Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 19: Difference between revisions

• Template:Campaignbox Libya-US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The campaign box is a mishmash of various incidents, including a discotheque bombing and a terrorist act on an aircraft. Not a military campaign or a continuous military conflict. Brandmeister^talk 15:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:CAMPAIGN: "A "campaignbox" is a type of navigation template that contains links to articles about the battles in a particular campaign, front, theater or war" but as noted this template does not relate to a campaign but to "a mishmash of various incidents". Nigej (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Module:Wordify (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This huge (and growing longer every day) module appears to consist almost entirely of features with no conceivable use case on the English Wikipedia. The only features that have some potential use here are the ability to convert a number to words in the English language, which is redundant to Module:ConvertNumeric, and the ability to display a number in lakh and crore, which, by itself is not sufficiently complicated to merit a Lua module and is already implemented in Wikitext via Template:FXConvert/Wordify * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This module is intended to be used also by {{INRConvert}} as well as copied by other wikis. The original motivation was to get rid of {{FXConvert/Wordify}} and {{INRConvert/Wordify}} as the parent templates run too deep. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this module is not to display a number only in words, as Module:ConvertNumeric does, but to simplify a number converting only the order of magnitude into a word. It also supports the long and indian scales as well as linking the words to an explanation. When bigger numbers get supported by Lua it will be possible to to extend the scales by word formation, not by listing every word. It is now a framework for easily adding this functionality to new languages. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for my misunderstanding about the usage of Module:ConvertNumeric or it needing to be implemented in Lua for technical reasons, you have a point there, but you're still approaching this from completely the wrong direction. This module, at the time I write this comment, is 1411 lines of code doing something that I was able to rewrite in about 70 lines of code at Module:Sandbox/pppery/wordifyRewrite. It's kind of ironic that you are saying this module serves to simplify something, when it's that complicated. And yes, I am aware that my module doesn't support non-English languages, or numbers greater than 1 nonillion, or the long scale, as I see no use case for any of that functionality, an argument that you do not appear to have addressed at all.
I would, in principle, be OK with something like Module:Sandbox/pppery/wordifyRewrite existing at the title "Module:Wordify" if a need were demonstrated, however the module is currently unused outside of sandboxes, testcases, and it's own documentation page so there is no demonsrated need. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not still in production in {{FXConvert}} because that template is waiting for the Module:Formatnum sandbox to be promoted. The module is intended to be the same for all wikis, English wikipedia is its home because the program is in English in correspondence with the Lua keywords, as well as English wikipedia being the most popular source for translations. The point is to avoid the need for every wiki to implement its own algorithm. Trigenibinion (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the English Wikipedia module namespace is to provide code for pages on the English Wikipedia, not to serve as a template repository. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only write on English wikipedia because it is more likely that what I do will get translated. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Provides functionality that's absent in other templates, has potential, is in an area that's apparently being actively worked on. – Uanfala (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Lht (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; seems to be a version of {{Pagelinks}} exclusively for help pages? No reason for this to exist. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is a whole suite of similar templates at Template:Ln/doc. Either all of them should be deleted/merged, or none of them should be. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @King of Hearts: I guess this could get messy if we have to subst+delete ones with existing uses... but I really think these should not exist separately. It saves like five characters while making the source less comprehensible (everyone knows what Help:page is, not everyone knows that Lht means the page is in the help namespace). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually it seems to be a version of {{Pagelinks}} exclusively for help talk pages, as opposed to Lh. All of them call {{Lx}}. Nigej (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought that a better solution would be to add a couple of options to {{Pagelinks}} eg "help,talk" and get that template to do the work. Having 30+ template doing this is likely to be high maintenance. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:COI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Undisclosed paid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:Paid contributions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These templates encourage fire and forget behavior and should be deleted for multiple reasons:

1. We have talk page templates ({{connected contributor}}, {{connected contributor (paid)}}, and {{COI editnotice}}) that communicate paid or suspected paid editing which these templates are redundant to.
2. These are cleanup templates which are frequently misused as a "scarlet letter" or "badge of shame" template (which goes against WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND).
3. Placing editors frequently do not provide any guidance for cleanup editors (uninvolved editors simply trying to work through any issues the placing editor has) to work from to get the template removed (which just reinforces the scarlet letter/badge of shame aspect of these templates).
4. NPOV issues are already better handled through templates like {{weasel}}, {{advert}}, {{NPOV}}, {{tone}} and so on (see Category:Neutrality templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for more).
5. There are over 200+ COI edit requests as I write this, with the oldest from over four months ago. I've noticed a tendency for placing editors to flat out tell COI (or presumed COI)-editors they are forbidden to make edits to articles, despite the actual language only "discouraging" the act (see WP:COIEDIT). These templates give a color of authority to the claim that using {{request edit}} is required.

And that doesn't even get into the behavioral issues this creates (basically, any paid editor that sees how these templates are abused to effectively stifle any hope of collaboration would likely not willingly disclose their relationship and simply get smarter about "hiding" their connection to avoid detection). We will never get rid of people attempting to get paid to edit Wikipedia, and as a project forcing them into hiding just makes working with them even harder. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete for reasons I set out above. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (The above is the nominator's comment; a short discussion is on the talk page.)

• Keep The nom is confusing editor behaviour and template utility. The templates flag articles and drafts that require cleanup, each for a very specific COI reason. If they are misused then the editor misusing it requires guidance. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: what is the utility in e.g. tagging {{COI}} vs. tagging {{POV}}? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topics can have an improper point of view without having a conflict of interest. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 331dot, so there is always a reason to use {{POV}} on POV articles, but what is the added benefit in using {{COI}} on some of them? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The added benefit is that it needs to be looked at differently as a COI editor usually has very different goals in mind for this project and their work should be evaluated as such. AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith when our common sense tells us that a COI editor's primary goal is not in keeping with ours. If I was not allowed to mark an article has having COI related issues to evaluate I would reconsider my participation here. I see such issues almost every day. 331dot (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{POV}} is better, if there's a POV. But at the time the COI is identified we often don't know that. Maybe the article is broadly NPOV, but there are minor issues with {{weasel}} words, {{peacock}} phrasing or over-reliance on {{primary}} or {{unreliable sources}}. Or maybe the problems go deeper, with contentious {{unsourced}} claims, covert {{advert}}ising, or a fundamental lack of {{notability}}. Maybe there are no problems at all. The point is that while COI editing makes it orders of magnitude more likely that those problems are there, we don't know for sure until a volunteer has time to review it in depth, which is exactly what {{COI}} etc. says. – Joe (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, if editors are not using the templates properly, they should be educated on how to do so, not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Paid/COI editors often have goals that are incompatible with this project and their contributions should be evaluated as such. Very few COI/paid editors examine the use of templates across Wikipedia before editing as they have a specific goal(to get their subject on Wikipedia for promotional purposes). 331dot (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @331dot: How is an article-space template necessary when we have talk page templates that provide the same (or more, actually) information? These are ostensibly maintenance templates that should be temporary until the situation is resolved that got them placed in the first place. And there are already better options in {{advert}}, {{weasel}}, {{NPOV}} and so forth (which also put a big banner for all readers and editors to see that there are allegedly issues with the article content). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Locke Cole Not every user looks at talk pages or even knows that they exist, to know of the existence of a discussion or concerns posted on the talk page. I think any concerns here can be addressed with some tinkering, not throwing the stuff out completely. 331dot (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @331dot: {{advert}}, {{weasel}}, {{NPOV}} go on the article page and convey the content issues just fine. Whether or not the article was edited by a paid contributor makes no difference when {{advert}}, {{NPOV}}, etc. is placed on the article. Discuss CONTENT not contributors on articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a comment from a long-time paid editor. The Paid template (This article contains paid contributions. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page.) has been added to some of the articles I've worked with. I'm always telling about the customer on the talk page of the article using the template (The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. X has been paid by Y on their behalf.). So "my articles" are now flagged on two categories: [1] and [2]. Let's take an example. Orivesi is a small Finnish city. I've changed few photos on the article and corrected its founding year. There's no reason given on the talk page about why the tag was added. As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag even if I think there's nothing wrong with the neutral point of view of the article so now I should make a edit request so that someone unpaid would evaluate the case. Jjanhone (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Unlike the instructions for the template "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 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." the people adding the templates are not starting the discussion as required. So should I start flagging the users who forget to start the discussion? Where? Jjanhone (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  On the user's talk page, telling them something like "you placed a paid editor tag on the article but did not start a discussion. Could you start that discussion so I can address your concerns? I am allowed to remove the tag if there is no discussion to support it. Thank you.". 331dot (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no deadline on Wikipedia, they say. So how long do I need to wait before I can remove the tag if there is no discussion? Jjanhone (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I would feel that a week or so would be a reasonable amount of time, especially if the editor who placed the tag seems to be an irregular participant here. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps what is needed is a brief addition to the tags to the effect of "this tag may be removed by anyone if there is no discussion" along with amending WP:WNTRMT to say the same. 331dot (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Twinkle now prompts for a reason and starts a discussion on the talk page when applying the templates. Cabayi (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the nomination forgets about one very important point: WP:UPE:undisclosed paid editing. Not all the editors follow guidelines, and disclose themselves as paid or connected editors. Most of the editors who have conflict of interest with the subject of article, come along, and they edit the article in biased way. Sometimes, that is done inadvertently by a bunch of fans/followers, sometimes, it is someone connected to the subject. The different types of templates have different uses. They dont need to be deleted. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, UPE is a different case indeed.Jjanhone (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are these templates needed rather than {{POV}} or other templates that focus on the content rather than the contributor? Anomie⚔ 12:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I also support the point that, It can be done inadvertently by a bunch of fans/followers, sometimes, someone connected to the subject. They know that subject. They want to contribute WIKI. That contribution may need to verify and clean to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Placing editor/admin were not setting reasonable expiration date. This template leads WIKI's data authenticity to totality. Netenhancer (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • This user looks to be a sock/meat of paid editor Mahajandeepakv. @Yamla: to take a look - see e.g. [3] [4] SmartSE (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not much to go on. If you see a broader overlap, though, please file a WP:SPI! --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did, and have blocked the account (see userpage, deleted contributions). MER-C 13:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These template confuse content issues and conduct issues, which leads to editors warring to keep them on articles because of the conduct issue (which sometimes they claim can't even be specified on-wiki because of WP:OUTING) with no indication of (and sometimes outright refusal to discuss) what content issues might actually exist. IMO it would be better to delete these templates in favor of existing templates that focus on the content, not the contributor, and encourage people who have problems with the contributor take those to an appropriate dispute resolution forum.
  If these wind up being kept, I strongly encourage we Establish strict instruction on the usage of these templates, specifically that they should be removed once cleanup has been done or there is no indication what needs cleaning up. In other words, they should be treated no differently from say {{cleanup|reason=Suspected COI or paid editing}} or {{POV}} and that whether there was COI or paid editing is not at all relevant towards whether the template should remain on the article or not. Anomie⚔ 12:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ^{(or redirect)}: maintenance templates should have a clear and obvious path to remediation/removal. Content concerns introduced by paid editors are already covered by clearer maintenance templates that address the content, and not whether the contributor may have been paid.
  In other words: whether a contributor was paid is largely irrelevant to suitability of the the article content: if it’s promotional, add a promotional tag (or NPOV, undue, etc.).
  (Disclosure: I recently took a paid position with the Foundation, however my views on this subject remain consistent.) –xeno^talk 12:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC) ^{19:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)}[reply]

  Change to redirect others to and keep {{COI}} (per Joe Roe's comment). –xeno^talk 20:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Xeno. Having been falsely accused of being a paid editor, my conclusion was it is self-defeating to police both the content and the editor. Sometimes paid editing may result in the very best article possible. If the content adheres to the myriad of WP policies already in place, let's not continue the self-defeating witch-hunt of trying sniff out which editors might be paid or unpaid (do we really expect the worst offenders to abide by the rules?), and certainly stop trying to judge content on whether or not an editor has significant COI. In practice, with this template, I could brand some article I don't like as having a COI problem without declaring that I have COI in applying it. But once applied, the burden falls on the accused while the accuser can simply skip off to find some other target to bomb. This is extremely disruptive behavior and this template lacks sufficient safeguards against it. Though not intended, it has become weaponized. Let's focus on the content itself. ShoneBrooks (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: These templates offer no utility that is not offered by an NPOV tag on the article, plus a COI/PAID tag on the talk page. Additionally, they are so frequently misused that I see little hope of solving the problem by educating the people that are using them wrong. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this user is a paid editor. SmartSE (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I have disclosed, of course. I also do unpaid work. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Should we assume that part of your tasks as a paid editor is removing a {{COI}} tag from certain article? MarioGom (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Once a COI template is placed, the required action is clear. Two options: 1) full review of the article and clean up or 2) go through all contributions of the COI/UPE users and check them. Also, I would ask the closer to not consider votes by paid users here, since they have a strong financial COI on this !vote itself. MarioGom (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  MarioGom: What does 2) have to do with the incident article hosting the maintenance tag? A notice to review user conduct belongs at a noticeboard or private reporting queue, not the top of some random article edited by that contributor. –xeno^talk 15:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For UDP, the user is likely already indef. blocked. The clean up is what remains to do, and that has to do with the article. I think it would be productive to discuss how to organize faster and more effective clean up task forces. For example, a large UPE op was uncovered recently and a few users organized to quickly check every single contribution of every sock and check them to fix every problem. I would like to see more of that kind of collaboration, but I don't think it's currently possible for every case. The tags, as usual, help to identify the articles needing the review when the tagger couldn't do it immediately. MarioGom (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This function can and should be done by templates that indicate what the actual problem with the specific article is so that editors know what needs to be done, rather than a vague "something about this article might or might not be right, but you have to guess what." Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have edited pages across the Internet Security sector (both companies and people). I have also disclosed the company I previously worked for in the security sector many years ago (I never edit that page but have made suggestions on its Talk page). What I have noticed, even after a substantial re-write of a page, some editors often come back and place a COI template on the page and will not engage on the Talk page. If you remove it after no response, they often come back and place it again without explanation. COI can be a "fire and forget tag". I have resolved one by going to the COI notice board, but I think there should be more clear accountability. For instance, if an editor places a COI TAG without a Talk page comment, or refuses to give a clear way to remove it, or does not comment on edits that are intended to improve it (with the improving editor stating they don't have a COI), the COI TAG editor should be suspended from placing that TAG anywhere or suspended from Wikipedia for some duration. There has to be a way to prevent editors from using this TAG without responsibility. If this cannot be done, I vote to delete. PKIhistory (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It acts as a scarlet letter over an entire article when any specific instance of evident COI can be tagged and/or discussed on the talk page. Moreover, an organization's media person adding purely neutral historical / technical facts to that organization's article may be connected to that organization but is not adding anything conflicting with the interest of presenting pertinent, factual information. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete At least in my experience, this template has been misused repeatedly with a significantly stifling effect. There are other and seemingly better ways of curbing abusive COI behavior. What I have witnessed is editors swooping in out of the blue and acting like official Admins, splashing an article with this template accusing non-paid editors of COI based solely on suspicion and expecting those editors to declare COI of some sort as a means of refuting the suspicion while at the same time arbitrarily deleting large portions of content based on their belief that it was bought, but often telling the accused editors not to make further edits because of the (inaccurate) COI accusations. Those same accusing editors are typically hostile toward requests for help in addressing the situation, sometimes incorrectly quoting WP policies that don't really apply. If the accused happens to access the correct COI declaration process, it is still challenging to navigate because it has different paths toward resolution mostly assuming the accused really is a paid editor, when such is often not the case. Meanwhile the article goes into some state of arrested development, with this ugly template banner splashed across it (which clearly is not good for Wikipedia) because the editors who were interested enough to work on it have been branded COI and told to stay away from it and other potential editors don't care to get involved in the mess. It's obviously much easier to just slap this template banner on the article than to take the time to engage with sincere, active editors to address any legitimate CONTENT problems. In practice, the template is applied and then whoever did it (this thing should at least require a legitimate username and not just an anonymous MAC address) just lurks in the shadows to further the attack if someone tries to fix it. I have also observed that the more one tries to defend against such unfounded COI accusations, the more the accusers point toward that effort as further evidence of COI. That seems to be the basis of its use, "Guilty until proven innocent" which is obviously flawed. It's a very negative experience for your average volunteer contributor working from the basics of "Boldly" editing in good faith. The whole COI strategy needs improvement to better deal with a legitimate problem. Abandoning usage of this on-article template would be a good place to start. The policing and clean-up efforts will work much better if we keep the focus on the content itself. ShoneBrooks (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Personalizing" an issue is the point and benefit here. Paid editors are, and should be, the subject of increased scrutiny because there is a larger -than-average chance of biased editing practices on their part. This template tells me that the contributions of specific editors to this article may require extra vigilance and double-checking (which of course depends on clarifying notes on the talk page by the tagger). This is different from "this article may contain weasel words, check the entire article"; it's "specific editors may have added doubtful material, check their contributions". If Facebook is tagged with {{weasel}}, I have 250,000 bytes of text to get lost in; if it's tagged with {{COI}} and an explanatory note on the talk page that MinionOfZuckerberg may bear watching, I know what to look for. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elmidae: As I stated in my nomination, the use cases you describe are already handled by {{connected contributor}}, {{connected contributor (paid)}}, and {{COI editnotice}} on the article talk page. These templates serve as a "badge of shame" which is against policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certain editors have weaponised the tag to harass the article’s subject. Often the justification for using the tag by those certain editors is “off-wiki evidence”. They don’t use the tag constructively. They use it to brand article subjects with a mark of shame. We are all familiar with the editors abusing this tag. They are among the most outspoken critics of paid editing and clearly on a power trip. The way these vigil antis police UPE is not consistent with how we police a civilised society.92.40.188.85 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC) — 92.40.188.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* The above user seems to be editing behind a proxy. If you are not editing with a residential proxy, I would recommend to check your mobile phone for malware, since it is infected with at least 4 callback proxy networks and it can and will be used for abuse at Wikipedia and elsewhere. --MarioGom (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a policy based template and necessary for identifying issues in an article. Has anyone notified the foundation since paid editing is a tou based policy? This seems pointy and pointlessly disruptive. VAXIDICAE💉 16:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Which policy specifically is it enacting? How is it necessary for identifying issues in an article? How is it not redundant to the maintenance templates that specify issues such as {{advert}}, {{NPOV}}, etc? Have you read the TOU? Specifically Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#How_to_disclose? None of the methods listed at "How to disclose" cite the article-space page as a method, they mention the userpage, the article talk page, or the user talk page as options. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to go round and round with your disruptive comments. WP:PAID is written into the TOU. Further, why has the wider community not been notified of this? This effectively removes the ability to identify a policy and terms of use violation and deserves wider input than a low traffic TFD. And has anyone bothered to notify the foundation since it also is based off of the terms of use? This also has legal implications per WP:COVERT, but I expect you haven't thought of that in favor of making a WP:POINT. VAXIDICAE💉 16:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also to your point about talk pages In 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair-trading law. The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation., it simply isn't enough. VAXIDICAE💉 16:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you unable or unwilling to answer the questions I asked? WP:COVERT is irrelevant, the Foundation is based out of Florida in the United States. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've linked you to the relevant policies, your inability or unwillingness to read them is not my problem and won't be engaging further with you. VAXIDICAE💉 17:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I also linked you to the relevant policy sections, and your unwillingness to read them is not my problem either. I'll just leave it at that I suppose. I'm just really sad that someone with the sysop bit doesn't know these basic things. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Try again. I'm not an en sysop and I've never claimed to be one. VAXIDICAE💉 17:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Struck. The remainder stands however. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please also note these relevant discussions since they were not included in the nom: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_25#Template:COI, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_12#Template:COI, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_19#Template:Paid_contributions, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 VAXIDICAE💉 17:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All three have demonstrated their long-term usefulness in alerting editors to coi/upe problems. The miniscule edit request backlog (5,000,000/200= .004% of articles) is not caused by the placement of these tags. --- Possibly (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all We don't need to make UPE harder to label and resolve. Sometimes, entire articles are corrupted, and section-by-section tagging is not productive. As argued above, Talk-page templates are insufficient for the purpose. The solution to the tools being (supposedly) misused is to educate about their proper use, not to remove them from the toolbox. The assertion that these violate policy for being "badges of shame" is unfounded; undisclosed paid editing is inherently uncivil, as it is a breach of the community's trust. Assuming good faith does not require us to avoid labeling articles damaged by demonstrable bad faith. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per 331dot et seq. --JBL (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment could someone post or link to the stats on how many pages used these templates?--- Possibly (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the external transclusion counter tool, 14,349 for {{COI}}, 162 for {{Paid contributions}} and 2,824 for {{Undisclosed paid}}. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Possibly and XOR. Blablubbs|talk 17:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear weaponisation of COI tags “What I have noticed, even after a substantial re-write of a page, some editors often come back and place a COI template on the page and will not engage on the Talk page. If you remove it after no response, they often come back and place it again without explanation. COI can be a "fire and forget tag". I have resolved one by going to the COI notice board, but I think there should be more clear accountability. For instance, if an editor places a COI TAG without a Talk page comment, or refuses to give a clear way to remove it, or does not comment on edits that are intended to improve it (with the improving editor stating they don't have a COI), the COI TAG editor should be suspended from placing that TAG anywhere or suspended from Wikipedia for some duration.” @U:gss: we’re looking at you here.92.40.188.85 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Moved the above comment from #Template:Lht, where it clearly didn't belong. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This IP has already voted. MER-C 17:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Coourtesy ping: GSS (talk · contribs) the IP pinged you above, but their ping failed.--- Possibly (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 331dot, Possibly and Xor. NPOV is not the only problem with many COI/UPE articles. In many cases, not only is the entire article corrupted it would not, and should not, have existed at all unless the conflicted editor showed up. The conflicted editor should not be making inclusion decisions. The tags also serve to alert editors to coordinated abuse, or cases where the client doesn't give up. UPE is done increasingly in bad faith by sockpuppet or meatpuppet farms who have zero intention of contributing to Wikipedia otherwise. MER-C 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and please see Special:Diff/1012108905 for more context. —PaleoNeonate – 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We can improve how we work with paid and COI editors but nominating these templates for deletion with no plan for moving forward and without any accompanying discussion is disruptive and borderline WP:POINTY. ElKevbo (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe these templates serve an important purpose when used correctly. Corpwalt (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If an editor is misusing these templates, that's an individual editor issue. These templates are pretty much vital for dealing with and fighting UPE and bad faith editing, and should be kept as per MER-C, 331dot, Possibly, and Xor. Large scale abuse exists, and removing tools to tag it and identify it just makes the problem worse. UPE handling is an uphill battle, and this would be the equivalent to removing the path markers and leaving everyone lost. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 19:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per XOR'easter, Possibly and MER-C. This nomination reeks of WP:POINT. DoubleCross (‡) 19:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Relatively few editors look at article talk pages. Forcing all COI-related templates to be on talk pages is pretty much a guarantee that most editors will never see them. If the problem is over-use of these article-space templates, or edit battles regarding their use, a better solution is to lay out clear and appropriate guidelines for usage on the Template pages, and then deal with editors who refuse to follow those guidelines. Or to otherwise modify rules for using these templates. Simply nuking them is the wrong approach. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It would not be in the best interest of the encyclopedia and the readers when concerns about reliability due to connected editors are not openly showed. Deleting the templates would give the bad editors more space to undermine the encyclopedia. The Banner talk 19:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Banner: We have talk page templates that can warn editors of COI concerns ({{connected contributor}}, {{connected contributor (paid)}}, and {{COI editnotice}}) and then article-space templates like {{advert}}, {{NPOV}} and {{weasel}} which are better suited to calling out specific issues of neutrality in the articles themselves. User conduct issues have no place on an article. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many of our readers will know that there is a talk page? And how many of the readers that know that there is a talk page, will actually go there and read it? What is the actual benefit of hiding crucial information on poorly read talk pages? The Banner talk 22:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • So your opinion is this is a "badge of shame" template, correct? —Locke Cole • t • c 22:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deleting all 3 templates without any kind of plan for alternatives is a non-starter. The claim that the templates have no end point are false, as the templates should be removed when the articles are balanced and lack a promotional tone. A broader proposal around paid and COI editing should be discussed at the village pump.Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hemiauchenia: As stated in the nomination above, we already have alternatives: {{connected contributor}}, {{connected contributor (paid)}}, and {{COI editnotice}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If these templates can still be seen on the talk-page then wouldn't the "encourage fire and forget behavior" argument still apply? In either case the nominator has provided no evidence to back up this claim. Points 3 and 4 are opinions without pointing to any specifics while point 5 sounds like a cleanup issue which does not require deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Tagging articles encourages COI editors to follow the paid editing guidelines, and they know it. I can't count how many edit requests I've seen where paid editors have suggested removing promotional content if only to persuade the reviewer to just remove the darn tag! If we need to reform use of the tags, we could mandate that any tags placed without a corresponding explanation on the talk page may be speedily reverted, or set clearer norms for when an uninvolved editor may remove the tag. But deprecating the tags entirely is a step too far. Altamel (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator and the people arguing for deletion can't have much experience in actually dealing with disruptive COI/paid edits (a general trend in the "don't see the big deal about COI" crowd). When we identify that an article has been edited by someone with a COI, it's usually not immediately obvious if or how the content is problematic. That's the problem with COI editing. It creates a tendency to bias which often manifests itself in subtle ways, such as small distortions or selective use of sources to favour the subject. {{COI}} and similar templates exist to flag that possibility for further investigation. Ideally they should be followed up with a review by an independent editor, who can either remove the tag if there are no problems, or replace it with more specific cleanup templates if there are, but that can be time-consuming and a volunteer who spots a COI problem is under no obligation to do it straight away. In the mean time, the templates serve to sort the page into an appropriate cleanup category and inform our readers that its content might not adhere to NPOV. Which, by the way, is exactly what it says: A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page. The idea that it's a "badge of shame" or used as a weapon is a purely a projection of what you think about people writing Wikipedia articles on their own business (or paying someone else to). It's nowhere in the template. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I do wonder whether {{COI}} belongs in this group nomination, as it is a much wider issue than disclosed or undisclosed paid editing. –xeno^talk 20:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It should also be noted that this nomination comes right after Locke Cole tried to unilaterally remove the templates from a bunch of articles. @Anachronist and Perryprog: who participated in that discussion. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe and after he said he would deliberately edit disruptively and intentionally engage in an edit war if anyone restored them, as well as disruptively tag articles where it doesn't apply.[5] VAXIDICAE💉 20:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to watch WP:ASPERSIONS since you seem to be dead set on intently mischaracterizing my statements or only presenting them out of context. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if you feel that way, take me to ANI. Accusing people of casting aspersions with no basis is on itself a personal attack. I provided a diff in which you said exactly what I summarized. VAXIDICAE💉 23:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because they were placed inappropriately, which is also the reason for these nominations. Editors are abusing these templates as a "badge of shame" rather than as the maintenance templates they're designed to be. There are also many other, significantly better, options to these templates. They are not necessary. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI, like the other two, is a maintenance template alleging NPOV concerns because of editors with a claimed COI. We have talk page templates that can call out the user behavior better, and {{NPOV}} which can call out the NPOV concern. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Regarding your claim that the placing editor is under no obligation to properly disclose what is not neutral about the template: on the documentation for {{COI}} and {{paid contributions}} (with discussion on adding it to {{undisclosed paid}} stalled), there is this 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 a discussion, any editor will be justified in removing the tag without warning. The placing editor must provide a rationale and cannot simply tag the page and leave it to others to figure out what the placing editor saw that prompted the addition in the first place. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - There are certain warning templates which I believe are necessary to inform our readers that article may have problems which affect their neutrality or accuracy. This is one of them. The edits of paid editors are prima facie suspect, and talk page disclosures aren't -- for the most part -- seen by the reading public, they're seen by editors only. No one on Wikipedia has the time to follow-up all the edits of paid editors, so this template serves to tell our readers that they shouldn't take what they read at face value. It differs from the COI template in that it should be placed only when there is a perceived actual problem, which can be a matter of dispute. This template, on the other hand, is purely factual. If a paid editor has contributed to an article, then there are paid edits, and there can be no dispute about that. unless the paid edits are reverted, the template should remain, indeed, in fairness to our readers, it must remain, to protect Wikipedia's reputation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And what about the UPE template; when will that be removed: if no one can prove or agree on whether paid editing took place? I think this group nomination should be procedurally closed without prejudice to renominating these templates individually. –xeno^talk 20:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A different issue entirely, which has no real bearing on the use of this template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In most cases where the UPE template is used, there are reasonable indications of paid editing. In some cases, there is evidence beyond any doubt. Either way, the template says may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments. While UPE sockpuppets often ask us for invoices to justify the template, that is not really required. If we have reasonable indications that paid editing took place, requesting an article review and clean up is due. MarioGom (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The wording, and the logic, is the same for all the templates. Once someone who hasn't been paid has checked whether the article requires cleanup (and if so either done it or added more specific tags), it can be removed. I get your point that a suspicion of UPE is unlikely to be resolved and has little direct bearing on the article, but maintaining separate templates for {{COI}}, {{Paid contributions}} and {{UPE}} probably does serve a useful purpose in triaging how severe any resulting content issues are likely to be. – Joe (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I harmonized the UPE version with the Paid version (referencing a policy). It had something like this in an earlier version. –xeno^talk 23:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The bundling of three templates in this nomination is counter-productive. Each should be considered separately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All three of them are maintenance templates that allege NPOV concerns but which are frequently misused (as stated above in the nomination). —Locke Cole • t • c 22:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - serves an important role in informing readers and editors of potential problems with articles where COI editing is suspected or known to have occurred. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep — All are generally very imperative templates & most pertinent for AFC reviewers. Celestina007 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - Ridiculous nomination. They do exactly what they're supposed, draw attention to problems -- and a pretty widespread problem that hasn't abated -- in a place where they can noticed and acted upon. If these are frequently misused as a "scarlet letter" or "badge of shame", then:

1. I'd like to some of actual evidence of this
2. stopping misuse is the problem, if this is true, not the templates themselves

--Calton | Talk 00:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all as they serve an important function to warn the reader that articles may not be neutral or have been created in contravention of Wikipedia's terms of use, readers largely ignore talk pages. Undisclosed paid editors are lucky their articles are not summarily deleted in my view, Atlantic306 (talk)
• SNOW Keep These draw attention to a very real and persistent problem; in a very visible space; for both readers and editors. Removing them and hiding it away on the talk page would do nothing to solve the problems of COI editing, and really if there is actual misuse (no evidence given so far) then this would be an example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 331dot and others. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Any template can be misused, that is not a reason to eliminate them. Any specific case of misuse can be corrected through editing. And if the tagger needs coaching, that can be delivered. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the {{COI}} template, with no opinion at this time as to the other two templates. I am willing to consider changing my Keep to a Neutral or Weak Keep if I am provided with detailed precise instructions for use by AFC reviewers and New Page reviewers that will be as effective as the use of the COI template. I think that neutral point of view should continue to be the second pillar of Wikipedia, and that it is essential to have a variety of tools to deal with non-neutral editing and editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An important tool in our arsenal against COI and UPE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:58, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: These templates draw attention to a problem in a way that is immediately visible upon visiting a page. The talk page templates are useful by themselves, and can be (and are) used by themselves if the problem is not significant, but in cases where the conflict of interest editing is causing a lot of problems for a page, it's important for people to immediately be able to see this. Some people might not even usually visit the talk pages of articles, so having a notice for the problem on an article itself, as is the case with notices for other article problems, is, in my view, a good idea – and just because it can be misused, that doesn't mean we should delete it. Many templates can be misused, but they're still important and, for the most part, used correctly. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all messages between editors should go on the talk page, not inside of articles. These do not tag specific, identifiable issues - and therefore tend to linger unhelpfully. {{POV}} should be used instead. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are different opinions about the meanings of the tags, let's take the Paid template as an example. I think there are two parts in the tag. 1) This article contains paid contributions. 2) It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. So while 1) is true, the 2) part is giving a hint that there is a problem in the content. The template "Paid" has been used in 162 articles while there are 5,294 "Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions". This week Beyond My Ken added the Paid template (without starting a discussion on the article's talk pages) to all of the articles I've edited for my customers that wasn't already tagged saying it is a strictly factual tag. Is it? Jjanhone (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a good example of why these templates should be deleted. They identify no actual issue and are therefore useless in articles. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia readers might be scared about this kind of templates. So if one needs to choose between an editor, who is disclosing their edits and then marked with this kind of warnings or a UPE who have no history of this kind of edits (maybe no Wikipedia history to show to customers at all), which one would they choose? So I think these tags are making paid editors to go down under, it is a bit frustrating to follow the rules, if you are only getting punished for doing so. Jjanhone (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah. Paid editing is a much larger issue, but it's going to happen whatever we do, so it's better that it's above-board. A tag saying "this isn't neutral, here's XYZ why, and by-the-way the person who made this was paid" wouldn't be an issue - but the current tags do not identify an actual problem. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem being identified is that the articles were editied by someone with a COI. This, in turn, can lead to other issues. If it is determined that there are no other issues, and that the article is balanced, then the tag can be removed. In the same sense that newspapers and other publications need to identify to the reader when material is paid for, we need to identify when there is a COI. The difference is that we continue to check and edit articles, and are able to remove the tags ratehr than leaaving them there forever. - Bilby (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed - but that's not what the tags actually say. They say "there might be a problem". If they are used de facto in a more reasonable way - that should be specified in the template's wording. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I might not be explaining myself. The problem is that the articles were editied by someone with a COI, which is clearly stated by, for example, "This article contains paid contributions". COI editing is fundamentally problematic, because of the risk of serious issues with articles where COI editing is involved. So we flag that problem, and we ask editors to check to see if it has, in fact, caused additional problems with the article as a whole. If it has not, or those issues are fixed, we can remove the tag. - Bilby (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And these tags may also generate a business for UPE/sock puppets. One of my contacts got an email: "I’m an independent Wikipedia editor. I’m writing to you in my personal capacity about the warning on your Wikipedia page. The orange warnings show at the top of the page, which means that the page is not in compliance with Wikipedia’s policies. I would love to help you get the issues on the page fixed and bring the page in compliance so that the warning goes away. There is a fee to my services but I don’t charge anything upfront, only after the services have been successfully delivered. I will not be using my editors’ ID to fix the issue. I will create a new users ID for you and give it proper authorisations so that any future edits made from this account on your page will not result in any errors on Wikipedia as long as the content is compliant". Once I introduced the case on Facebook group "Wikipedia Weekly" there were people thinking that there could be people who first add this kind of tags and then take money for removing them. Jjanhone (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - I have seen so many good pages that are worthy of Wikipedia be ruined by some moderators who stick the UPE banner at the top without regard to the subject or any proof of the accusation. It's just used to bait IMO.SunSickDays (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SunSickDays It is not always possible to provide proof due to WP:OUTING issues. 331dot (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete all per the well-reasoned nomination. These templates are being used in three primary ways - one is as a badge of shame, contrary to policy (the talk page templates should be used to mark where it is actually necessary); the second is to cast aspersions against contributions who might (or might not) have a COI, also contrary to policy; and thirdly to mark where cleanup is needed, but these are vague in this regard and duplicate the more specific (and thus actually useful) templates that document what the actual problem is so other editors (and readers) know what needs cleaning up. Finally, per template talk:Undisclosed paid, these templates are being interpreted by at least some editors and readers as making unsourced allegations against the article subject making them a massive WP:BLP violation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]