There is an RfC on the following link: Talk:Boris_Malagurski#RfC_on_Template_messages_and_Article_sections. It concerns dispute over tagging the BLP article with template messages which point to the possible COI and OWN issues that plagues the article for more than a ten years.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a summary list of various ideas to combat UPE that have been proposed, mooted, rejected and so-on.

It's currently at an add-on/idea stage, more details on which can be seen at the page. Please feel free to add your own, tweak the summaries or leave an initial comment on the idea (any that are universally panned will be filtered out before taking forward to RfC).

Many of the proposals are deliberately not fully formed, to avoid submitting an unwieldly large amount of policy thoughts all at once. Proposals passed by the community that need further details (such as a "mystery-shopper" counter-UPE method) would be expanded by those interested and resubmitted on its own.

Please invite anyone you think might be interested. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering what everyone thinks of making COI disclosure on one's user page mandatory? Based on my experience at WP:COIN, the problem with having three different methods of disclosure is that when a serial COI editor is found, without a user page disclosure it can take hours to track down all their COI contributions. At the moment, the latitude given for disclosures makes ample space for hiding disclosure. An editor might, for example, just put "I Have COI", or "I know them" or "this is about a friend" in the edit summary, thus satisfying the disclosure requirements. Or they might tag the talk page as connected contributor. All of these are hard to find when, for example, someone on a mission to document their family history is found. Having the user page list of COI articles as standard would clarify the process a lot, and perhaps make it more viisible when someone is on a bit of a COI binge.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I think your idea is an excellent one. Let me suggest some enhancements to your idea, which I think make it even better: We could make two new rules.

The first new rule:

• If you have a COI but are unpaid, you must include a {{UserboxSomeEditsCOI}} or {{UserboxAllEditsCOI}} template somewhere on your user page.
• If you have a COI and are paid, you must include a {{UserboxSomeEditsPaid}} or {{UserboxAllEditsPaid}} template somewhere on your user page.

And the second new rule:

• If some, but not all, of your edits are COI edits: You must provide us with a list of affected articles somewhere on your user page. You can do so either inside or outside the userbox template.

Once the new rules become final, perhaps:

• We could make a small tweak to the navigation-popups gadget. When you hover over an affected user's username, the hover popup could show the text "COI" or "Paid" next to the user's edit count.
• And, if all of a user's edits are COI or paid, we could tweak the MediaWiki software to automatically add "(COI)" or "(paid)" to their signature.

Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be helpful. I work at a university library editing Wikipedia. Are all my edits COI? Are my edits on historical figures with ties to the university COI? What about edits on individuals whose only tie is that their papers are in our archive? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rachel Helps (BYU):

Which of your edits are COI? Dunno. It's a gray area.

We could exempt all GLAM editors from having to provide a list of COI articles (and maybe we could also exempt all Wikipedians-in-residence). You could simply add {{UserboxSomeEditsCOI}} to your userpage and then return to your usual routine.

We're not actually worried about GLAM editors here. Instead, we're worried about other COI editors, such as Greghenderson2006.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm okay in favour of the userpage bit (there's probably a few editors with a broad set who would need a "I have COIs, please click this link for a subpage listing all of them"). I'd be okay with the paid hover popup addition but it seems to discourage the COI declarations if it's always going to be associated with their popups, for eternity. Now if you could find a way to limit it so that it only appear on popups if you happened to be on that page/its talk page that would be phenomenal and really beneficial. But otherwise I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nosebagbear: Fair point. On second thought: Let's show the popup message only if all their edits are COI or paid. If only some of their edits are COI or paid, let's not show any popup message at all. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all!

The guideline is somewhat long. Various user warning templates link to it, but I think it may be difficult for brand-new Wikipedians to understand. I think it makes sense for us to offer a short unofficial summary, in order so that new Wikipedians can more easily know what to do. I think that adding a summary might improve compliance with the guideline.

Per WP:PGBOLD, I added a summary to the top of the guideline. (Diff.) Soon after, ThatMontrealIP reverted me. Despite the fact that WP:PGBOLD asks him to give a substantive reason for reverting me, he didn't really do so.

Dear ThatMontrealIP: I assume you probably disagree with my reasoning above. If so: why?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice idea but I agree with MontrealIP that it is a bit strange to put the unofficial version before the official one. This page isn't designed purely with new editors in mind and neither should it be. Also, we already have Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide hatlinked - should we maybe make this more prominent and link to it from the {{nutshell}}? SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that the guideline is confusing to new editors. However in terms of this edit, I reverted it because first, as it says in the header, Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. Second, we already have what you were trying to do, in the form of the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. What your edit did was basically add a set of unofficial points followed by the established guideline, which makes the page more confusing: First, the unofficial summary... The above unofficial summary is not part of the official guideline below. The edit deleted the lede that summarized the guideline, and replaced it with your own disclaimer-framed short guide to COI. I'll leave it for other editors to comment. (Also, small note but the bold on strongly discouraged isn't needed: and WP:MOS suggests we don't use bold for emphasis in that way.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid's edits appear to make the assumption that COI editors are too stupid to understand the guideline. Also, if a user is reading the "guideline", placing an "unofficial summary" at the top of the guideline will likely confuse readers, not help them. "Here is the official guideline, but first, the unofficial guideline". It just looks kinda sloppy. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677: What if we keep the summary on a different page, but we put an obvious link (not just a hard-to-notice hatnote) somewhere within the lead section? I could add the link. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Unforgettableid: We already have the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide; what you are proposing duplicates that page. I'd support making the link to the plain and simple guide clearer, as SmartSe suggests above. What would you think of that?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP: This would be a good idea. Let's not link to it from the {{nutshell}} template; let's link to it from the main text of the lead section. Ideally, please don't do this yourself; please let me do it, a bit later on. Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's get consensus on that first.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to the plain and simple guide in the hatnote at the top of the guideline? How much easier could it be? More important... why? Imagine the COI editor. They are either completely naive, and enter obvious COI stuff about themselves or their garage band. Then along comes another editor who tags their talk page. Same deal with a less-naive COI editor. Their talk page gets tagged, and they have been warned. Why make so much effort to simplify the COI guideline? Anyone who ends up there has been caught, and the naive newby will make the effort to find out what they did wrong, although it's usually unbelievably easy to figure it out just from the warning on their talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Magnolia677: A) How much easier could it be? Well, there could be a bold link in its very own paragraph in the prose part of the lead section. B) Why? Well, naive COI editors may get a talk page message which sends them to WP:COI. They'll know they did something wrong. But there are quite a few of rules for COI editors, and they have to read a lot of the guideline to learn them all. Some new editors may not bother, and may give up. If we include a prominent link from WP:COI to WP:BPCOI or WP:PSCOI, they can learn a good summary of the rules in much less time. This may reduce the chances that they'll give up on their reading and know none of the rules. ❧ In short: The guideline is like an official user manual, sprinkled with legalese jargon, that many people won't bother reading. A summary "quick-start guide" would be better for most newbies. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP: A) It's true that one of the header templates does say that substantive edits should reflect consensus. B) It's also true that WP:PSCOI already exists. C) I didn't delete the lead section; I moved it downwards into a new "Introduction" section. D) MOS:BADEMPHASIS indeed says not to use bold for emphasis, as it's too distracting. Matthew Butterick, on the other hand, points out that, when using a sans-serif font, italics don't stand out enough. In practice, WP:COI does use bold for emphasis. Also, I don't think the MOS is mandatory for guidelines, or in fact for any part of project space. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have a lead and a {{nutshell}} that summarises this policy. Then there's also WP:PSCOI and numerous message templates that explain it in various levels of detail for new editors. Adding yet another resume makes it less clear, not more. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, this guideline was changed to replace the word "should" with "must", and now advises WP:PAID editors: "you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". The purpose of the RfC is to determine whether this change has consensus, or if the previous guidance should be restored. –xeno^talk 12:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They should not be allowed to create articles at all, especially directly in mainspace (unless they are Wikipedians in Residence or similar roles where the interests of the encyclopedia and the funders are aligned). Only volunteers should make inclusion decisions for this volunteer curated project. When paid editors start making inclusion decisions, Wikipedia ceases to be an encyclopedia and turns into an advertising medium that is nothing more than an extension of the subject's websites and social media profiles. MER-C 12:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• But that's what AfC is. A process where volunteers make inclusion decisions before an article goes live, particularly when dealing with Paid or COI editors who require an additional layer of scrutiny. If this is what you want, it's unclear to me why you would not support the proposal and would rather ban them from creating articles in the draftspace, under volunteer scrutiny. Banning paid editors from creating articles in good faith does not eliminate paid editing, it just leaves paid editors the singular option to create articles without us ever knowing their status. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]