Jump to content

Template talk:COI/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Since user:RexxS said he was thinking about adding the background I thought I would go ahead and do that myself.

This started at Martin Saidler: (bolded dates are article edits). Timeline:

  • 23 April 2017, COIN thread about Lingveno's direct editing
  • 27 July 2017 COIN thread about paid sockfarm that worked on Saidler and related articles, and many others. Saidler article created by socks then deleted in cleanup. (first paid editor)


Note, edits to the template instructions:

  • 19:12, 19 January 2018 diff Doc James makes change with edit note "trimmed details added by paid editor" (those details were added here by KDS444)
  • 21:25, 19 January 2018 revert by Pigsonthewing "Not appropriate for you to change this while you're involved in a dispute about the template's application"
  • 21:31, 19 January 2018 revert by Doc James " It was not appropriate for a paid editor to add these details to this template"
  • 19:51, 22 January 2018 diff series by Doc James with more changes
  • 16:43, 25 January 2018 dif by WhatamIdoing following talk page discussion, includes change from "any editor may remove" to "any editor without a COI may remove"
  • 21:31, 25 January 2018 revert by Pigsonthewing so that it is back to "any editor may remove"
  • 21:33, 26 January 2018 COI restriction restored by Widefox so it reads "any editor without a COI may remove"
  • 17:52, 27 January 2018 COI restriction removed by Pigsonthewing
  • 18:22, 27 January 2018 tweak to something else by SlimVirgin
  • 20:15, 27 January 2018 COI restriction restored by Jytdog
  • 21:12, 27 January 2018 removed by Pigsonthewing
  • 21:17, 27 January 2018 restored by Jytdog
  • 00:21, 28 January 2018 removed by Littleolive oil
  • 00:29, 28 January 2018 RfC launched by Jytdog on the COI restriction that has been edit warred over.

Note, other discussions:

Note:

  • Feb 6 - 7 campaign by Pigsonthewing, stripping COI tags from ~40 pages with edit notes quoting template instructions: "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".

- Jytdog (talk)

I suggest we collapse this section as offtopic per the warning at top To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Widefox; talk 17:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This was directly responsive to RexxS's note above, here. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I suggest we don't. It's a good example of the problems caused by misapplication of the template, and I thank Jytdog for taking the time to publish the diffs. Unfortunately, the spin he has put the sequence of events obscures the problem:
18 September: Doc James applied the tag. He did not start a discussion on the talk page. That contravenes the guidance for all cleanup tags which requires discussion to be started on the article talk page. "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."
3 January: Doc James replies to Pplc: "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." That is a legitimate complaint and response to Pplc. But it does not start a discussion explaining what is non-neutral about the article. Jytdog characterises that as "explains the tag". No it doesn't. It's a cleanup tag asking other editors to clean up identified problems of non-neutrality.
18 January: Andy posts on the talk page: "I'm going to remove the tag, for no other reason than that it does not meet the criteria for its addition, as laid out clearly at Template:COI#When to use". That's absolutely correct. There no discussion explaining what is non-neutral about the article. No uninvolved editor coming to that talk page would have the faintest idea about whatever non-neutral content had caused Doc James to add the tag four months earlier.
18 January: Andy removes the tag, acting within the bounds of the guidance "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."
18 January: Doc James restores the tag and finally starts a usable discussion by mentioning text that is unreferenced.
18 January: The discussion degenerates with this accusation: "Hiring someone to come and get the tag removed is not how things work." An unacceptable slur on the editor who quite properly removed the tag. Followed by Andy being accused of acting "on behalf of a COI" by Calton. Disgraceful bad faith. There was a ridiculous amount of edit-warring over the tag - it's only good fortune that an uninvolved admin did not come along and block both sides.
19 January: I asked the question "Can someone explain to me just what the non-neutral passages are in the article text? and I'll volunteer to clean them up myself, if nobody else is going to." SmartSE kindly did the scrutiny and started listing problems, for which I'm very grateful.
Here's the nub of the problem. If we let editors add drive-by cleanup tags on mere suspicion without any attempt to identify what the non-neutral text is, then we run the risk of wasting uninvolved editors' time searching for problems that may or may not actually be there. That's why we have the current guidance that I won't bother to quote again.
If we let editors restore a properly removed tag by simply claiming that the editor who removed it must also have a COI, or even was acting "on behalf of a COI", then we're causing exactly the problems itemised immediately above. Jytdog's solution is change the guidance to allow the tag-restorer a veto over any tag-remover, simply by the accusation that the tag-remover had a COI. In that case, there will be nothing to stop the drive-by tagging, because nobody will be able to remove these cleanup tags without having defend themselves from unsupported charges of COI. That's not how to use cleanup tags. If you change the wording to Jytdog's preference, you scrap the meaning of "cleanup" and substitute just a "badge of shame". That does nothing to improve the article and the misuse will ensure that we'll never find anybody to do any cleanup, which is why we already have 12,000 articles in a backlog dating back to 2007. --RexxS (talk) 18:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Stripping the tag on behalf of the paid editor based on a technicality (discussion about the tag was ongoing when Pigsonthewing started edit warring to remove it), and doing nothing to actually fix the article, is horrible. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Yet another bad-faith accusation. You need to stop these attacks. Andy specifically stated "I'm going to remove the tag, for no other reason than that it does not meet the criteria for its addition, as laid out clearly at Template:COI#When to use". Here we have an experienced editor who quite properly decides that the tag should not have been placed based on the guidance for the tag. You are ignoring the very real possibility that he could have been simply upholding the principle that these cleanup tags have to be used properly, otherwise they become worthless. Well I'd have removed the tag myself for exactly that reason, so now go ahead and accuse me of a COI, I dare you. You should be ashamed of yourself treating other editors like that. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Andy's removal of tags without fixing the issues in question is simple disruptive. The concerns for in articles are obvious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, the template's documentation says (and for some reason you keep ignoring this, which is why I repeat it here): 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. Feel free to point out and cases where I removed the tag, despite there being a post meeting that requirement on the talk page, and I'll accept that it was disruptive, and revert myself. Otherwise, your continued disregard of this point is what is disruptive; and given that many of the articles from which I removed it are BLPs, that's a shocking disregard of the BLP policy - and WMF's own stance on BLPs - from a member of the WMF board. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
And I'll add this: we need to use cleanup templates properly. Removing ones that don't meet the guidance - as this one didn't when Andy first removed it; all your talk of "on-going discussion" is complete bollocks, and you know it - doesn't improve that article, but it's necessary to set limits on the misuse of cleanup tags if we are ever to get rid of the 12,000 article backlog, and actually start improving articles instead of just marking them. --RexxS (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not a productive discussion. I do not understand where you are coming from. As you are aware I have asked to speak with you in the hope that I can come to understand. As it is, we are just butting heads. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Understand this then: I am completely opposed to all editing for hire, and I have no wish to see paid editors prosper - even the "legitimate" ones. However, much as I'd like to make wiki-life for paid editors as uncomfortable as I can, the ends do not justify the means. As I see it, your zeal to curtail the activities of a paid editor has led you to think the worst of some other editors when you should be assuming good faith. I can't support you in trying to change sensible documentation just to give yourself an advantage in the sort of arguments that occurred at Martin Saidler. There has to be a balance between keeping on top of paid editing and ensuring that cleanup tags don't get splattered across articles any more forlornly than they are now, and I don't think you're seeing that. That's why we're butting heads. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean about "zeal to curtail the activities of a paid editor". You make this sound like it is about Pplc specifically. It isn't. Many clients pay to have tags removed. The goal is removing the tag - an aesthetic thing - not dealing with the problematic content. The Saidler article was a dead center example of that. The Salvidrim case was another. COIN is full of examples. It is common as dirt. All of that is about making articles appear to be just fine and in the process, removing the flags that draw cleanup.
And in case you meant that I don't want paid editors to be part of the community, that is not accurate. They are part of the community and some of them provide great content. I want that they follow the COI guideline and PAID policy, which means they should disclose and put conflicted content through review prior to its being published. Content that gets directly added to WP by conflicted editors (who are ignorant or who are acting in bad faith) needs to be subsequently reviewed. This is what article tags are for.
I have said that I do not understand where you are coming from. I have assumptions but I am trying hard to keep them out of this. Please do not make assumptions about me. I have asked to talk; if you don't want to that is fine, but please keep in mind that we are not understanding each other. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog's choice of diffs is not only - as Doug has already shown - plastered with misleading commentary, but it is highly selective.

For example, he includes "1:21 same day EWN case filed by Doc James (diff of filing)", but fails utterly to mention that I was not censured as a result of that report, because WP3RR explicitly includes an exemption for BLP violations, and the edits reported were me removing an unepxplained tag added to a a BLP article by Doc James and restored there by Jytdog; in fact the article had to be protected to prevent it from being readded by them a further time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but where is the evidence that the Saidler article was protected due to BLP? It was edit warring plain and simple and you were lucky not be blocked. SmartSE (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The aticle's protection log is public, as is the 3RR report. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed they are and neither of them mention BLP. SmartSE (talk) 13:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I was not censured as a result of that report, because WP3RR explicitly includes an exemption for BLP violations Do you have any evidence that you weren't blocked because of the exemption for BLP? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
My block log is public; as is the 3RR report, and WP:3RR. The latter states quite clearly Exemptions... Removing violations of the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy that contain... unsourced... contentious material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Let me try that again. Do you have any evidence that you weren't blocked specifically because of the BLP exemption? As SmartSE says above "Indeed they are and neither of them mention BLP." Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I've repeatedly asked above for the argument to be made for how a COI tag creates a BLP violation, with a variety of responses but nothing firm, I'm concerned this acts as WP:CRYBLP to chill debate here. I am not talking about 3RR as that is offtopic on this talk per the header, but on topic - this template talk which is dominated by self-justifications over this incident which is best handled elsewhere. Widefox; talk 14:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Repeatedly? Where, please? I am not aware of you having done so. That said, you can see above that User:SlimVirgin acknowledged, in her post of 18:17, 30 January, that: "I think Andy has a point about long-term tags on BLPs being an arguable BLP violation. For example...", while User:WhatamIdoing noted at 00:11, 28 January "You could use a COI tag in a way that would not be consistent with the idea of BLP, since many readers will probably interpret it as "Joe Film paid someone to make this articles sound more favorable about him".". It is certainly not me who is trying to "chill debate". [fix ping] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
First challenged by me the concept that somehow COI is a BLP violation is a non-sequitur [1] reworded the concept that somehow COI is a BLP violation is a non-sequitur needs reasoning [2], Andy that's not making progress: you need to be clear just what you think the straw man is. ... Andy wasn't claiming that COI was a BLP violation. He was making the comparison with BLP violations... -RexxS [3], Thank you WhatamIdoing and RexxS for trying to reason it more. Andy I've struck my shorthand "non-sequitur" wording, replacing it with "needs reasoning as the case has not been made for a causal connection". If it's an analogy per RexxS that could be why, if placing a COI tag causes a BLP violation then that's serious and we need to detail that [4] it's the circumstance(s) when BLP trumps COI that would be useful to know [5] I've yet to see any firm argument made for a circumstance when BLP must trump COI. [6] To try to understand the BLP concern, would it be mitigated if...? [7]. That's me, others have questioned it here, and I've seen CRYBLP on a different talk page about this [8]. Widefox; talk 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Putting a tag "Undisclosed paid" on a biography at a minimum carries the strong implication that someone was violating the terms of use of Wikimedia for an article, and I can see people seeing an insinuation that the BLP subject was that person because who else would pay for a biography?
Otherwise, I think the main issue is that a "There is something wrong with the editor(s) of this article!" maintenance tag is not really actionable/fixable and will be perceived as an attack on editors. Perhaps it'd be better to use the "ad", "unbalanced", "pov" or similar tags when such issues exist (which is fairly common with COI and UPE editing) and no tag (except maybe for a talkpage banner or a hidden cat) when there aren't such issues. We can still deal with UPEs and spammers the usual ways. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
First this is the Template:COI talk page, not Template:UPE.
Second, people's companies, publishers, and agents pursue biographies; it is not always the person. (for example, Draft:Peder Holk Nielsen is being worked on by the communications people from Novozymes now) But sometimes it is, for sure.
The COI tag just says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." the template:autobiography is the far bolder one, and I don't think i have ever applied that one, exactly because it makes a much stronger claim that the subject themself edited it. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hum. I was thinking that the issue that prompted this discussion is about both templates and thus that this considderation would apply to either. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure I dealt with the heart of what you had to say. First what really does matter, is content. Issues of COI are generally raised first because of bad content, and following that, bad behavior in trying to force-in or keep the bad content. In my own work (which is generally small scale, editor by editor and article by article) I rarely use it, as things are unfolding in real time and I talk with the editor, draw out the disclosure, and educate them about COI management, then turn and fix the article, never having tagged it. Sometimes I put the tag on if I get called away, or a person is unresponsive... but then I try to circle back and clean up the article. You can look at Twist Bioscience if you want to see what I mean.
But as soon as you are confronted with some wider-spread problem - like a sockfarm - there isn't time for this kind of approach. That is how a lot of the tags get put on. I have been dealing with this on articles about faculty of the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell and Feinstein Institute for Medical Research which have been beset by persistent, obviously conflicted socking...very likely from PR people associated with the school, and i have not had time to go clean all those up. So a bunch of their faculty have lingering COI tags. (there is regular editing to be done too, for petes sake).
the oldest COI-tagged, uncleaned up article is Emmy van Deurzen which has been tagged for 11 years. 11 years! Why is that? Well look at the article and its history - no independent sources and even after several rounds of clean up there is still unsourced stuff. And how did it come to be that way? Well look at the edit stats.
  • 1 Andrsor 48 edits, 150 bytes added
  • 2 Astarkind 16 edits, 9,103 bytes added
  • 3 Andersdraeby 13 edits, 1,250 bytes added
  • 4 Emmyzen 13 edits, 7,217 bytes added (also article creator).
Two people, it appears. Maybe three. The creator being the subject or someone impersonating her. The other person a SPA.
And no volunteer has devoted time to make that into a real WP article that summarizes what independent sources say about the person. So the tag has lingered.
And that's the thing. This remains a volunteer project. We don't have paid staff to take care of all these issues nor any way to prevent them happening. So it is just a slog to clean these up, and much of that work is not joyful or fun, but just ... work. The page is there, the subject is notable, but the content is just the crappy product of conflicted editing. So tags linger til somebody devotes their time to cleaning it up. Paying mind to unsourced content, being mindful that negative stuff has been left out, and that some aspect or another is probably over-represented. You basically have to redo the whole thing like you were writing a new article from scratch. (which is what i did at Martin Saidler).
And for whatever reason, no independent volunteer has cared enough about van Deurzen to go over that article. So the tag has lingered.
Is that a BLP violation?
I struggle with that. The tag is ... apt. And it will remain apt, until somebody cleans the thing up, and can honestly say that the article is the product of careful, unconflicted editing.
I guess that is all i have to say for now. Probably too much and not sure if i answered. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You will notice that the talk page of Emmy van Deurzen includes a discussion setting out "what is non-neutral about the article"; the claim in the tag is therefore not, in effect, "unsourced contentious material". You still haven't told us why you were unable or unwilling to start such a discussion at Martin Saidler, when you restored the (unsourced contentious material in the) tag there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
If it helps, I'm sure you can read JoJo's comment as "Putting a tag "major contributor... close connection with its subject... may require cleanup... particularly neutral point of view" on a biography at a minimum carries the strong implication that someone was violating the terms of use of Wikimedia for an article, and I can see people seeing an insinuation that the BLP subject was that person because who else would do that to a biography?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
People say you have a heart of gold. You are not displaying that with this taunting. Your legalistic surface reading is also missing the spirit of things, and quite completely. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
How on earth is adding a note to a talk page in any way equivalent to a reliable source suitable for a BLP? We can only very rarely "prove" a COI and doing so would normally fall foul of OUTING. This whole BLP thing is just a distraction from the topic at hand as shown by the comments by OTRS agents below. Further, BLP concerns information about living people, and the addition of a template does not make any statement about the BLP directly. Of far more concern are the numerous BLP issues that COI editors introduce to articles, namely unverifiable content. SmartSE (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"comments by OTRS agents below" show no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Andy, you asked for where I've repeatedly asked about the BLP concern, the diffs are above. Widefox; talk 23:19, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I was referring to the fact that 3 OTRS agents have said that they think complaints about this template are very rare. If it were such a big BLP issue as you claim, this would not be the case. And can you please explain how a note on a talk page can be in any way equivalent to an RS? SmartSE (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Where, please do I make any claim about the size of the BLP issue? And where does WP:BLP make any exclusion for "small" (i.e. complained about by only a small number of subjects, however that number might be counted) issues? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
What BLP issue Andy? You have not made any case for one here, but persist WP:CRYBLP which is indefensible. Widefox; talk 18:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Widefox: Above you wrote: "a maintenance template can not be a BLP problem". If that were the case, can you explain to me why you feel that "Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been paid by History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group on behalf of Joe Collier" is not a BLP violation? Check who placed that template and the date. It was part of the same campaign to attack Andy on COI grounds for having the temerity to remove an improperly placed tag. Of course a maintenance template can be a BLP problem: editors are entitled not to be libelled just the same as everybody else. And if you give the ability to a tagger to be prosecutor, judge and jury on whether another editor has COI, then you might as well toss out any possibility of an improperly placed tag being removed ever. Because that's the inevitable consequence of barring editors who are merely accused of COI by the tagger from removing defective tags. --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This discussion is going round in circles. Adding that tag was an arguable BLP violation because it hinted at something possibly inappropriate by the editor and the subject. There was also no need to add it because Andy had already disclosed on the talk page. So one lesson from this is don't add these tags to WiR-related articles. The second lesson should be don't leave them on BLPs for a long time; fix the issue or go back within a reasonable period and remove the tag. SarahSV (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree: a variant of {{connected contributor}} specifically for WiR would be fine, and no tag is needed on the actual article in such cases - at lest not the ones I have seen - but I still think we need a WiR ombudsman, perhaps through the Foundation, to allow good faith concerns to be raised and to protect the WiR programme form accusations of cash for access. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@JzG: a WiR ombudsman is an excellent idea. I also think we should have a bot remove {{COI}} from BLPs after a certain time—say, six months. It can be manually restored if serious problems remain that can't easily be fixed. But the idea that some BLPs are tagged for years is not good. SarahSV (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Yes I wrote that, what did you think of my reasoning, as I believe it is sound? When you say can you explain ... is not a BLP violation? No idea Doug - what categories does that question fall into - 1. leading question 2. circular reasoning? 3. That's not even this template (it looks like {{connected}}, and PAID right?), 4. isn't the burden on those that make any accusation to make the case? 5. Has anyone? 6. I've not edited the article. 7. What's the vio, 8. and what's the connection with me? 8. If someone makes one, I'll look at it yes. 9. It makes me think you haven't read my reasoning as it was top down not bottom up and nothing to do with any article, let alone one I know 10. I've only autorated it Stub to Start (which looks correct to me). 11. I'm fully behind you as the right thing to do to support Andy or anyone from any unsubstantiated COI accusations that have been made. 12. Despite this being the wrong venue for edits or editors (hint warning banner at top) 13. let alone WP:CRYCOI 14. it does necessitate vigorous rebuttal once here yes. 15. I've said this before Doug: I haven't checked Andy's edits as I have full confidence 16. and came here not from that dispute, but 17. coincidentally at the same time as noticing that blocked COIs have edited the doc. 18. I've reasoned these are both CRYCOI and WP:CRYBLP distractions here, but 19. I'm all ears for an argument to be made, 20. rather than somehow I have to prove the negative when no firm case has been made by Andy. 21. Amusingly, I was accused of having a COI for the first time today [9]. Of course I haven't ever had a single COI on anything here. 22. I have a half written reply to you from a couple of days ago I need to post somewhere here..coming soon. Widefox; talk 00:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd quite like to see a bot that removed the tag if there are a number of edits after it was added, by editors other than those identified as COI. Not just time elapsed, though. That would allow spam to sit untouched. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
With respect to COI related articles, more often than not they are on barely notable subjects so do not get edited much. The edits they do get generally relate to formating and adjusting categories. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hence wanting to see more than time elapsed. Maybe we could have a PROD drive on unedited COI articles? Guy (Help!) 22:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Further unjustified restorations of this template

Unfortunately User:Doc James continues to restore instances of this template to articles where the required discussion does not exist on the corresponding talk page:

I'm sure that I need not remind colleagues of the wording on the template's documentation on the use of this template, without a talk-page discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Addendum: added talk page links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yup User:Pigsonthewing keeps removing a fair number of COI templates from articles with obvious concerns without fixing the concerns. The numbers that they are removing is disruptive and appears to be WP:POINTY. They were recently brought to WP:3RRN regarding this issue as they have been reverting multiple editors.
We are also having a disagreement over the wording of the Template_talk:Connected_contributor_(WiR). WiR are "generally" considered benign. There have been exceptions however and being a WiR does not give one a free license to do whatever you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
You neglect to mention that no action was taken against me when you reported me to 3RRN; and that 3RR includes an explicit exemption for fixing BLP violations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Problems with an article that are obvious to you (or to me) are not necessarily obvious to everyone. It would be helpful and appropriate for you to name those problems on the talk page even when you think that they are patently obvious. Aside from preventing needless drama, it would also help future editors figure out whether or not your concerns were addressed. It is still not unusual to see pages with an {{unref}} template at the top despite someone having added refs to the article, because some editors fix problems but don't remove the tags. Just imagine the confusion you would create if someone cleaned up the "obvious" problems and didn't remove the tag. Future editors would have no way to find out whether the problem had been solved, beyond crawling through the article history and trying to read your mind. Please post an explanation every single time you use this (or any POV-related) tag to an article, even if you think it's obvious, and even if your explanation is little more than "Obviously promotional" (or whatever your actual concern is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Added the connected contributor template for Jerry Interval. That leaves no outstanding actions to justify COI tag on either, given the obviously promotional nature of a lot of edits. The point about discussion is to answer the question "what COI?", the connected template does that perfectly well in both cases as the name and contributions tell the whole story. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes Guy, I've consistently said a COI tag logical minimum on the talk should be a connected template. We may want a higher bar in practice or ideally, but editors knowing which accounts is the first step. Widefox; talk 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If a tag is challenged, then it needs to be justified. Evidence of a connected contributor satisfies that IMO. We're not a bureaucracy. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Andy - this is a template doc, it's not guideline or policy per WP:TDOC Editors should defer to official policies or guidelines when template documentation pages are inconsistent with established community standards and principles.. The doc just needs bringing in line with WP:COI/WP:COIEDIT, WP:ToU, WP:PAID and {{POV}} doc, and arguably stripping incorrectly placed (but not incorrect) tags needs balancing against maintenance tags - do not remove unless you address the issue or explain why. Widefox; talk 00:14, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC - on template removal guidance

There's a request to close this RFC as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The discussion has clearly stagnated (no comments in 24 days), and there does not appear to be a clear consensus in either direction. In such cases, the status quo is retained, and therefore the outcome of this RFC is to retain the existing wording in the section under discussion, and to not add the additional phrasing suggested by the proposer. This should not preclude any further discussion on the matter. Fish+Karate 11:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the instructions for Template:COI include the following underlined language?

Like the other neutrality-related tags, 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 without a conflict of interest is justified in removing the tag without warning. Be careful not to violate the policy against WP:OUTING users who have not publicly self-disclosed their identities on the English Wikipedia.

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

!votes

  • of course Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support -- seems like a no-brainer. The guidance already suggests that COI editors should not edit the article directly. Removing the tag would be editing the article directly. COI editors could propose on the Talk page that the tag should be removed, as per the current process. Am I missing something? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @K.e.coffman: Yes, you're missing the bit where the tagger unilaterally decides that anybody who removes a defective tag has a COI and edit-wars to put it back citing the proposed guidance as justification. If the purpose of the change to the guidance were only to prevent editors who have a genuine COI from removing the tag, then it would be easy to get consensus. But its real purpose is to prevent tags being removed even when the tagger has failed to initiate any talk page discussion, a condition that is required for any cleanup tag. --RexxS (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
      • RexxS you are pushing the edge case into the center. The center case is the conflicted editor. Which is why this is a no-brainer.Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Jytdog. That is not the edge case. It is the whole purpose of this proposed change. There are already safeguards in the COI policy to prevent an editor with a proven conflict of interest from removing these tags. But you're asking to change the documentation to justify restoring tags when there is nothing more than an accusation of COI by the tagger. That is what triggered this entire debate, and that is why your proposed wording is completely unacceptable. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
          • Your statement about why the change was proposed is incorrect, and completely so. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
            • Your assertion is false. Do you want me to post the diffs of what triggered this proposal? --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
              • The centre case (but not the edge case) is changed by a) and b) on the table but RexxS we still need movement from both sides for consensus on those or a similar compromise. Widefox; talk 04:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
                • This is a !vote on a RfC which a proposing a change to the stable wording - wording that currently is compliant with the general wording used for all cleanup tags. The onus is on those wanting to change the wording to find something that might gain consensus before pushing ahead with voting on wording that suits their purposes alone. That is no way to look for consensus. The wording proposed is unacceptable because of the disproportionate power it gives to a drive-by tagger who makes no attempt to discuss the reasons for adding the tag. You'll never get consensus for that. And before you start calling this an "edge case", I suggest you survey the existing usage of this tag: 12,000+ articles have the tag, and some of those for more than 10 years. A sample of articles with the tag showed me that there was a lack of discussion in more than half the cases. This is no edge case - it's right slap-bang centre in the (mis-)use of the tag. There's no way that the community is going to accept measures that make it harder for a reasonable editor to remove an incorrectly placed tag. --RexxS (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • I think I've made my !vote clear, and proposed wording clear but no, there's no consensus behind it yet, why? The old documentation has been inappropriately corrupted by proven undisclosed COIs, so I wouldn't myself agree with the sentiment of "stable wording" - it's been corrupted! Also, COIEDIT and PAID are not at all reflected there, despite being binding practically and legally respectively. I was just using the labels above "edge" or "centre" - swap them for all I care - my label of choice would be clause "1." and "2." in my proposed text borrowed from POV, as they can be separated. As b) is straight from {{POV}} - article cleanup, there must be some weight to fix the corruption by being based on the POV doc which has clauses 1. 2. 3. . Sounds reasonable as they're so similar. I'd like to see progress fixing the corrupted status quo ante. I don't agree this template or editors are to blame for the amount of tagging, which I presume is good faith. There's a systemic bias. It has to be said, half our readers are on mobile and don't even see the tags. Widefox; talk 17:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
                    • There's nothing inappropriate or corrupt about the wording as it currently stands. The guidance "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" reflects the same language used for guidance at the generic cleanup template page Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup: Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it. As far as I am aware, that was added by WhatamIdoing, and I really don't think you should be using pejorative terms like that in these circumstances. Considering it's very similar wording to other similar templates such as {{POV}}, "When to remove ... (2) It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. (3) In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant., I would consider that pretty much stable, unless you're proposing we change the wording on multiple cleanup templates. It's worth noting that none of documentation in the other cleanup templates contain language even vaguely similar to what has been proposed here. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Yup seems perfectly reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Given this, and this which indicates a lack of understanding on part of RfC drafter, and what this COI will actually mean and do. I have to oppose both present wording and RfC and itself. (Littleolive oil (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC))
I made this point in another place in another discussion (maybe as an edit summary) but want to reiterate. This tag allows any editor an implied and perhaps explicit accusation of COI with out evidence, and allows for control of articles by editors making the accusations because they then can revert at will with a COI accusation as an excuse. I am reluctant to even vote here since a vote suggests there is some truth to the debate. The underlined content hides (hopefully not deliberate) a permission for content and editor control which is not stated in the RfC so editors may not realize what they are actually voting for.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC))
There is no "reword" coming, Littleolive oil. The RfC is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The editor upper-hand concern has been voiced by several editors as a practical concern when an accusation of COI is disputed (both false positive, and true positive). With the current wording, this RfC doesn't address that concern. There's two proposals: a) changing "COI" to "disclosed COI" or "proven COI" or b) separating clause 1. and 2. completely to allow anyone to remove if there's no discussion but not for accused COIs if there is discussion - the wording is at "Does this work for you?" [10] Widefox; talk 20:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support (conditional on adding upper-hand prevention - which can be added afterwards to prevent no consensus now) agree with Littleolive oil and others above. Either a) or b) or similar wording should be added, and only then I can support this. Saying that, it is still a support and editors with a COI must not act as a reviewer already, so this issue is already there but as a one-off issue rather than ongoing potential problem. Widefox; talk 20:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC) modified to clarify that this RfC is OK for best practice, and protection against bad practice can be added later. The tail shouldn't wag the dog, and it can be added after. Widefox; talk 22:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
    • This is not about accusations of COI. We do not have the purview to willy nilly accuse people. This about tagging an article for a lack of neutrality, "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." I think we are complicating an issue. If a COI is suspected then we have a place to deal with that. If an article lacks neutrality we tag and deal with the issues and we can do so with out accusations. COI is a subset of neutrality it may or may not exist, and that is something we have to do the leg work to prove. But we cannot dash around Wikipedia in an accusatory mode. There's a name for that but I won't use it here.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC))
    • The tag says cleanup ... content policies, particularly neutral point of view which doesn't logically follow as a "subset of neutrality", no. I am keen to not incentivise unfounded accusations/disputes though. But, unlike POV, WP:COI does already differentiate between COI editors and not. COI can't review, PAID must disclose or not edit period, + many "should"s. Does a) or b) work? a) is uncontested so no disputes. Not sure I completely follow. (Rather than a subset of neutrality, I think of it more a conflict between WP:HERE and WP:NOTHERE, a systemic bias). If this tag is placed, it should have a specified content issue on the talk. COIs are already advised to edit request. Widefox; talk 03:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I suggested COI could be a subset of neutrality. I apologize for not being clearer. There is an attempt to add COI to a tag that is meant to be a notice of non-neutrality. COI in that tagged article may or may not be present but we cannot simply tag an article with COI on a whim. COI must be provable. Further, a lack of neutrality in an article is a content issue and that content issue can be the result of any of many mistakes. COI is an editor behaviour label and refers to editors and their behaviour and not to content (although the content may be a result of a COI). Do you see that the tag we have is meant to ask for a clean up of non-neutral content and in that process we could discover the problems we find are the result of a COI but we cannot simply add what amounts to accusations against editors in a clean up tag. We have a place to determine unacknowledged COI - a clean up tag for content is not that place. It is critical that we keep content guides and behavioral guides separate, if we do not we risk a Wild West scenario-shoot first and ask questions later. A collaborative community depends on the separation of the work and the workers in that the workers must be treated fairly and with respect or collaboration on content fails and control by a few remains. To sumammrize: The label we have is a label to deal with content. COI accusations refer to people. We cannot simply add to clean up tags what amounts to potentially unfounded accusations of editors. We have other places for that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC))
    • I repeat, is a) or b) OK with you? Widefox; talk 17:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't see a clear a or b; its not clear to me within this discussion what that is. But let me reiterate which should answer the question. I am OK, only, at this point with leaving the tag as is with no changes. Its is a clean up tag, I know there are articles where COI is a problem this tag is not the way to fix it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC))
  • Support Editors with COI are, by definition, incapable of making the judgement of whether the article they have a COI in meets the standard for its removal. A COI editor who has so poorly managed their COI as to justify a COI tag should not be editing the article page at all. An article that is controversial enough, or a subject that is unscrupulous enough, to draw the attention of multiple COI editors also is not a place where COI editors should be doing anything on the article page, especially removing the a tag that draws readers' and editors' attention to the existing COI issue. This seems a no brainer and serves to highlight the plain fact that we have not yet properly dealt with COI on Wikipedia. Jbh Talk 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Hardly. A COI editor who is editing using 'best practices' will not be editing the article at all. A COI editor who is editing with even a minimum of good faith will completely back off editing the article when good faith concerns about their COI is brought up. There is never a time that a good faith COI editor is justified in removing a COI tag on their own. Let me repeat that - There is never a time that a good faith COI editor is justified in removing a COI tag on their own If they think a tag has been placed improperly take the matter to the talk page or to COIN. If they believe the placement was malicious then take the matter to ANI. Since we are talking about GLAMs here, that is even more true for them - they should know better, that is why we have traditionally given them a carve-out in PAID etc. Jbh Talk 17:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I !vote best practice too - it is where the spirit of COI is, and where this debate should be, but wasn't yet - where COI editors should be making edit suggestions per WP:COIEDIT / WP:COI. Something completely missing from the doc until it is fixed and those getting in the way of fixing it have to explain themselves. RexxS says it best about it needing protection from bad practice, but both can be done per a) or b) if needed now or later. Widefox; talk 22:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Jbh, what if the conflicted editor is self-reverting every contribution of his/her own? If there are zero contributions by an editor with a COI on the page, mightn't it be reasonable for that editor to take the now-irrelevant tag out at the same time? I agree that a good-faith editor wouldn't normally want to remove such a tag (or even edit the page at all, thus reducing the risk of the tag being accurately applied), but I think that never might be a bit too strong.
What if the major contributor actually doesn't have a COI of any kind? If I falsely accuse you of having a COI with the Battle of France, do you still think you shouldn't be able to remove the tag (and maybe ping a few friends to see about having my head examined while you're at it)? (It's good to have you back.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
you are bringing up very strange edge cases, which can be handled with discussion. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: In the first case you mentioned - they leave it. The only way I can imagine the it being OK to remove the tag in the case you propose is if the COI editor made only a single series of contiguous edits followed by the COI Notice so they could revert back to a previous version without impacting other editors work. Any other way and the removal, how it was removed and the state they leave the article in could easily be as problematic, or more so, than the initial COI edits. It is not just the content a COI editor adds which can be problematic, it is their editorial judgement in general which is compromised.

    We have IAR to give a bit of slack to never so it can be used to prevent labyrinthine rules from growing to deal with infinite what-ifs. 'Never' locks down the 99.999% of what-ifs with a clear, concise rule that can not be wiki-lawyered at a drama board and IAR gives the safety valve for edge cases like that.

    For your second hypothetical - why should I bother removing the tag? I can 'ping a few friends' to have your head examined without removing the tag . But in all seriousness, someone placing a COI tag on something I wrote would first make me take a look at that content and see if I had some bias I had missed then go ask someone to review it. I would probably go to COIN to address why they think I have a COI assuming it was not an obviously bad faith claim, in which case its off for WP:POPCORN. (I once had a COI editor claim I was a CIA officer or some such who was out to get the subject of 'their' article because I had this template on my user page. I laughed for hours.)

    (Thanks! Good to be back!) Jbh Talk 03:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose Such tags should not be placed without discussion as this is a serious accusation with BLP implications. We should have a bot removing all such malformed tags as there's far too many of them cluttering up our pages and they tend to linger for years otherwise. As an example, see Victoria University, Australia which I found at the top of what links here. This has been tagged for a year now with no talk page discussion and the tag is clearly useless because it doesn't identify either the editor or the text which is supposedly problematic. Such tagging is useless clutter and so will get in the way of resolving more serious cases. If taggers can't be bothered to state what the problem is then it's unlikely to be substantial or serious. If a job's worth doing then it's worth doing well. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A cleanup tag's purpose is to attract editors to the article to fix problems that have been identified. Tags should never be used merely on suspicion, and must be accompanied by an identification of the problems on the talk page for the benefit of whoever comes along to try to fix them. Tags without a discussion should be removed as a matter of routine. This proposal is nothing more than an attempt by Jytdog to give himself a justification for restoring tags without talk page discussion by the pretext of accusing whoever removes the tag of having a COI. Unacceptable behaviour. --RexxS (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That !vote has nothing to do with proposed 5 word addition, which simply has to do with whether it is OK for a person with a COI to remove a tag where they have a COI, and came up as a side conversation distinct from what Andy was doing, if you see the discussion here. The language was added by WAID in this diff. Andy would not have been prevented from removing the Saidler tag, by this language, had it been there at the time. He has no COI with regard to Saidler that I am aware of. It would make it clear that Pplc should not remove it, or Saidler, or some employee of Numbrs. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC) (add a bit, underlined Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC))
      • [ec] "Tags without a discussion should be removed as a matter of routine. This proposal is nothing more than an attempt by Jytdog to give himself a justification for restoring tags without talk page discussion by the pretext of accusing whoever removes the tag of having a COI." seems to have a lot to do with your proposed five-word relaxation of the current guidelines. It's really not necessary for you to attempt to analyse the intent of people opposing your suggestion, but if you must do so, please do not misrepresent them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
        • I misrepresented nothing. The proposal has nothing to do with restoring tags, and never had anything to do with you. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
          • [After another ec] "never had anything to do with you" You're even misrepresenting yourself. You claimed on ANI just yesterday that my actions have "culminated (kind of) in an RfC, here."; linking to this RfC. So, which one of your two mutually-contradictory claims is false? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
      • [between ecs] "Andy would not have been prevented from removing the Saidler tag, by this language..." Poppycock. You and others have falsely attempted to insinuate that I was conflicted in doing so. And note that Pplc did not make any attempt to remove the tag - though they could quite reasonably have done so, since there was no talk page discussion - but instead asked for a neutral editor to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:46, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
          • You said there was evidence here, that I claimed you had a COI at Saidler. There is nothing but your misunderstanding. Continual. This RfC is indeed happening because of your reverting of WAID's change. But WAIDs change had nothing to do with anything that you have done. Not a single goddamn thing to do with you. I linked above to the section of the morass above where this change was discussed. Here is the link again. Get your paranoid BATTLEGROUND shit off of me, and off of this RfC. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
            • "You said there was evidence here, that I claimed you had a COI at Saidler. " Please provide a diff to support the claim that I said that, or strike (not delete) it for the falsehood that it is. "This RfC is indeed happening because of your reverting..." You claimed just above that "The proposal... never had anything to do with you". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
              • What you are doing here is just petty battleground clutter. I don't know why you reverted the change. It had nothing to do with our prior dispute. I am not replying further. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
                • Note: that, after being challenged to provide evidence for, or strike, an allegation that I say is false, Jytdog's only response is "I am not replying further". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
                  • diff of the claim of "evidence". complete with the misquote of what i have been saying. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
                    • That doesn't say anything of the kind. The markup I used in that diff is {{Tq|"It has nothing to do with him"}}; {{Tq|The RfC has nothing -- whatsoever -- not a single thing -- to do with the dispute with Andy at Saidler.}} I have just given evidence contradicting this falsehood below RexxS' !vote at the RfC. . The first quote is from this diff; the second from this. So your "complete with the misquote of what i have been saying" is yet another falsehood. You really need to stop lying about what is being said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No. The instructions for Template:COI should not include "the following underlined language" by the simple reason that if you tag an article without an explanation anyone can and should remove it. Any user. A Bot. Even a COI editor. This has nothing to do with any conflicts of interest, it's merely mechanical cleanup. CapnZapp (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. Article creators can't remove a speedy deletion tag, and this is a similar situation. Let someone without a COI make the determination. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • This is far from similar; every speedy-deletion template includes the reason why speedy deletion is nominated. The COI template does not, which is why a reason MUST be given on the talk page. "A conflicted editor may not remove a COI template" is more correctly analogous to a conflicted editor may not remove a COI template if there is an explanation on the talk page". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • It is currently a different situation, but one solution might be adopting the |reason= system that speedy deletion tags use. This template could be coded to require a reason (and to display only an error if the parameter is omitted or blank). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Largely unnecessary. The actual problem here is asserting COI in a situation where reasonable people can differ. I am concerned that Jytdog is trying to use this to bludgeon people who disagree with his fundamentalist interpretation of COI in respect of GLAM, especially. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

rfc discussion

Don't you think it would have been appropriate to have more than half a day's discussion (on a weekend, no less) about that reversion, before starting an RFC? We might have been able to reach a resolution in the discussion above, and jumping straight into an RFC feels unduly aggressive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand the background of the disagreement. We are at impasse here and getting wider input will be useful. Jytdog (talk) 02:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Who decides whether the COI in the wording exists or not? How does the wording avoid the situation where editor A makes an edit; B decides that A has a COI and tags the article without starting discussion; A removes the tag because of the lack of discussion; B reverts, citing this wording as justification. B's opinion on A's possible COI becomes their own justification for enforcing a tag that has been improperly applied. Not a tenable process. Even if the third and fourth parties are different editors from the first two. I'm not inclined to support guidance where a tagger has a free hand to apply tags on suspicion alone, and to revert their misapplication of the tag on the basis of their suspicions alone. --RexxS (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

All WP policies and guidelines are written at a high level and details need to be worked out in specific situations. Many times the COI is very obvious (e.g paid editor has the task); in the unclear cases it can be discussed and worked through at COIN if necessary. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing, I've proposed a compromise above ("TLDR"). I'm hoping that as it just uses the wording of WP:COIEDIT that we can all agree to it or similar? (I saw this section after replying above) Widefox; talk 00:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
RexxS normal maintenance tag/editing rules apply (which includes COI editors should follow WP:COIEDIT). If we detail correct usage better, then misuse would be in contrast to that. This should be as sticky as other maintenance tags i.e. stickier than a PROD tag, but not stuck and deadlined like an AfD tag. Widefox; talk 00:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As you will. I restate - we are at an impasse and I do not see it being resolved through discussion among the parties participating here. The discussion in the page above, is an impossible-to-follow, disorganized mess, that is going no where. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm not having trouble following the discussion above, and I think we are getting somewhere. We seem to be understanding each other a little better now than we were a week ago, and that's progress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
There is precisely zero progress. I do understand that you are happy with your own arguments but those opposing the language above have not moved an inch. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog The discussion above is a mess, but I can follow it. Is the proposed wording acceptable, for now? Widefox; talk 15:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
What proposed wording? Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Under "TLDR", revised at "Andy I agree, for inappropriate tagging". Widefox; talk 15:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
So you propose allowing people with a COI to remove the tag. This is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, bear with me...WP:COIEDIT allows conflicted editors to edit articles. It doesn't allow reviewer... AfC, new pages patrol or elsewhere. I don't think a maintenance tag would be covered under "reviewer...elsewhere" so per current consensus it's allowed IMHO. If we can at least get the current consensus to be agreed on and put in the doc, it's a good start. That will take both sides here to compromise. You agree that edit warring over false positive COI editors the tag is a strong point? The competing protections here need evaluating, which is impractical in the current discussion above. Widefox; talk 16:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No it is not OK under the COI guideline for a conflicted editor to remove tags. In fact many times paid editors are paid to come here to take tags off. Think about that. They don't care if the article is OK or not. They just want the tag off. here is a paid editor marketing his service, doing that, and here is another. The Mister Wiki arbom case -- the task there, was removing tags. The article where Andy and I started this clash -- a paid editor was paid to get tags removed and fix two other things and asked Andy to do that for him.
What all of that is about, is subverting community review processes so that a client has a nice pretty clean PR piece. So really. No. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
No, Jytdog. What all that was about is your failure, and that of another editor, to comply with the template's quite clearly laid out conditions for use. Since you keep overlooking (or ignoring) them, I'll remind you that they say (highlighting in original; emboldening mine): "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." Neither you nor the other editor started such a discussion, and so - as you were informed at the time - the tag was removed. If you didn't want the tag removed, then all you had to do was start that discussion. Why did you not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
"So you propose allowing people with a COI to remove the tag." No, Jytdog, they're already allowed to remove the tag if, and only if the person who left it failed to abide by the requirement in the template's documentation: 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. It is you who proposes to change that, and you have failed to make a cogent case for doing so. I have also asked you above, and will do so again now: Under what circumstances do you envisage that that would not be possible for a person placing the tag to met that requirement? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Andy point well made, can you refrain from repeating it temporarily so I can try to progress with Jytdog's legitimate concern which isn't addressed by it, thanks.

Jytdog I agree with the spirit of that argument yes, is No it is not OK under the COI guideline for a conflicted editor to remove tags what you consider the COI guideline currently states either in spirit or letter? Can you point out where, or examples of it? I agree if it's classed as requiring a "review". I could understand that the COI tag is essentially requesting a review, which is required so the issues can be further detailed and addressed. As conflicted editors cannot currently review per COIEDIT, they would be able to request a review on the talk (and I'm refraining from saying WP:PR). Does this work for you?
Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, where possible pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what content issue has been caused by a conflicted editor, the tag may be removed by any editor. Editors with a conflict of interest should follow WP:COIEDIT, where they "should not act as a reviewer of affected article(s)".
 When to remove

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

  1. There is consensus amongst reviewers on the talkpage or the COI Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
  2. It is not clear what the content issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

An editor with a COI may propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed;

Widefox; talk 09:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, I see this issue has been discussed Help_talk:Maintenance_template_removal/Archive_1#Note in the help WP:WNTRMT and changed here 17 May 2017‎ and contested by an editor with a COI [11] You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply: ...
  1. You have been paid to edit the article or have some other conflict of interest.

Can we agree that help can and should follow the consensus here? Widefox; talk 13:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You wrote a lot there. It still contains the language that " the tag may be removed by any editor". This is still not OK, as I already explained. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that you have explained it. If an editor has an accepted conflict of interest, then other guidelines will still prevent them from removing a defective tag. Your wording invites a drive-by tagger to restore their removed tag by claiming without any evidence whatsoever that the editor removing the tag has a COI. Until you address that very real concern, you won't get consensus to change the wording from its present state. --RexxS (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog 90% from {{POV}} 9% from COIEDIT + the only new thing being removing a correct one takes "reviewers", which editors with a COI should not do. You need to reason it more as it tries to cover your concern that a conflicted editor can not remove a correctly placed one. Clause 2. needs to be anyone so that there's no upper hand / edit warring to remove an incorrectly placed one. Clause 1. does not allow any editor to remove the tag - only non COI editors can remove a correctly placed one via consensus (talk or COIN). That consensus discussion allows normal scrutiny/weighting of the participants to determine if they have a COI. ie SPAs, socks, ducks. wording does not allow an editor with a COI to remove the tag if a content issue is placed on the talk. It does allow any editor to remove it if not.
RexxS no - a drive-by tagger that doesn't satisfy 2. cannot put it back on. Consensus at 1. can also remove it to protect against unfounded accusations. Widefox; talk 19:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Rexxs yes I know this talk page is a mess. See here.
Widefox the language that WAID suggested, has only been objected to by people who operate in the territory of COI and who should be much more ginger than they are being here. I have started an RfC to try to get wider input; the parties talking here are not going to reach agreement. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
"has only been objected to by people who operate in the territory of COI and who should be much more ginger than they are being here" You don't get to make such a smear, nor to dismiss others' genuine concerns, so lightly - if you have evidence of malfeasance, post it on the relevant noticeboards. Otherwise, cease your ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You should not view having a COI as a "smear"; that is your deal, not mine. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I suggest we collapse as offtopic per the warning at top To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard Widefox; talk 21:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd rather see Jytdog strike his comment, by way of acknowledging that it is inappropriate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
...which, oddly, he has yet to do. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
[ec] I do not "view having a COI as a smear"; so please don't attempt to deflect, especially with a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Working for pay in Wikipedia or having a COI is not a bad thing; what can be difficult and sometimes even harmful is how people in those structural situations conduct themselves. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, do you think that an average editor with a COI is capable, in practice, of correctly figuring out whether or not a discussion about the COI issue has been posted to the talk page?

I'm wondering whether a practical compromise would look like explicitly allowing editors who (allegedly or actually) have a COI to remove unexplained tags, and also explicitly disallowing editors who (actually) have a COI to remove it under any other circumstance. Could you live with that?

It'd still leave us with the problem of the occasional editors who insist that they (magically?) know that all the Frank Fans are paid editors instead of fanboys, but perhaps this would represent an improvement over the previous state. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

With regard to trying to forge a compromise here, we have way too small a sample here and this small group is very divided. Hence the RfC. Let's see what we learn from a wider sample (should we get it). Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog 100% agree with WhatamIdoing, e.g. compromise a) or b) would at least be progress, rather than risking no change especially as currently editors with a COI (not undisclosed PAID) are allowed to edit, remove tags and do stuff apart from review. At least Doug is favourable to "proven" or similar. Widefox; talk 20:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to compromise but in my view it is just WP:CONLIMITED and given the background this is unwise. We very much need wider community input here. We are in no hurry. fwiw i wish you would simply give a clean !vote on the actual proposal. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I've tweaked my Support so this is unconditional now, the condition is now that adding protection from bad practice can be done afterwards, which shouldn't have to delay this. Widefox; talk 23:56, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that having a small group is what makes compromise and proposal development possible, and that if we come up with something this group can live with, we're far more likely to get agreement from the rest of the community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
That would be true if the small group were representative of the community. I do not believe it is. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with WhatamIdoing, but forced to concede that Jytdog was right that an RfC was needed as bogged down. The RfC overshoots COI/COIEDIT, but can be swung back a bit afterwards for the edge case(s). The small group didn't get out of the truck to push it out the bog. Once moving again, a small group can get back in. Widefox; talk 02:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
The main issue I see with allowing COI editors to remove unexplained tags is that 'unexplained' then becomes a point of litigation. Can a tag with a detailed edit summary pointing out a real problem be removed because there is no talk page comment explaining it? How much detail must/should be left in an explanation? If the explanation is poor, overly general or vague is the tag 'explained' or 'unexplained'? What about issues of outing? Last I checked, many months ago, there was a huge debate about claims of COI vs WP:OUTING - those are not waters which not many outside of a few at COIN want to, or even can, navigate. They are certainly beyond what can be expected of some random New Page Reviewer.

I strongly believe that, in the cases of COI and PAID, it is the conflicted editors who we are writing the rules to manage. They are the ones most likely to push the boundaries of the rules so those boundaries must be unambiguous. It is always possible, in specific cases, for consensus to loosen restrictions or fail to enforce nonsensical outcomes which may arise from simple rules. It is not possible to do the opposite. Just look at how a hypothetical ANI may go:

  • NPPgirl - COIdude removed this COI template he should not have done that.
  • COIdude - I can remove unexplained tags and...
  • NPPgirl - I did explain [diff]
  • COIdude - That is not an explanation! You need to say x,y,z
  • NPPgirl - That is not what the rules say.
  • COIdued - Explain means - dictionary def ...
  • Rinse and repeat ad nauseum
versus
  • NPPgirl - COIdude removed this COI template he should not have done that.
  • COIdude - ummmm....
  • <close>
and
  • NPPgirl - COIdude removed this COI template he should not have done that.
  • RationalGuy - Hey NPPgirl, he only made one edit and removed it along with the tag. Are you sure you are not a sock of MissMartinet?
  • <close>
While these are caricatures and noting ever goes smoothly. There is a clear advantage to the encyclopedia to have rules/instructions which unquestionably prevent 'bad' behavior while allowing the flexibility inherent in Wikipedia culture to mitigate bad or grossly unfair outcomes as opposed to rules/instructions which, due to ambiguity, lead to drama and time wasting both from reasonable misreading by someone who does not have the same cultural/linguistic package assumed by the writers and from bad actors who use that ambiguity to push their COI/PAID POV through willful misinterpretation, loopholes and plain gamesmanship.

Bluntly - Wikipedia can afford to loose any given COI/PAID editor who may get frustrated by strict COI/PAID rules. It is regrettable and we should be sensitive to the burden we put on them but the losses, even in aggregate, are survivable. What is not sustainable is the exhaustion, frustration and, ultimately, loss of the long term, experienced, editors who must deal with COI/PAID and the continuous POV pushing of the thousands of editors who are here expressly to push their POV and who are willing to, repeatedly, use any ambiguities in our rules/guidelines/policies to do so. Often with the express purpose of exhausting those who try to deal with them and/or the exploitation of the good faith of volunteer Wikipedia editors.

Damn, I wrote more than I intended and much bears on more general subjects than COI tags but, well, sunk costs... so I'll hit post anyway :) Jbh Talk 04:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: To answer the questions you pose:
  • The purpose of a cleanup tag is to invite other editors to help with the cleanup. If an uninvolved editor arrives at the article and see the tag, they should be able to go right to the talk page and see what problematic content needs to be cleaned up. If we make them read through an indeterminate number of edit summaries to find the problems, or worse give them no clue, we are making it difficult for the very editors we are hoping will help out. That's why there is general guidance for all cleanup tags at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup stating "Avoid "drive-by" tagging. Tags must be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below. Tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion."
  • We have general advice already for when to remove cleanup templates at Help:Maintenance template removal #When to remove. Reason number 6 states: "If the maintenance template is of a type that requires support but is not fully supported. Some neutrality-related templates, such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) and {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy), strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page), to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, the template can be removed;"
  • It makes eminent sense to prevent editors with a proven COI from removing cleanup tags (of any sort). It does not make sense to give someone like Jytdog free rein to restore tags that have been removed for lack of discussion, simply by making an unfounded claim that the editor who removed the tag has a COI.
Here's the other side of the coin at ANI:
  • Jytog - Andy removed a COI tag.
  • Andy - That's because it has been there for four months without any attempt to identify the non-neutral content on the talk page.
  • Jytdog - Andy can't remove that tag because he has a COI.
  • Andy - No I don't.
  • Jytdog - I say Andy has, and I'll make an ANI report to see if I can find somebody who will agree with me.
You may say that's too far-fetched for anybody to swallow, but here is that very scenario: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=824823177#Pigsonthewing_and_COI_guidelines_and_templates - we can't have this sort of mud-slinging and waste of the community's time, simply to allow Jytdog to take whatever steps he deems acceptable to win a dispute. --RexxS (talk) 18:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
oy veh. So much bad faith and confusion. I generally find discussions 'about COI to be absurd in WP. This one has gone completely off the rails. Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • @RexxS: As you said - "It makes eminent sense to prevent editors with a proven COI from removing cleanup tags (of any sort)." So long as we agree on that then the rest of the drama you describe is irrelevant to this proposal.

    The concern you raise is wrongful/bad faith accusation of COI which we have processes for dealing with. If Andy indeed does have a COI then he should not have removed the tag. If Jytdog made a good faith accusation of COI then Andy should not remove the tag until the question is cleared up. If Jytdog made a bad faith accusation of COI then that is a matter for ANI. None of that, though, has any bearing on whether or not it is OK for a COI editor to remove a COI tag. Jbh Talk 22:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I never said Pigsonthewing had a COI; my objection to him removing the tag at Saidler and the RfC above are entirely distinct issues, that both RexxS and Pigsonthewing have slopped together. That is an entirely red herring. I have no idea why Pigsonthewing reverted WAIDs addition of the language now in the RFC.
I did say that it is very unwise for a GLAM editor to be campaigning to thwart COI management, which is yet another, more high level, separate thing. Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have already taken you to task, on this very page, for your utterly false insinuation that I am "campaigning to thwart COI management". It is totally unacceptable for you to falsely imply that I am doing anything of the kind. I told you only yesterday that we can only have a meaningful dialogue once you cease such abusive behaviour. So stop trying to smear me with falsehoods. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Also, see here for a refutation of Jutdog's claim that the RfC is unrelated to what happened at the Saidler article, and note that he has not yet replied to my question there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: Please strike your suggestion that I may have had a COI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Andy, the accusation that you may have a COI is integral to what I was replying to. I merely say that if that is/was true then you should not have removed the tag. I stand by that. I make no representation or judgement on whether you have one or not.

I will say that, in general, anyone who receives money for editing Wikipedia or edits for or on behalf of a third party, GLAM or not, must exercise extraordinary care. If the content of those contributions can place the third party of its interests in a good/bad light or provide benefit/harm to it or its interests based on their editorial choices then that editor has, at a minimum, a moral conflict of interest. Whether it rises to the level or WP:COI/WP:PAID is a valid question to ask on behalf of the community. How, or whether, this applies to you is something that I neither know, nor outside the limited way it has been brought up by others here, have any interest in. Jbh Talk 13:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC) @Pigsonthewing: I just looked at your user page. You have done some incredible work! I do not doubt that you are professional enough to manage any conflict which may arise. Also, I do not doubt that you are professional enough to recognize that there are situations which may arise in your editing where others might percieve a conflict of interest. You have made tremendous contributions on behalf of some major organizations. I really hope you can see why people here would ask about COI. Editing Wikipedia is so much more for you than the hobby it is for 99.99% of Wikipedia editors. How you respond to those questions, annoying to you or not, has a direct bearing on people's confidence. In short, Wikipedia looks to be either your profession or a significant part of it. You are not just some person editing on some topic they find interesting in their spare time. Fair or not, it is your responsibility to respond to concerns brought up in good faith. Jbh Talk 13:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

But, Jbhunley, the accusation that Andy may have a COI is absolutely central to the problem with the proposed wording. The fact of the matter is that Andy does not have a COI concerning the Saidler article, not even a moral one. Andy doesn't have a COI and therefore he is acting within both the letter and the spirit of our policies. Are you prepared to deny that?
What you are suggesting is that anybody who removes a tag can be tarred with a "COI" brush without any basis, simply to gain an upper hand in a dispute, and that's exactly what happened here. It is vital that we don't cry wolf over COI. We need a working, respected, system to combat the huge amount of paid editing that goes on. What we don't need is the fear of COI being used to smear an innocent editor in the way that it has been done with Andy, because it weakens the measures we have available when they are misused like this.
Andy left his steady job working in the IT department of a local council to earn his living freelancing, mostly as Wikipedian-in-Residence for a variety of GLAM organisations. He is lucky to be doing a job that is also his hobby. Like all other WiRs, he constantly has to keep in mind the balance between where he is editing as an amateur and as where his paid employment could generate a COI. But that means he is very aware of where the boundaries exist, and it is understandable that he can get worked up when somebody makes completely unfounded attacks against his integrity. If we wrote in a BLP about about Fred Bloggs that Bloggs may have a COI about a particular topic without giving any evidence - and then repeated that - we'd quite rightly be sanctioned. Yet you don't seem to see that making that assertion ("you may have a COI") about a fellow editor without proof, is equally problematical. Think again, and perhaps reconsider whether it is fair on a respected colleague to repeat falsehoods in the way you have. --RexxS (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS:. I have made no representation, and hold no opinion, as to Andy's COI status in this matter so there is nothing on that subject for me to deny - that is the whole point of the word "if" in my statements. I do not believe that any specific editor's COI status should be relevant to the discussion about template wording or general guidelines. I have repeated no falsehoods. Please re-read what I wrote and direct me to where I have repeated any falsehood. I know for a fact I introduced neither Jytdog not Andy to this discussion not did I do other than respond to statements about their little drama made by you. I am not comfortable discussing Andy in particular, both because I do not know his situation well enough and because it has no bearing on the general question of whether we let COI editors remove COI tags. If you feel that Andy is somehow being maligned you are welcome to strike through the entire section, including my comments.

I stated above under what conditions, in general, I think it reasonable to question an editor on COI. I also feel, very strongly, that the responsibility should fall on anyone getting paid to edit Wikipedia to exercise extraordinary care in their edits as well as to be extremely accommodating in how they respond to good faith COI inquiries. If one is going to be a professional Wikipedia editor then one must expect to be held to professional standards including an enhanced duty of care to show one is scrupulously adhering to the letter, intent and spirit of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and mission.

I do not see how you can reasonably read anything I have written as "suggesting is that anybody who removes a tag can be tarred with a "COI" brush without any basis, simply to gain an upper hand in a dispute". I will repeat - If anyone " [makes] a bad faith accusation of COI then that is a matter for ANI. None of that, though, has any bearing on whether or not it is OK for a COI editor to remove a COI tag."(emp. added) We differ, however on the idea that asking about a COI is a smear or, in my strong opinion, ridiculously raising such an inquiry to the level of a BLP violation - If we are to have a COI/PAID policy it is not, in any way, unreasonable to ask someone, particularly someone who has already said they get paid, if they have a COI on a subject. In the case of a known, respected editor, particularly one whose real life identity is known and baring behavioral evidence, once the question is asked and answered the matter should be dropped. That said, the mere question is not a BLP violation. Nor should be any question which, asked in good faith and not revealing private information, is necessary to know if an editor is behaving within the ToS and PaGs. I would even go so far as to say such a question could be properly asked in the context of inquiring about any editor's application of editorial judgement. The key in such a situation is not to be offensive, intimidating, accusatory or generally a dick when asking. I know that I would have no problem if anyone asked me such questions. Even without a COI maybe they draw attention to an a bias or some other issue. Mind, if they did it repeatedly, without articulable reason or obviously to harass, discredit or 'win' I'd tell them to piss right off and bring COIN or an admin into the loop. Otherwise I want to answer questions people have about my editing. That is how content improves and true good faith not WP:AGF is built among editors. We write our rules based on the assumption that they will be applied in good faith.Jbh Talk 18:51, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

If only that was how it worked, Jbhunley. As for your falsehood, you repeated an allegation that Andy may have a COI. He has no COI at all and I'm terribly disappointed that you don't see that even when you hedge it with ifs and buts, you still cast aspersions on an editor who has made it clear that they have no COI. Your inability to accept his statement, coupled with your willingness to assume that he may have a COI, makes you part of the problem, instaed of part of the solution. Can't you see how galling it must be for somebody to clearly deny an accusation, yet have you suggest that the allegation may be true? Do you really not see how "I merely say that if that is/was true then you should not have removed the tag" must appear to someone who knows they have no COI? I make no representation or judgement on whether you have one or not. Well you damn well ought to make a judgement, because playing along with the nonsense that Andy might have a COI is damaging. You should seriously rethink the effect of your words on an editor who has to defend himself from such baseless attacks far too often. --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
RexxS You are the one who brought Andy into the discussion. If you did not want me to comment on him do not bring him up. My AGF does not stretch to putting up with people giving me shit about addressing topics, subjects or situations they bring up nor to those who think they can require me to accept their version of a conflict which I have no personal knowledge of. Beyond that I damn well am not casting aspersions by not hopping to Andy's defense or by using 'if'. (See speculative conditional if you are not a native English speaker or otherwise have a problem distinguishing between 'if' and 'may'.) FFS you are the one who claimed Jytdog said Andy has a COI yet Jytdog says "I never said Pigsonthewing had a COI".With Jytdog's denial it seems that you are simply making things up. (Of course you are only making shit up if Jytdog's denial is true. See how that keeps me from calling one or the other of you a liar when I neither know now care which or if it is something in between?)

You, however, have made two rather serious claims about me; That I have both somehow cast aspersions on anther editor and made false claims about that third party by not denying claims that you brought up. That seems like an ambush or shit stirring to me. I genuinely hope that was not your intention. You can convince me of that by striking the accusations.

I suggest that you re-read what I have written and consider that I would have had precisely the same comments without your attempt to frame this discussion as a conflict between Jytdog and Andy. I repeatedly went out of my way to state my general views and to state their conflict was not relevant to the RfC. If you want to discuss the pros and cons of allowing COI editors to remove COI tags then I am happy to do that. If you wish to further berate me about not taking a side in a conflict that I neither know nor care the particulars of then, respectfully, keep it to yourself because I am fresh out of shits to give on that topic. Jbh Talk 22:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley Don't patronise me. Do you speak English? Ever heard of insinuation? Ever heard the expression "throw enough mud and it will stick"? Because that's what you're doing with your "If he has " and "He may have". I can't believe you're so naive as to not understand that repeating a lie as a conditional is just a weasel way of repeating a lie. This whole debate is nothing more than an exercise in marginalising an editor who doesn't agree with removing cleanup tags that have been placed contrary to the documentation. First he was attacked simply for removing the COI tag, and when that failed, the next tactic was to change the documentation to give an excuse for the attacks, and then start a campaign to harass him. Of course it's relevant to this debate. In fact it's central to it. Take a look at these diffs:
and now tell me I'm making things up. I'm not the one who is a liar, no matter how much you try to wikilawyer the language. With all due respect, you know what you can do with your injunctions telling me to "keep it to myself". If you're embarrassed by me pointing out your support for a campaign of attacks on another editor, that's your problem, not mine.
So I'll suggest that it's you who ought to do a bit of re-reading, and recognise that you're you're the one who ought to be striking your calumnies. How can you not understand that this entire debate is a merely a tactic in a campaign of harassment, and you're enabling it:
  • Seems you really want to argue about this conflict you have with some other editors that I have repeatedly said I do not know about, care to know about or see any relevance to the general question asked by this RfC. Let me be more blunt - stop talking to me about it. I do not care about the the activities or motivations of the people involved nor do I care about your view of the dispute - do I really need to say it again? It is not relevant to the question asked in this RfC. I came here to comment on whether COI editors should be able to remove COI tags. That is it. I have said this politely and no-so politely.

    Nothing I say penetrates your blinkered perceptions to allow you to go beyond what you imagine I meant to grasp what I said. Kind of like shadow boxing with you forcing me to be the shadow. Fine, I can be your shadow for you for a bit - it has been a long time since anyone went out of their way to pick an argument with me in any context. Since this has no value to any of the other people reading this page I invite you to this brand new page where you can cast abuse and aspersion at me on this topic all you want - maybe we will even come to understand each others position - I doubt it since you have made no effort up to this point but saying it is an attempt to reach mutual understanding through unfettered dialogue is probably more acceptable than calling it a cage match. (We can still sell tickets though) We will even have it deleted when you are done so it does not become fodder for an NPA based ANI thread.

    If you find this offer fatuous, it is, but damn you seem to want to berate me about this regardless of what I have to say. I figure it is only polite to make the offer and it is really better if I do not take your repeated attacks, aspersions and insults seriously. I might even be offended by them - probably not since you have just been attacking a shadow of your own creation but one never knows.

    I fervently hope that, unlike the previous times, I have made my position perfectly clear. Jbh Talk 01:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Was referring to User:pplc who was hired to remove the links in question NOT Andy. But whatever.
Andy's removal of these tags has been very pointy in nature. And this is the primary reason we are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
James, surely you see that everybody is bound to take it that you were referring to Andy when you stated ""Hiring someone to come and remove the tag is not how things work." Pplc didn't "come along and remove the tag". Andy did.
Andy's removal of the tag may have seemed pointy to you, but that didn't make it wrong. When you place the tag, you are committing to indicating at least one identified problem on the talk page to let other editors know what you've found. That's all that needed to be done to avoid all of this unpleasantness. --RexxS (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Could my initial comment have been clearer, maybe. Pplc discussed openly his effort to remove said tag.[12] If you wish to assume poor faith, that is up to you. If Andy wishing to try to edit war out ever COI tag because he does not see sufficient justification even when such justification is obvious or provided that is not cool. It was not so much that initial removal I find pointy but rather than last few dozen by them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

more rfc discussion

Andy has it. Even COI editors can do mechanical cleanup. CapnZapp (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

RexxS Agree anyone making a COI accusation here should be cleared up at COIN, same for BLP at BLPN. To see why a maintenance template can not be a BLP problem see "WP:NODISCLAIMERS" below. As both cards may be played in this situation for an upper hand without them being substantiated, both are to be avoided per WP:CRYBLP Wikipedia:Don't cry COI. Widefox; talk 17:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The "nutshell for CRYBLP is: "Insisting that a non-BLP issue is in fact a BLP crisis is not helpful to building an encyclopedia.", and rightly so. But this is a BLP issue. As Rexxs says above: "If we wrote in a BLP about about Fred Bloggs that Bloggs may have a COI about a particular topic without giving any evidence - and then repeated that - we'd quite rightly be sanctioned.". And, as others have recognised, this template can insinuate just that. All that anyone is asking for is that, if people use the template, they justify that action in on the artcile's talk page. That's setting a bar, but hardly a high one. Perhaps we need WP:CRYNOTBLP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
If an account with the same name as the article or someones "colleague" writes the article for them, a point by point discussion of the issue in question is not needed to justify this tag.
Repeatedly stating that these tags are a BLP issue itself is bizarre. Maintenance tags are not BLP issues when the problem is obvious. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Nobody is asking for point-by-point discussion on the talk page. But you shouldn't be placing these tags unless you've found non-neutral (not just unreferenced) content in the article. These tags are for cleanup, not for branding articles. The tag is not the BLP issue. The BLP issue is when an editor is falsely accused of having a COI, which is what happened to start all this. --RexxS (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Ah, even when reasons were provided removal by Andy continued. Plus neutrality is not simple that the text is all only somewhat promotional rather than being very promotional. Neutrality requires looking for what has been left out. If most of the article has been written by someone connected with the subject in question a review is required by a non connected editor. More times than not half the text is not supported by the refs provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"Ah, even when reasons were provided removal by Andy continued." Diffs, please (i.e. of cases meeting the requirement "to explain what is non-neutral about the article", and not merely claiming that "there is a COI", that "this article needs cleanup", or that "editor X edited this article". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
@Doc James: You seem to have overlooked this request to provide diffs to back up your allegation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The talk page contains a long list of accounts working on the article in question with a COI. Talk:Martin_Saidler Their contributions were significant during the time the article was tagged. A check for neutrality was requested via the COI tag. User:Jytdog did the clean up and appropriately removed the tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Simply naming accounts does not meet the requirement "to explain what is non-neutral about the article". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
@Widefox: Some maintenance tags can create significant BLP violations. {{Connected contributor}} springs to mind: If you wrongly identify an editor with that tag, you will have violated the BLP policy. It's fine to use that template to connect Doc James's BLP with his Wikipedia account at Talk:James Heilman. It would not be okay to use that same template to claim that he's a mass murderer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Part of the problem there is that {{notable wikipedian}} is no longer a separate template. We now have a messy situation where paid spammers, people who once edited their article, and notable people who also contribute significantly to Wikipedia, are all identified with the same tag. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I hope we agree there's been no coherent argument made for this template causing a BLP violation. {{Connected contributor}} is neither this template, nor a maintenance tag AFAIK as it seems to be in the cat Talk message boxes. It's legitimate and vital to consider BLP, and of course a COI template may be used with a Connected contributor template, but after weeks of asking for the argument to be made, I've now concluded it wasn't made, and is moot per NODISCLOSURE. The CRYBLP vs CRYCOI has been disruptive. We can all agree BLP is a tangential consideration for this template, but is directly relevant for editors on talks per WP:BLPTALK where Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks. The community has primacy for editorial control, not editors with a COI, and we should defend that in a similar way to articles being built from secondary sources not primaries. Widefox; talk 23:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Multiple editors have agreed that the use of this template can be read as impugning BLP subjects. Your refusal to acknowledge as much, even when their doing so has been explicitly pointed out to you, is remarkable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree. Several editors have stated a tag alleging a COI is a BLP violation. BLP refers to contentious material about living persons and refers also to talk pages. A COI accusation with out proof in the form of a tag would then be a BLP violation. More recently this kind of violation has been ignored in favor of editors who think disparaging comments about article subjects and other editors are appropriate, but in the past, and in my mind more correctly, I have seen strong minded admins remove such violations from talk pages. Perhaps we've become slack and perhaps we need to be remedy that situation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC))
{{citation needed}}. Please provide examples. Guy (Help!) 11:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Widefox, {{connected contributor}} is in Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest templates, which is a subcat of Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. I conclude, therefore, that it is a type of maintenance template.
I also agree that the template could be understood as blaming the subject of a BLP for an editor's suspicions of a paid/COI editor. Perhaps it wouldn't generally rise to the level of a BLP violation, but I believe that it could. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Whatever "several editors agree", the fact is that the COI template is not the source of the problem. An incorrectly identified COI would be a BLP issue, flagging a valid one is not (that way lies madness: the same could be said of virtually any template applied to a BLP). See WP:COIN for a wider discussion. The issue is what legitimately constitutes a COI edit. An article subject changing some trivial fact like a date, surely not, but a PR agency buffing up the biography of an artist, clearly would. If a COI exists then there is no BLP issue with adding the template. If you don't want the COI template then revert the COI edits. BLP is not a magic shield against identifying threats to the integrity of the project. And don't WP:CRYBLP to hide legitimate concerns. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

An unsubstantiated allegation of COI is a BLP issue. COI allegations are not a magic shield for violating BLP. And still no-one has given any examples of cases where this template should be applied, and yet it is not possible to give a justification on the talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the more practical problem is that you can "just revert the COI edits" if you have absolutely no idea which edits those were. This dispute basically started with someone dropping this tag on BLPs and refusing, despite repeated requests, to say what NPOV violations allegedly existed in the article. The conversation I recall most clearly went like this:
A: "The article presents only positive facts (with the less than rosy stuff left out)".
B: "What alleged less-than-rosy stuff is missing?"
A: (no answer).
A "just revert it" stance doesn't work when the tagger refuses to identify anything that could just be reverted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template-protected edit request on 15 January 2021

hi i want to untag this paga as COI. tjere is no financial issue beyond this page. prof. Ada Aharoni is voluntarliy establish and operate in IFLAC. Her books are been sold like any other auther and she doesnt publish then thru wikiwpedia. thank you Louie2015 (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Louie2015: This needs to be discussed at Talk:Ada_Aharoni rather than here. I will start a thread there in a minute. SmartSE (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:COI/Archive_4&oldid=1013368879"