SVTCobra 22:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not, for the reason I mentioned above (it wouldn't be obvious what the "items" are in that section that a report should be focused on). If the editors who have been attending to this board have been happy with the structure of reports people have been filing, seems like the simplest thing would be to just remove the whole and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list part of the instruction, since apparently editors have been ignoring it since 2012. Colin M (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be your report[...] should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the Conflict of interest guidance. However I would be interested in any input from SlimVirgin as she wrote a lot of the COI guidance. TSventon (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

As no one has commented for a few days, I have updated the header to your report[...] should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline.TSventon (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt I was too new to comment further. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:COI top has been nominated for merging with Template:Discussion top. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. czar 10:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I also see where discussions are not signed and a bot apparently does not add this. I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Moriba Jah. Notification is important so I think failing to add a signature when posting to the noticeboard should not be allowed. Otr500 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

This page has a lot of watchers. One of them usually adds a missing signature after a short period of time. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that oftentimes, users are listed as a party to a COIN case but are not notified. This is probably because it requires manual notification using the tmeplate. Would it be smart to come up with some kind of automatic notification? COIN Is more effective when users can speak to the situation.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP I saw where you made comments at NewtonX, Inc. Afd concerning notification to User:Scope creep. Does not listing the names (in blue) at the top of the discussion automatically notify them? If it does then I would think this as notification there is an ongoing discussion. If not then there certainly needs to be something done. Otr500 (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

In that particular instance I told them in the Afd that I was going to post them to COI and it wasn't ideal. An automatic notification may not be best thing as it is a bit impersonal, although if there is more than few it becomes burdensome to go around and inform them, perhaps putting you off doing the post in the first place. scope_creep^Talk 01:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Otr500 and Scope creep:, the reason I am suggesting automatic notifcation we currently do not appear to automatically notify a user when someone else mentions them with the template for userlinks. I have always had to go to the talk page of the user in question myself and add the notification when I add someone to a COIN discussion. As to it being impersonal, I was thinking that it would be good if the software could do the same thing we are doing: leaving a boilerplate message for "there is a discussion at COIN for an issue you may be involved in..." I never leave anything more than the coin subst code on a user page, so automatic would be my preference. There is of course always the chance to go after to someone's talk page and add your own personal note.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the userlinks template that we use now at the top of new discussions. This is not my baileywick, but it appears to me that it just lists links. We then have to go and post a notice manually. Since COIN operates on open discussion and we always want user to be notified, I am thinking something like template:CoinUserlinks (or a better name) could be created to automatically notify users. The advantage is that notification would be automatic and discussion therefore more inclusive and open.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am shocked at all the resumes, autobiographies, corporate brochures, ads, and cryptocurrency nonsense that are making up the bulk of new drafts and articles on Wikipedia. Some might be notable pieces written by true volunteers, but most of them look like concerted attempts at self-promotional SEO. Meanwhile, scholars like me are left struggling to create stubs on thousands of animal species, which we don't get paid for since big greedy corporations couldn't care less if they're alive or dead.

Do people have nothing better to write about? What is the best way to deal with this deluge of promotional nonsense? HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

let's see some examples. We can perhaps give advice on the proper solution(s).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Like what do you do with Draft:American Credit, which has a declared COI? Versus non-declared promo content like Draft:Q8 Trade? HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I tag them for speedy deletion. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The credibility of being on WP only comes once a page is in a) moved to article space, b) reviewed by an editor and c) indexed by search engines. Drafts do not have any of those things as mechanisms prevent them, so they are basically single pages on Wikipedia that the world largely does not know about. The American Credit example you gave above will not be passed to article space. You might be able to nominate it as a Speedy deletion (as in Q8 Trade above), but most users do not bother with draft space as it is a sort of wiki purgatory. More examples? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, posting here draws what we call "scrutiny", and as you can see both of the above drafts have been nominated for speedy deletion. They should be gone within a few hours. So part of the answer to how to cut spam is you and your efforts. Thank you!ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Tag self-promotional articles of non-notable businesspeople like User:Sabine.beart/sandbox and Draft:Don Arney for speedy deletion too? I usually want to assume good faith, but the way these drafts are written, they could only be corporate PR pieces from authors who have zero interest in actually building an encyclopedia. If a draft has a good chance of becoming a good article, I wouldn't tag it. However, I seriously doubt these promo drafts would become good encyclopedia articles anytime soon. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I usually do not touch people's Sandboxes, but the Sabine.heart draft might be speedied. Someone with more experience might comment. Again, the checks and balances mean those drafts are just sitting there an no one on the larger web will find them via search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Herpetogenesis, hmm. The first one looks like a resume, but it doesn't appear to be the author's resume. Normally I'd tag it as WP:U5, but I've butted enough heads with admins lately over what constitutes "misuse as a web host" that I'm just going to watch it. Don Arney actually would have been an okay article (credible claim of significance, not super-promotional, maybe some issues conflating the importance of the subject with the importance of his creation)...except that half of it was taken directly from a website, and once you remove that half there isn't much of an article left. Nominated for WP:G12 (copyright violation) deletion. I'm not in a great position to do so right this minute, but if you want to talk more about Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion and how you can use them yourself, feel free to leave a message on my talk page and I'd be happy to give you some pointers and tools. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all the tips. I don't like being mean on purpose, but the general consensus here seems to be that due to the extreme pervasiveness and persistency of Internet spam these days, we really have to take a tough stance as volunteer curators, or else Wikipedia would quickly devolve into a giant advertising space. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for the lists of suspect new articles I post every two weeks or so at WT:WPSPAM - at least 35% are spammy enough to be quarantined or deleted. Finding spam articles is easy - there are tens of thousands of them - once you know what to put into the search box. Sending a couple of articles to AFD per day would be enormously helpful. MER-C 16:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Hypergiant Industries#RfC about maintenance template stating “Article may have been created or edited for undisclosed payments”. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

As a general heads-up, I changed the default report template to use ((pagelinks)) instead of ((la)), since la only works for articles whereas pagelinks figures out the right set of links for any namespace (I've seen a few drafts/userspace articles reported here where la didn't correctly link the talk page, for example). Feel free to revert if there's any issues with that change. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm proposing a Wikimedia Foundation Project Grant to study *disinformation* and provide actionable insights and recommendations.

Please check it out and endorse it if you support it.

Meta:Grants:Project/Misinformation_And_Its_Discontents:_Narrative_Recommendations_on_Wikipedia's_Vulnerabilities_and_Resilience

Cheers! -Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I was recently asked by a journalist whether our articles are edited by people who seem to be from the fossil fuel industry, defending fossil fuels. Can any of you think of good examples of editing that show a clear pro-polluter POV? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

There are two editors who are repeatedly adding my name to the COI list on a talk page without my consent. My understanding is that if they believe I have a COI and I don't believe I have a COI, the proper process for them is to file for a judgement on COIN. However, they just keep re-adding my name to the list despite asking them to stop multiple times. They have now threatened to file an edit war notice against me for violating 3RR for removing my name more than 3 times in a row.

Is it acceptable to force a user's name onto a talk page COI list without going through COIN? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicahZoltu (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

MicahZoltu, I don't think so. If it is disputed, and they do have reasonable grounds for COI suspicions, and this was already discussed with you, they should file a report at WP:COIN. --MarioGom (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Using AI.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Something I'd like to clear up, but I'm not sure what the correct course of action is. The header says the following regarding outing: Be careful not to out other editors by posting personal information here... If private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can email paid-en-wpwikipedia.org with the evidence, or email any functionary for advice. That implies that outing information should only be sent to functionaries/arbcom. However, the practice I've seen has been that off-wiki evidence may be privately sent to administrators (not just functionaries). This is supported by WP:OUTING, which says: Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict of interest or paid editing... Only the minimum information necessary should be conveyed and the minimum number of people contacted (emphasis mine). Thoughts on how to resolve this discrepancy? I agree that there are times when functionaries or ArbCom should be brought in, but I personally feel like the day-to-day issues at COIN can be handled by patrolling admins and so we should be saying as much in the header - my usual practice is to comment on a report to the effect of "I'm aware of off-wiki evidence that this editor is engaging in UPE and can provide it to admins on request." creffett (talk) 23:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Creffett, I agree we need further guidance and clarification. Some practices at WP:COIN have a complex relationship with other policies. I have also commented about having off-wiki evidence available before. However, after much reflection, I think even that could be considered WP:OUTING in a strict reading. I think this part is problematic too: [...] if the issue is serious enough to warrant it [...]. How serious is serious enough? Is a "little UPE operation" serious enough to ask functionaries? If not, does that mean that UPE policy is unenforceable except for massive UPE scandals involving hundreds of accounts over years? --MarioGom (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

MarioGom, concur that that's ambiguous too. I'll give this a couple of days to see if it draws any more commentary, and then am thinking about opening an RfC or something like that. creffett (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree the guidelines are inconsistent here. There's also WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE, which seems to state that only functionaries and ArbCom can act on nonpublic evidence. There is some logic there: the problem with individual admins making these calls is that any subsequent review of the block relies on them actively responding. Sometimes block appeals happen years down the line and there's no guarantee that the blocking admin will still be active. ArbCom and the functionary team at least maintain archives where the evidence can be securely recorded.

In my experience this doesn't reflect actual practice though. Individual admins do block based on off-wiki evidence and it does seem a bit much to require functionaries for routine COI enforcement. Sometimes they will email that evidence to ArbCom as they do it, which seems a sensible compromise. – Joe (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have opened a larger discussion for this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_unifying_the_WP:COIN_instructions_with_the_WP:OUTING_policy. creffett (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

So what is going on with the conflict of interest section regarding me particularly? At least from when I last checked (days ago), it appears Francis has not logged in and I do hope he's all right considering worldwide situation, but a decision was going to made awhile back.

Does it need to be him or someone else with credentials to close it or take further action? The pursuer of the charges has lost interest weeks ago and Francis who opened it on their behalf, already made a statement of intention.--Carmaker1 (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion at WT:PAID may be of interest: Disclosure of indirect paid editing. Participation and thoughts appreciated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Do any admins routinely monitor the paid-en-wpwikipedia.org mailbox? I have sent messages to it a couple of times and not had a reply or seen any action on the information that I've provided. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It's monitored by the CheckUsers and ArbCom, but it looks like we have a backlog of tickets. I'll send a reminder around about it, thanks. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I made a report on COIN (about Chuckgbarnes/Lois Leveen) and it was ignored... and just now archived. Why was there no resolution or comment before archiving it? Or have I misunderstood the purpose of the COI Noticeboard? (I thought it was for reporting COI editors.) Normal Op (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I would tend to think that any reasonably experienced editor could decide to become someone who handles COIN reports. BD2412 T 04:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Uh... doesn't exactly answer my question. Was there an answer hinted in there somewhere? Normal Op (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I just mean that there isn't anything special about the group that handles COIN reports, other than that they choose to handle COIN reports. I suppose if a Checkuser is required or something like that, then someone can request such a service, but otherwise, anyone who wants to handle COIN reports can handle them. With respect to the report you filed on Lois Leveen, I'm not seeing a smoking gun to indicate either a personal relationship or paid editing. It is possible for an editor to have an unusual obsession with a topic without having the sort of relationship that constitutes a conflict of interest. BD2412 T 04:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I had originally put further information, but it got redacted. And that report pointed to further connection between the two. I didn't keep a copy of that report, but I recall that there were about 5 or 6 personal and business connections I found. It's probably okay to point out this [2]; look at the last line on that page. Normal Op (talk) 05:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Normal Op: editors who see a report on COIN can either post a reply, edit the pages mentioned, or do neither. Sometimes a post does not receive a response before it is archived. It is hard to tell why a particular post goes unanswered, but perhaps editors thought that no further action was needed after your clean up. You could tag User talk:Chuckgbarnes with Template:Uw-paid1, which asks them to confirm if they are a paid editor before editing further. TSventon (talk) 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Does that ever actually work? (I've only ever had bad things result from those substitution templates.) What about (hypothetically) that person who knows what they're doing (COI, PAID) and they refuse to comply? When does it flip from this "self help" method (everyone wears the hat of a wiki-policeman because there's no wiki police force) to someone with auth/priv to actually DO something about such an editor (like blocking)? (And I'm not talking about Chuckgbarnes at this point). Normal Op (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I would imagine that at some point your best bet is to open a discussion at WP:ANI or WP:AN to see if there an administrator willing to block the editor(s) based on the evidence you can provide. There should be administrators willing to block editors who ignore our questions when there is a preponderance of evidence of a COI. Editors who exhibit many of the classic signs of a COI should not be able to simply ignore our questions and concerns; we need administrators willing to block those editors or our COI policies are largely useless. ElKevbo (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Standing direction - I try to patrol COIN from time to time, but I'm not great at it and am fairly easily distracted. If something needs admin attention, folks are welcome to ping me to a discussion here and I'll try to deal with it. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've opened a discussion of this potential gap at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest‎ so we can make this clear for other editors. Your input would be most welcome. ElKevbo (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, there is a discussion at the above page about changes being made to the undisclosed paid template, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Another_questionable_GA_review

I've recently noticed some GA activity that smells strongly of paid editing or something similar. I just recently found the discussion above. Are there any related discussions that others are aware? --Hipal (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• As one of the users presumably being accused of paid and/or COI editing here, I think this is the sequence of events: me and another (both of us admittedly fairly inexperienced) editor create an article and another inexperienced user jumps in and performs a malformed GA review, which we later bring in more experienced editors to review and scrutinize. Some modifications of the article are performed based off of the more experienced editors' feedback, as is typical in a GA review, and that is the end of the situation. I've never heard of paid editing to get an article to GA status. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Hipal, I assume you are not accusing anyone of COI as this is a talk page discussion, can you confirm this? Did you see the preceding discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#Recent_flurry_of_GA_Reviews_and_Noms_that_seem_somewhat_hurried...? Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_24#Problematic_GA_reviews_and_nominations_from_a_new_editor is on the same archive page. TSventon (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  TSventon, I think, in general, inexperienced reivewers at GAN is a perennial issue. Also my apologies on my somewhat accusatory statement. I missed that this was from further ago than I initially believed (the issue appears to have since been resolved since). Sam-2727 (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sam-2727, thanks, with three discussions in around six months, I thought it might be a perennial issue. TSventon (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the archived link.

I've no evidence for a COI. The repeated misrepresentations that I am accusing anyone are tiresome and disruptive.

The problems with the GA attempts are definitely not resolved.

Working to get an article to GA is an obvious goal in any type of promotional editing. I'm just wondering what discussions there have on the topic. --Hipal (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a proposal at the village pump to cite the username policy during sign-up. Thoughts appreciated on how this may affect counter-COI efforts, if at all. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Cite_username_policy_when_signing_up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I am having a one-way conversation with a SPA whose username matches the product mentioned in their edits. I considered posting at WP:COIN, but the big scary notice at the top indicates that this is a last resort and we're not yet at that stage. Is there anywhere that I can request the help of an editor more experienced in this area, or shall I just drop the matter? Certes (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It might be useful to link to which 'SPA' you mean so that other editors can see if they can help. Acabashi (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to do that here as it might constitute a report and I've not gone through the formalities such as informing the editor. If it's a full-blown investigation or nothing then I'll just ignore such cases, as I have learnt to do with promotional user names. Certes (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If the username matches a product they are editing about, you can report them to WP:UFAA. Undo all WP:PROMO they have added to the article and ask on their talk page if they have a COI with the article, or if they have been paid to edit the article. If they continue editing the article without responding to your questions, report them here. If you want Certes you can post the article name here, on my talk page or send me an email and I will give a second opinion. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Z1720. Someone has dealt with the case I was thinking of but I do come across them regularly and will follow your suggestions in future. Certes (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia", 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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

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

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 [seven days/four weeks/three months/whatever] 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia talk:Correct typos in one click#Error in Type, hopefully that has also resolved itself. TSventon (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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 ^(T·C) 21:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you need to be a bit careful here to avoid any potential issues with WP:OUTING. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to follow the suggestions given in WP:PAID#Reporting undisclosed paid editors. There are probably no quick fixes in a case such as this and any WP:REALWORLD information you might dig up probably shouldn't be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia unless the account-in-question has made that information available somewhere on Wikipedia themselves. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, quick announcement that following recent happenings surrounding the Prix Versailles sockfarm (see WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Prix Versailles), our frwiki colleagues Jules* and Bédévore (both frwiki sysops active at fr:Projet:Antipub) have created m:Wikiproject:Antispam, a coordination hub intended to streamline cross-wiki COI/UPE investigations. I think it's a great idea, and figured some people active at COIN may be interested. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Should our policy page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest have a colored banner with bold oversized text leading readers to an essay in the lead? See Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Beginner version.--Moxy- 12:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you new here? Welcome! There is a simplified version of this page at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

Dear Dream Focus. Decisions are made on Wikipedia according to policy, not vote counts. WP:BRV does not support striking out the comment, because there is no evidence that the user was blocked prior to the 19th. As the person who is striking out the comments, it is on you to prove that this is the case. At this point, the striking of the comments feels more like an attempt to stifle discussion rather than anything else. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You were also reverted for unstriking comments of the same banned editor on a different page a total of four times so far from two different people, who explained it to you clearly in the edit summary.

• [3] Wallyfromdilbert (talk | contribs)

(Undid revision 1056165520 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) given WP:DENY, if there are valid points, then they should probably be raised by someone who isn't a sockpuppet blocked by a checkuser)Tags: Undo Reverted

• [4] Dumuzid (talk | contribs)

(Undid revision 1056166471 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk)apologies, but I think WP:DENY makes the stronger argument here)Tags: Undo Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reverted

• [5] Wallyfromdilbert (talk | contribs)

(Undid revision 1056169563 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 3 other editors disagree with you, and now WP:3RR is a relevant policy)

• [6] Dumuzid (talk | contribs)

(Undid revision 1056839151 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) last time it seemed pretty clear the weight of opinion was against you on this; I think the onus is on you to show something has changed)

So two other editors and myself have revert you unstriking comments I put a line through once the editor was blocked. Can others weigh in on this issue since that's not enough to convince him? For years now when someone is blocked, anything they say in an active discussion gets a line through it.

• As for the edit warring on this page:
• [7] Revision as of 04:47, 20 November 2021 (edit) (undo)Dream Focus (talk | contribs)(Undid revision 1056166205 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) standard procedure is to strike through any blocked editor.)
• revision as edited by Dream Focus (talk | contribs) at 22:35, 23 November 2021 (Undid revision 1056516450 by MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) I explained this to you on your talk page. Multiple people have reverted you on this in different places. If any editor is banned, you scratch them out. You can contact the blocking administrator if you want to know why he was blocked. Also this conversation has died, why you messing with it now?).

You have now reverted me three times on this page, and four times on the other page. Kindly stop edit warring. I have no interest in continuing to argue with you about this. Can someone else please explain things to him? Dream Focus 12:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• I was asked to way in here, as the blocking administrator, by Dream Focus. There was enough evidence to have made this block under DUCK. Ultimately there was some private evidence that would prevent an ordinary administrator from having all the information necessary to consider an appeal and so I had to make it a CU block. As such I am not sure DENY can fully apply. I would suggest the way to square this is to tag the comments but leave it. But ultimately included or not this just feels way too low stakes to edit war. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• [8] Hemiauchenia (Undid revision 1057069502 by MrsSnoozyTurtle See WP:Sockstrike)

  And yet another editor undid himher. So hopefully accept consensus and just leave it there. Dream Focus 17:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Dream Focus, again I ask you to describe which Wiki policy supports the striking? The admin who blocked Please Sign My Guestbook states As such I am not sure DENY can fully apply. I would suggest the way to square this is to tag the comments but leave it.

Also, who is the "he" that you are referring to? MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Corrected it. Your name says Mrs, not Ms, so I assume you are married to a MrSnoozyTurtle, and you are both turtles who enjoy snoozing a lot. WP:SOCKSTRIKE is an essay. And just for years now when someone is blocked for any reason, lines are put through what they recently wrote. Just something everyone does, never saw anyone against it before. Consensus in the two articles its done at is that it should be that way, and if you edit war you could be blocked. Dream Focus 21:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that. You can keep your assumptions to yourself, please refrain from making personal comments about me or my partner (who may not be male, but that is none of your business).

It is not true that striking is "something everyone does". MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems from what I understand that paid-en-wp can be contacted for both paid and unpaid COI editing on wiki. Can the fact that unpaid COI can be reported there be explicitly mentioned somewhere? That might dispel some confusion on where to email when presented with unpaid COI information that might be outing. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd second this. At present it is unclear how to report or provide evidence for an unpaid COI, especially in the case of evidence that may out an editor. Either it needs to be made clear in the WP:COICOIN text that paid-en-wp will accept evidence for both, or the paid-en-wp address should be renamed to cover its wider use. Perhaps both? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You can send non-public evidence to paid-en-wp@ regardless of whether the concern is UPE or another type of COI. I've attempted to clarify the bullet point in the COIN header. WP:COICOIN is a bigger mess, telling people to send it to different people in different places. It's overdue an update. – Joe (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

There might be a number of COIs for some editors I've interacted with but am unaware what exactly the community consensus is on this. I'd argue there is not, but thought I'd ask. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think context matters a lot here, I see a wide gamut here that runs from calling for a one line comment to multiple multi-day interviews over the course of a career. The first is almost certainly not going to be a COI issue the second most like will be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd consider if this is a self-published interview (in which case that can be seen as COI as trying to promote your self-publishing) compared to the interview published through an RS that had editorial oversight on the work before publishing (in which case that's a good source to include even if you the editor were also the interviewer). --Masem (t) 14:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The website I'm looking at does not have a published editorial policy statement sadly. However, it is not a SPS so I'll leave it at no COI. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Are you saying the editor of a BLP is the same person who conducted the interview? If so, I think there could be some problems. It could fall under WP:CITESELF and if done extensively under WP:REFSPAM. More context needed. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that context would determine if it is the right thing to do. Coretheapple (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; and Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere^{(or here)_{(or here)(or here)}} 17:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

at User talk:Robertowilkes I have been in discussion with an editor who maintains a personal web-site that lists, amongst other things, statistics about dinghy racing and specifically Optimist (dinghy) racing etc. The exchange on the tak page sets out the issues and I would value the views of others. There is undoubtedly a mild COI for a web-site that advertises the author's own book but he has offered to remove the advert. Much of the other data is not readily available elsewhere, the data is not contentious and is of encyclopaedic value. Advice would be welcome.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)