Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 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:
Note, edits to the template instructions:
Note, other discussions:
Note:
To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go toWidefox; talk 17:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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)
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)
I was not censured as a result of that report, because WP3RR explicitly includes an exemption for BLP violationsDo you have any evidence that you weren't blocked because of the exemption for BLP? Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
"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)
the concept that somehow COI is a BLP violation is a non-sequiturreworded
the concept that somehow COI is a BLP violation is a,non-sequiturneeds reasoning
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 ,
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
it's the circumstance(s) when BLP trumps COI that would be useful to know
I've yet to see any firm argument made for a circumstance when BLP must trump COI.
To try to understand the BLP concern, would it be mitigated if...?. That's me, others have questioned it here, and I've seen CRYBLP on a different talk page about this . Widefox; talk 18:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
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 . 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
cleanup...
content policies, particularly neutral point of viewwhich 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)
"A COI editor who has so poorly managed their COI as to justify a COI tag"well, that alone is a false premsie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
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)
"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)
"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)
"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. "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)
{{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)|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)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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
Widefox; talk 09:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)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:
- There is consensus amongst reviewers on the talkpage or the COI Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
- It is not clear what the content issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
- 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;
You should not remove maintenance templates if any of the following apply: ...
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)
"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)
To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go toWidefox; talk 21:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
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)
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:
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)
"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."
"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)."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 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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
Andy has it. Even COI editors can do mechanical cleanup. CapnZapp (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"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)
"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)
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)
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)
This edit request to Template:COI has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.