Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

ARCHIVES

• Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 1   December 2006 — March 2007

Modified Luxury & Exotics

I did the COI report on the Modified Luxury & Exotics article yesterday. The article's now gone (CSD G11). What about the rest of the edits by User:Luxury&Exotics (see their contributions) that were basically self-promotion for the Modified Luxury & Exotics magazine? For just one example, see this edit to Fisker Coachbuild. (An article that has multiple problems, including a copyright notice for someone else's quote!).

I reported the problems here because the editor had started reverting my removal of their promotional edits, and I HATE edit wars. ^BlankVerse 04:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. MER-C 05:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• BigC-ivic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Conflict of interest Single purpose account - re-created the article 01:56, February 6, 2007 (UTC).
• The user formerly known as Luxury&Exotics got a username change to:
• 2NDGENTEG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Athænara ✉ 02:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Add a section to WP:COI/N to list active AfD discussions of COI-nominated articles?

I happened to miss the AfD debate on one of the articles that had been submitted, on Bloodless Bullfighting. (Yes, I know, tragic..) Would there be suppport for adding an 'AfD' listing at the top of the noticeboard? At present AfDs are mentioned by participants only in passing. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth there is a whole section for AfDs and CfDs, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics a major heading is created for each new mathematics AfD that someone becomes aware of. I don't think this is canvassing. We would only list the AfDs of articles that had already been submitted to the noticeboard as having a COI. People who had gone to the trouble of analyzing a particular COI issue might be able to contribute useful tidbits to a corresponding AfD debate, if that happened to occur. A COI discussion is in a sense a 'pre-AfD' debate anyway, since if a problem can be worked out there may be no need to take it to AfD. Let me know your thoughts. EdJohnston 02:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea, based on the recent AfD on Barbara Schwarz. It was nominated by an editor I noted on the WP:COI/N. Anynobody 06:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A few editors have independently been placing pointers to pertinent Afds in COI/N sections, but a section near top of page by NewArtBot feed might be an improvement. — Athænara ✉ 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot - New Article Bot

Hi, I am in the trial runs of the User:AlexNewArtBot (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AlexNewArtBot). The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected COI-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant. Or whatever you want to do with them.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/COI, there is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/COILog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Please contact me if you are interested in the fine tuning of the rules

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome.

If the feed is not helpful just revert it. Here the possible autobiography just mean that the nick of the author is matched in the article text Alex Bakharev 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks very good. A few false hits, and stuff that can go in the bin on simpler grounds, but it works well. Tearlach 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. MER-C 09:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Could it be modified to show [[Special:Contributions/(username)]] instead of [[User:(username)]]? — Athænara ✉ 13:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Better still, {{user|whatever}}. MER-C 12:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea, I will implement it today Alex Bakharev 23:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lengthy disputes on noticeboard

The two sections on TM articles had together passed 80 kilobytes by the time I booted them to Archive 5. I don't know what we can do to prevent this in the future, but I'd hate to see any repeats.

A small coterie of editors used the noticeboard as just another platform to air their views without restraint while they treated the actual conflict of interest policy as a minor side show few cared to see.

I am baffled by such sheer disregard for the noticeboard's purpose. — Athænara ✉ 06:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, especially that Yoga one. 17 A4 pages in 12pt font as of last night. I think we should reserve the right to ignore anything over 500 words or so, we don't want to have to read entire essays. And POINTish stuff should usually be closed - the only reason why I'm leaving the WMC one on is that the initial poster looks a bit dodgy. MER-C 07:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There was a genuine COI issue in there that that got buried in all the irrelevant content dispute material. However good someone's edits, "I've been at Maharishi University of Management for decades" is a problematic relationship. But if not even the complainer is capable of focusing on the COI aspects alone, there's not much that can be done. Tearlach 11:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"I am baffled by such sheer disregard for the noticeboard's purpose"

One possibility for cutting to the chase: do we need to get bogged down in discussions of whether an editor with a demonstrated COI is editing fairly? Seems to me that WP:COI is as much about being seen to avoid COI, as it is about actual proof/disproof that a known COI is biasing edits.

I might be the most objective ever editor of the article on the hypothetical Tearlach Wonderful Products Inc of which I'm CEO, but there would always be some level of suspicion if I took a leading role in editing it: reason enough that I should stick to the Talk page so that propriety was seen to be observed. Tearlach 13:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to mandate a 500-word limit on postings to this noticeboard, I'm with you. How about 'Posting removed for length -- please submit a shorter version.' EdJohnston 16:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Even 500 is probably way too much. A basic report of COI just needs brief evidence of the relationship ("editor X is chief of Y's fan club - see Google/diffs/whatever"). And reams of "oh but everyone says I'm a good editor and Bad Things would happen if I stopped" waffle in defence are irrelevant. If such a relationship has been shown, editor X should follow the advice at WP:COI full stop. Tearlach 17:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[Again, my apologies to all. … Being my first time at this noticeboard, I knew about WP:COI but not how to deal with it …Lesson learned. --Dseer 01:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)]

Done. I've changed it to 200, as we might need to write a short paragraph or two every now and then. MER-C 02:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Assume that will require each comment added in a discussion to also be less than 200 words. EdJohnston 02:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I meant. I've clarified it. Now to poke the admins towards cleaning up the prod backlog. MER-C 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[I removed some crosstalk. This talk page is primarily for those who oversee the noticeboard and the many issues reported on it daily. — Æ. ✉ 04:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)]

The Connolley section is bloating similarly. — Athænara ✉ 01:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Should we just point them towards WP:RFC? It's time we reigned that discussion in. Last time when I tried to close, I got reverted. MER-C 07:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I archived it today. Maybe I'll get reverted too. — Æ. ✉ 01:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Just jumping in for a second to point out an extreme misconception on the part of everyone here: WHY would someone being at the TM university for decades be construed as evidence of COI in regards to editing the [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi] article? Seriously, just because someone founded an institution doesn't mean that people working at the institution are automatically in COI concerning an article about that individual as long as they post anonymously. MMY hasn't visited his school in Iowa in about 20 years or more and the relationship between individual TM meditators and MMY is hardly consistent. Paul Mason, whose biography of MMY is proposed as a significant source of information about MMY is an avid TMer, but thoroughly despises MMY, by his own words, as a for instance. -Sparaig 16:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't continue the debate. That discussion has been closed and archived. You can become a nominator of a new issue, if you wish. EdJohnston 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about how this place works...

Okay...when I stumble across an article that I believe is a true conflict of interest, how do I deal with it? The instructions are not made all that clear on the page... --HubHikari 09:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Nevermind. I see. --HubHikari 09:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest rewrite

I've completed a rewrite of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You can see the rewritten version here, or see it with diff to the old version. Comments are welcome on the talk page. --bainer (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

COI link additions (COIBot)

Hi, I have written a bot that matches links (domain) added to articles with the username adding the link. The bot (m:User:COIBot) is still being tested, but is doing quite a good job. Its output can be seen here. It has blacklisting and whitelisting capabilities (resp. linking names to domains when they are not the same, and making it ignore overlapping names and domains).

People might want to have a look there every now and then to spot new cases. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to host the report page locally, so that it can be transcluded onto the noticeboard and someplace where Wikiproject Spam finds it useful? MER-C 10:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have claimed the account user:COIBot on this wiki, I am thinking about making it report the en.wikipedia-cases on this wiki, which is easier to watchlist for people on this wiki. But I'd like first to make the recognition mechanism stronger, and to have it run continuously from toolserv. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: I have split a part of COIBot into a second bot (COIBot2), which is now monitoring #en.wikipedia on irc.wikimedia.org (all edits to pages), at the moment it parses edits to pages, matching pagenames to usernames, and reporting everything that has significant overlap. Reports are now in subpages, per day, under COIBot's COI Reports. To see the real-time reports, join us on the IRC linkfeed or IRC spam talk channel. Most people there are also capable of commanding COIBot so it can generate e.g. user or link-reports (see COIBot's UserReports and COIBot's LinkReports).

I am Still waiting for a toolserv account to make it run continuously (it is now only running when I am online/awake) and then I will ask for a WP:BRFA to report all en-cases somewhere on this wiki. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User:COIBot is now reporting on this wiki as well, for the moment under Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports, per day. It updates the page when 25 records are collected (collecting 25 pages seems to take between 15 minutes and 1 hour, depending on the moment of the day).

I am still thinking about how to rewrite a bit of the code so that it will always report to one page, which it automatically archives i.s.o. directly to days (makes it easier to watchlist). If you want to stay up-to-date with the reports at the moment, please watchlist the next couple of days. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Having it auto-archiving isn't really a good idea. The editors acting on the reports should archive the stuff once it is dealt with, not on some arbitrary time frame. It's annoying enough to have to revert one bot daily. MER-C 08:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will leave it as is for the moment. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot operators (in the spam talk channel on IRC) can make reports on users and links. I have made modification to the bot so that they are stored here on wikipedia as well, in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, respectively. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Refusal to cooperate

Is it just my perception, or are infringing editors getting wise to the idea that nothing much is going to happen if they don't actively break major policies? We seem to be getting a lot of "I hear what you say but that doesn't apply to me because ... fill in excuse". Tearlach 23:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad it's not just me who's noticed this. There's been a real surge in WP:LAWYER behavior too. I don't know what can be done about it. It would take a change in the present community consensus, which seems to allow people to get away with all kinds of stuff if they make an occasional positive contribution. Raymond Arritt 01:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For new articles, I suppose there'd be grounds for action per the boilerplate on the article creation page: Template:Notitle. I see there's been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest on two approaches. One, to provide some straightforward way for editors who know they've a possible COI to start an article in namespace, then get it reviewed before it goes to articlespace. Two, the more scary warning template Template:Uw-coi. Tearlach 02:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the 200 word limit comment will help to cut down on the wikilawyering, but the need for rouge admins is still the same. I tend to prod any vanispamcruftisement I come across, so a heavy handed approach works as well. MER-C 03:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is one long-running case still open involving spam links. There may be two further angles for that one: (a) is it a business, or is compensation received? If so then MyWikiBiz precedent provides a route. (b) Is there ongoing insertion of spam links? If so then we could ask that it stop. If the response is that it will not stop, then either RFC or AN/I seems appropriate. Thoughts? EdJohnston 04:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject of that case, a good example of one aspect of Wikilawyering—the "I can do what I want because there was no policy when I registered" kind of thing—has also impugned the personal motives of NPOV editors who respect and defend meaningful and substantive policies and guidelines. — Athænara ✉ 05:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hostility to proper COI inquiries, and challenges to our motives, is grist for a complaint to administrators, since they don't like it when people mock the policies. Rather than make a whole new posting on some more 'administrative' noticeboard, we could also considering writing out a summary (containing many relevant diffs) and just adding it to the current entry. In our copious spare time, of course. Citation of the MyWikiBiz case might be appropriate. EdJohnston 13:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

(Glad it's not just me that's noticed either.) While getting admins involved is the best way to get a firm resolution, I hope that there are ways that other editors can help. Seems like the admins are being stretched pretty thin recently from the backlogs I've been seeing everywhere. --Ronz 02:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The heading of this item, 'Refusal to cooperate', implies editors may not see any consequences if they fail to address their COI. We've been lucky to have a few administrators take action on the cases posted here. Where to go next when someone just appears to be stubborn in the face of a real COI is not yet clearly defined. COIs that are very clearly summarized here, with diffs, should be the easiest to take elsewhere. Nominators can help their case by being very well prepared, rather than just saying 'Please investigate this person.' EdJohnston 21:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

COI linkspam: at WT:WPSPAM, we don't worry so much about blocks and bans. When people keep adding links in spite of our requests to stop, we just list their domains at m:Talk:Spam blacklist for inclusion on the m:Spam blacklist. Once blacklisted, the MediaWiki software blocks any attempt to add such a link to any of our pages. The blacklist saves a lot of wasted time arguing with persistent spammers who would otherwise never stop. That blacklist covers all Wikimedia Foundation projects in all languages; additionally several hundred other users of MediaWiki software also use our blacklist. Note that because of the potential repercussions, we normally only blacklist for very persistent cases (or cross-wiki spam). This doesn't help much with vanity articles, but it does stop COI linkspamming.--A. B. ^(talk) 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that each case is different, so each takes more time than any sort of common approach would allow (as there is no one size fits all solution). I agree that blacklisting a domain is powerful and being able to take well-documented cases to RFC or RFC/U for an admin's attention is powerful too, but sometimes a wait and see approach might be best. I am thinking of a particular user who has only inserted his COI/SPAM link three times, then been a pest and SPA about it since (while not trying to reinsert the link, which everyone else agrees is not allowed under WP:EL). The silver lining in this cloud is that the article in question has remained free of this spam (although the COI editor remains a gadfly). I hope this is a constructive additon to the conversation. Thanks for all your work on COI to help keep the encyclopedia in good shape, Ruhrfisch 03:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On further thought, part of what I was trying to say is that perhaps it is helpful to focus on the actions more than the editor. If a website can be blocked, the editor trying to add spam to it is blocked too. If an editor is a pest but not adding COI spam, then ignore him (assuming no other issues arise). Even in the above COI case, the COI behavior seems to have stopped (although the wikilawyering continues unabated). Hope this is helpful, Ruhrfisch 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

See this proposal at WT:COI, the talk page for the COI policy, to allow administrators to give out indefinite blocks in flagrant COI cases. EdJohnston 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I like this policy proposal - if you have a clear policy such as this, then most of my comments above become obsolete. Refusal to cooperate becomes a non-issue, for the most part too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The need for the blocks in the Connolley COI issue is being discussed elsewhere

Those who have followed the issue about William M. Connelley that was recently closed here may note that Durova's blocks of User:Mnyakko and User:Zeeboid are being discussed over on her talk page. EdJohnston 19:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Experimental COI2 tag

I just created an experimental COI warning tag, Template:COI2. (The existing Template:COI assumes non-notability is an issue, so I felt one would be useful that warns about COI per se, whatever the notability). Thoughts? Tearlach 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Your COI2 template is excellent, I think. Several times, I've not used the other COI template because the presumption of non-notability does not always apply. The "will categorise tagged articles into Category:Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance" line from the other template should probably not be retained. — Athænara ✉ 01:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The new template fills a need. Thanks for making it. -Will Beback · † · 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:GRIEF

I highly recommend the above essay by Kafziel, I think it's brilliant, and definitely applicable here. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A Nick Anthis lookalike is back

• 24.219.183.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  

I hope we don't have to reopen the George Deutsch COI case, involving inappropriate edits by Nick Anthis, who has logged in as User:Biochemnick and others. I recently left this message for an IP who has been adding Anthis puffery as well as some plain vandalism. EdJohnston 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot archiving this page?

I was thinking of having one of the various archival bots archive this talk page (not the main noticeboard!). However, I have no idea what the "expiry" time should be. Comments are welcome. MER-C 09:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If you do set that up, I'd suggest an expiry time of 28 days. EdJohnston 14:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for COI/VSCA only accounts

There's a proposal at WT:BP#Blocks_for_COI-only_accounts to block, indefinitely, accounts that exist solely for the purpose of self-promotion. Please share your opinions there. MER-C 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV input needed on article RFC

Neutral input from uninvolved policies and guidelines-minded editors who have experience with COI SPA ownership issues needed at Talk:Anchor#Request for Comment. — Athænara ✉ 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Looks a bit ugly. I added a few, simple comments. Hope they help. --Ronz 03:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope they do, too! That guy's article ownership issues and shameless Rocna promotion are mind-boggling. Neutrality and conflict of interest policies are meaningless to him.

Going by the dealing with disruptive editors section you linked, he skipped to stage 5 ("editor ignores consensus") weeks ago. I wonder which admins specialise in dealing with ruthless characters like this one. — Æ. ✉ 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Has anyone else noticed how spammers and other conflict of interest editors think the guidelines are for the other guy and what they are doing is "useful" and shouldn't be questioned? And they are completely sincere about that. —posted by JonHarder on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Post quoted above in re Anchor's predicament. The main offender would like us all to think someone else has the COI and any neutral party attempting intervention is the latter's agent.

Keep in mind that he sought page protection with smoke screens and attacks on noncombatants to prevent the removal of his company content and links by neutral editors.

I'm hors de combat—the page is off my watch list to prevent further overexposure to ruthless and venomous dishonesty (e.g. "defense" sneers "rebuttals"). — Æ. ✉ 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont blame you for stepping back, the editor in question is indeed tough to deal with and has a few times got me to the point of not even wanting to continue editing at all, its very frustrating. He seems to have quieted down for now, but no doubt as soon as page protection gets lifted on Anchor he will be back at it again. I am still hoping more editors chime in on the RFC and appropriate action can be taken. Thanks for all your help and time in dealing with this guy. Russeasby 15:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)