Template talk:Connected contributor/Archive 2

Less wordy on policy
I was thinking to change the ending to something like "See WP:AUTO and WP:COI for specific guidelines". I think the mention of NPOV should be taken out altogether, because it applies to every article; in the case that I encountered, John Clark (actor), it's actually WP:V that is most at issue. I don't want to have any back-and-forth edits made to a template in 1800 articles, so I'll just propose this here for now to see if anyone agrees. Wnt (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We tend to use Wiki shortcuts (WP:AUTO for Autobiography) on internal WP pages where those reading would be part of the WP community; talkpages are an interaction page for experienced Wikipedians, IP and new editors, and general readers. Using shortcuts would be inappropriate. Also, shortcuts are to save people typing strokes, but are unneccessary on a template as they are only typed the once, after that the whole template text is transcluded.
 * While NPOV does apply to every article, it tends to be the significant concern on connected contributor issues, and is the main cause of conflict and ArbCom cases. The reason being, that a connected contributor will aim to reduce negative comments and highlight the positive. Think of it like a CV or advert - while these tell the truth and are verifiable, they don't tell all the truth. It is that promotional aspect which people are concerned with. We could actually do away with WP:AUTO and WP:COI and just have a link to WP:NPOV, though WP:AUTO and WP:COI provide specific advice which it is useful to retain, so having all three is useful.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mitigating Corruption
(Moved from User_talk:SilkTork)

The topic of mitigating the possiblity of corruption in regards to COI has sparked my interest also. May I invite you to a cup of tea to ponder best practices in regards to what to do when a COI is declared and confirmed. For example I started a Declared COI template and posted it on a few talk pages. Thanks. Eclipsed  (talk)   (code of ethics)     08:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. We do already have a widely used template for users who are connected to a subject, so it would make sense to add declaration to that template. I have added it. See Template:Connected contributor - Connected contributor.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Connected contributor would need to also have the bit in your template which provides evidence of the declaration. And perhaps some of the links you have as well.  SilkTork  *YES! 14:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Some thoughts on the connected contributor (+ multi) template:
 * The wording: "A Wikipedia contributor ... may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article.". When there are confirmed and verified connections, then the wording should be different.  Suggested wording: "This article includes contributions from users who have declared a connection with the subject".  This is both more accurate, and concentrates first on the article, then the users.
 * The blue ! icon: How about a handshake icon instead? This would denote that contact between the user and wikipedia is 'established'.      Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     15:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the handshake icon - though for such a template I feel that neutral icons might be more appropriate. The sense of positivity and agreement suggested by the icon might be misread as support for that person's contributions. That someone has declared an interest doesn't mean that all or any of their edits are going to be acceptable.  SilkTork  *YES! 16:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the handshake icon could be seen to infer support, even when none is actually present. Perhaps the icon from Template:Maintained (which also has some good text re: "This in no way implies page ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.")     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     17:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was unaware of this discussion before, otherwise would have spoken up. I am concerned by the "declared" part of this template, especially the word "yet", which implies that anyone with a potential COI must declare, otherwise they are doing something wrong. I would suggest that the template could list a declaration if someone has made it (and a diff would be nice), but that it doesn't need to go as far as saying, "They haven't declared yet". In that case, just leave the wording off of the template. --Elonka 14:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Removing "yet". Does the rest still need removing?  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Presumption of problems with connected contributors
In the Rudy Rucker article the subject made some edits to his own article and got the connected contributor template (Notable Wikipedian template at the time) slapped on the article in January 2008. Then on 13 August 2011 an editor along with a couple of helpful edits adds a notability template. It seems likely that this editor was drawn by the connected contributor categorization and did not make the slightest effort to check for notability before adding the template. I got 142,000 hits for "Rudy Rucker review" on Yahoo today. It is easy to see he is notable enough for an article. I removed the connected contributor template because there are no more problems with connected contributor edits and the categorization with connected contributors draws people's attention and wastes their time. Is there any standard policy for the connected contributor template to be removed when it is no longer helpful? Fartherred (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Let us consider the situation of a class of notable people, authors. They typically promote themselves and their works in a variety of ways so some portion of the reading public becomes aware that their work is available to be read and purchased, a good thing. It is not unexpected that an author who is only slightly familiar with Wikipedia might see it as another means of promoting his work. The resulting connected contributor template on the talk page of the article about that author not only defaces the talk page but puts the page in a category attracting derogatory edits and wasting people's time, as noted above. We tolerate these bade effects to facilitate repairing the damage done by connected contributors. When that damage has been repaired and the subject in question has learned to keep his hands off of his own article, the connected contributor template is no longer needed and should be removed. Fartherred (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

There does seem to be a positive bias in reviewing books and shorter written works because volunteer reviewers tend to be people who have read the whole thing. People who hate the work do not read the whole thing and then fail to provide a review. I think that those who read articles on authors are generally aware of systematic positive bias, and we need not worry about it. Fartherred (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of a policy for removing the template after a period of time. I do not agree with the characterization that the template "defaces" a talkpage, but I do agree that there is some stigma that tends to go along with this template, so reworking it, or its subfields, at some time might be wise. --Elonka 14:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find in studying the issue that I am not as well informed as I would like to be for making comments. I have looked at a few pages in the connected contributors category and did not find any besides the Rudy Rucker page in which I could make an improvement without much study of the issues.  There is a backlog of connected contributor problems and the limited time I am willing to give would probably be better spent addressing individual articles than making more comments on policy. Fartherred (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could do with some rewording and the addition of further parameters. For instance, it could be noted that the connected contributor's contributions have been evaluated, along with the corresponding date. I note that this is a talk page template, rather than an article space one, so it doesn't shout out potential problems to general readers. -- Trevj (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Users from other language versions
Hi, is there a possibility to mark an article about someone who has edited e.g. Wikipedia in Slovene but does not seem to have an account in the English Wikipedia? --Eleassar my talk 13:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Transcluded typo
I've noticed a typo in the version of this template that appears for the parameter setting. Specifically, a misspelling: professionial, as you can see here. I fare poorly with transcluded templates... could someone a bit savvier fix this? Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅. The change may not appear immediately in transclusions. - Eureka Lott 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate the speedy response. WWB Too (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tweaks
I just used this template on an article and... I'm not sure if the template changed or I just didn't look at it closely before, but I felt it was a little wordy. I thought I would leave some suggestions here for consideration by anyone who maintains the template:

"A Wikipedia contributor, Example user (talk · contribs), has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of the article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest,, Wikipedia:Autobiography, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view."

Corporate 04:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

whether eventually to delete this template from an article's talk page or keep it there
Should this template be deleted from an article's talk page or kept there after someone else has edited the article so as to remove the problematic edits (not all edits by the COI editor but problematic edits), if the conflict of interest was undeclared and the editor with the COI has not been blocked or banned? Although I'm asking about the use of the template where another editor has the COI, I also have a COI for that same article and have not edited the article except to add a COI template into a blank line, but I have posted to the talk page. I may soon propose deletion of the article's COI template but regarding the talk page template I have no opinion and am asking here. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Having looked in last couple days at a couple articles where person edited their own YEARS ago before being clued in that it's a COI, I do think it would be helpful to have a date on it. Like "evidently last edited in ____" (evidently in case they are using Anon IP or something that only later gets caught). Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I like that idea, although it requires reprogramming the template. Perhaps it can also indicate whether there has been much or little subsequent editing, given that many articles are rarely edited and elapsing of a long time may have little meaning: "The last edit by this contributor was on ... [date] and there have been ... [#] edits since then by ... [#] other editor(s)." I'm not sure if these ellipses would be difficult to program. Accommodations for a contributor who has never edited the article and for a banned user about whom what's important is that their edits are to be reverted on sight would be needed. I don't think I want to put time into programming it, but what you suggested is a good idea. As to my original question, if someone's willing to do even more programming, perhaps, when enough time or enough edits by enough other editors has passed and the editor in question is not banned then the template could autocollapse into a one-liner saying just "Past conflict of interest in editing this article: click 'show'. [show]", where parameters would allow setting those thresholds according to local article consensus. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, just looking at all of those again, just adding a date of when the template was placed might be sufficient. And if it's 3 years old but then that person or another person shows up, update the date. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That might be a better (more doable) idea. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no idea how to do it, though I have a feeling each example has its own box somewhere and just have to add appropriate date code. If no one objects in next few days, do it and see if it sticks :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I wish simple ideas stayed that way; but many don't and that's why I don't have the time to edit this template. We shouldn't just add a date unless the display explains why the date matters, as in, "This was true in December, 2013." But that's so vague it'll hardly survive critical review. Perhaps we should say, "This was true in December, 2013, but if other editors have subsequently resolved neutrality issues then this notice may be removed." That institutes a new action and I don't know what the consensus on that would be. Since the template is already in wide use, we don't want to alter all of those pages by adding a sentence that will be wrong on many of them, and a solution to that is to add an optional named parameter, so that some pre-existing displays would be changed only if the parameter was added to some of them. The parameter would cause a sentence to be added; the value of the parameter would be a month and a year or just a year, but it would not be a "date" parameter as that is already standard in many templates with a different outcome. Instead, it could be "effect-date", so that "|effect-date=December 2013" would generate the desired sentence with the date embedded in the sentence. That will still leave a difficulty of distinguishing between old and new problems and a solution to that could be "|effect-date-new=December 2013" and "|effect-date-old=December 2013" generating, respectively, "These contributions were recent as of December, 2013, and should be reviewed by unconnected editors to ensure the neutrality of the article." and "In December, 2013, these contributions were not recent and the neutrality of the article may have been resolved by other editors and, in that case, this notice may be removed after two years." The period of two years is arbitrary but some period of time would be appropriate so editors can attend if the connected contributor keeps editing, an activity the notice probably discourages and should. If the duration should be variable, one way would be to add a parameter, such as "|latency=two years", a parameter for which the value could be any text but preferably lower-case words stating a duration, probably not less than a year even for the most-frequently-edited articles, with the value to be copied into the sentence generated by "|effect-date-old=December 2013" and ignored if the latter parameter is not used. Dating should cause the article to be added to a maintenance category, eventually by date, such as Category:Articles edited by connected contributors until December, 2013. It should be possible to omit the month, as in "|effect-date-new=2013" generating "These contributions were recent as of 2013 and should be reviewed by at least one unconnected editor to ensure the neutrality of the article." Nick Levinson (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC) (Corrected formatting & clarified phrase: 22:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)) (Corrected misspelling: 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC))
 * Oh, well, I guess if it really bothers someone they can sneak in some text about it right underneath the template, for as long as it lasts anyway :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Transcluding without a name
There are some articles where it could be helpful to use a template like this one, but without actually naming the connected contributor(s) - I'd like to prioritise "highlighting possible problems with the article", not "naming and shaming a culprit". However, this template doesn't transclude nicely until you give it a valid username. What's the best way forward? Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Use a different template
 * Tweak this template so it works OK without any parameters
 * Create a new template
 * Just name names anyway
 * Something else...?

IP range connected contributor
Just curious, is it necessary to tag IP ranges as a connected contributor? For example, the host for is kappakappagamma.org and contributions from that IP can be found on Kappa Kappa Gamma and List of Kappa Kappa Gamma sisters. But yeah, just curious. Thanks, —  dain  omite   10:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Notable connected contributor
Is it possible to add a parameter to this template that links to a notable contributor? Showing a username, as at present, is one thing, but if a notable person is behind that username, that would be much more relevant for the average user of Wikipedia.  Schwede 66  18:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia user who died
Is there a way to modify the text in a parameter, to place on the talk page of a biography of a notable Wikipedia user who died?

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, Talk:Adrianne Wadewitz, the article itself was created after her death, so there probably wouldn't be as much need to cite WP:Conflict of interest in displaying the template, the others are relevant and appropriate though. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Merged template
thanks for doing the template merge! However, if there is more than one connected contributor. the two listings are separated by a bunch of white space that sucks up space (see Talk:Monsanto_legal_cases for example). I can't see how to get rid of that - can you do it? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem with the template is that it doesn't indicate what kind of COI it is or, in the case of paid editing, who is paying. A "connected contributor" at a company article could be someone who's friends with the owner (general COI), the owner herself (financial COI), or a PR professional editing Wikipedia on behalf of the company (a paid advocate who has to comply with the terms of use). It would be helpful to have parameters for client and employer, or even a separate template for paid editors. Sarah (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It could also be a competitor! Please see my comment below re: parameters -- glad to see our thinking is similar on this. -Pete (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , yes, exactly, that has been a concern of mine on several pages. This is one of the reasons we need to make clear (a) who is paying; (b) who the client is; and (c) a separate field for affiliation, in case there is other relevant information. Sarah (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * From my perspective, those distinctions are not that important. Anybody with a COI should disclose and should not edit directly -- all of them are biased and tend to generate content that reflects that bias. Content is what matters at the end of the say, and the purpose of the tag is to let editors know the extent of COI editing (how much COI editing has gone on) and to be able to quickly identify the relevant edits in the history.  Also I use these templates a lot and and there already is a lot to fill in; I don't want to have to fill out additional parameters nor spend the time to teach conflicted editors how to use this template (which is fussy and detailed).  That is my perspective, anyway.  With regard to paid editing, the disclosure that is most useful and that I and others urge them to do, is keep a tally of the articles they edit for pay, with employer, client, and affilation, on their user page.  An easy-to-use template for that would be amazing.  Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This should be fixed now. Alakzi (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks!! Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I think there should be a template on article talk saying who is paying for the article to be edited or rewritten. PR people may decline to edit directly, but they are still rewriting articles by asking others to copy material over for them. We can't signal that on the article, but the next best thing is to do so on the talk page. So whether it's this template or some other, it would be useful to have one where we can fill in employer, client and affiliation. It also depersonalizes the issue. Sarah (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear that. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Template threshold and relevance
I see the value in this template for articles where it is clear that a COI editor has had a significant impact on article contents, or even a significant impact on talk page discussions. I think a threshold should be set, however, to establish the amount of impact a COI editor has to reach to justify the template. Specifically I don't see the purpose in tagging talk pages in cases where a COI editor made a few brief attempts at spamming that were rapidly reverted. Or in tagging a page where a dynamic IP has similarly tried and failed to add promotional content or ELs. I think the tag should specify that it should only be employed when an editor has made lasting changes to an article, or is/was a regular presence on the talk page. Do others think the tag is useful for SPAs that only make a few (reverted) edits?Dialectric (talk) 23:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this general sentiment,, but I'm not sure how to clearly draw the distinction. If you want to refine what you said above into specific text for the template, that might be helpful. -Pete (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should add it to all talk pages where paid editing has taken place. Editors can have a significant effect on content without making a single edit to the article – by taking control of the talk page, offering certain sources, making edit requests, or providing paid versions for other editors to install, even with minimal or no talk-page interaction. Sarah (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the tag still could be justified in situations where the COI editor has added content (suggestions, sources, etc) to the talk page but not the article, and suggested this in my comment above.Dialectric (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Please support more than 10 entries
Talk:Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has 12 (so far). The solution of using the template twice looks poor. DMacks (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Refactor
Seeing the discussion of wording- and parameter-changes (several above sections) and my desire to add additional entries (preceding section), I looked at factoring out the actual "entry" into its own subtemplate, Connected contributor/entry, leaving just the header and a skeletal loop-like caller in Connected contributor/refactored (that latter is the sandbox for potential replacement of Connected contributor). One only has to change the layout or wording of an entry in one place and could more easily add additional flags or fields without so much cut'n'pasting.

The only feature I left out was the alt1/alt2/alt3/alt4 set for creating a multiname list in the first bullet entry. That feature seems redundant to the bullet list via User2/etc, with no obvious advantage. Would be easy to do a one-pass cleanup of any uses. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC FYI
Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding parameters: employer, client, affiliation

 * Previous discussions at:
 * Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure#Paid template
 * Template talk:Paid#Needs to be changed
 * Template talk:Paid-talk

I discussed this template with, in relation to last month's clarification of the "paid editing amendment" to the Terms of Use. We both thought it would be helpful if this template made it easier for paid editors to disclose "employer, client, and affiliation" -- matching the terminology now used in the ToU.

I've sketched out what this might look like. I'm not much of a template whiz; this is just a rough draft, the coding needs to be fixed so that a missing parameter does not show up, and also the formatting should probably be tidied up. But, what do others think of this general idea?

The lines I added in my version of the template are:


 * | 6 =
 * | 7 =
 * | 8 =

-Pete (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * forked this template at Paid-talk and added the first two, "employer" and "client". I personally find these notices too wordy, and I'd prefer to use your bar-delimited rendition. Alakzi (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I see that version renders it in prose like "They have been paid by ACME" and "They have been paid by PR Firm on behalf of ACME. I also prefer a more concise/structured statement; and while "affiliation" is a little weird, it is included in the ToU, and it seems like the template might as well include all three. Is there a reason to keep the fork separate, or can we just merge all the functionality back into this one? (Assuming there is consensus, of course.) -Pete (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I prefer this too. Thanks, Pete. Sarah (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Pete, the only problem is that people will understand employer to refer to their day job. We mean "the person or company that paid for the contributions." Can that be clarified? Sarah (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't prefer this after all, because it retains the "personally or professionally connected" language. This isn't about a general COI. We need a "paid" parameter or a separate paid template: "This user has been paid for their contributions to this topic." Followed by employer (the person/company paying for the contributions) =; client =; affiliation =". Sarah (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

and, would it make sense to have and ? We can use the latter to focus on the parameters we need, without confusing it with a general COI. We can also use it to create categories that keep track of employers, clients, and undeclared. I do like the idea of having one template, but mixing general and paid COI might confuse the issue. Sarah (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I pinged earlier at the other page; repinging so that she knows the conversation has moved. Sarah (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd prefer to keep them separate too. Alakzi (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, this all makes sense to me. While I think it would be possible to design a single template that elegantly handles both cases, I'm not the one to do it, and having a separate one should do the trick. I think the only thing that won't get addressed with two separate templates is "talk page bloat" in a very few cases -- that is, if there are both paid and unpaid COI editors, it'll take up more screen real estate than it otherwise might. But that's no biggie. -Pete (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I've created. Does anyone know what to write so that we have:

where, if the employer field is not filled in, UNKNOWN is produced in bold; and where, if and only if the employer and client fields are both filled in with the same name, only the employer field is produced in the end result. Sarah (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't we just move Paid-talk to that title? Alakzi (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We could, but it didn't seem to work well. If you think you can make it cover all the combinations we need, by all means go ahead. Sarah (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * If you need me to delete the page I just created so that you can move something into it, just let me know. Sarah (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... chasing this discussion across Wikipedia is a challenge in and of itself... Not sure if this has moved beyond this but I would like to suggest some output text that might address some of the issues mentioned over at paid-talk
 * SomeEditor has been retained by SomeCompany to edit on the behalf of SomeOtherCompany
 * SomeEditor has been retained by SomeCompany to edit on their behalf.
 * This keeps from getting bogged down in the complexities of 'employer' vs 'client' etc. All we want to know here is if the editor is directly retained by the article subject or if there is an intermediary/PR Agency. I do not really know the template scripting language being used here but several switch/case statements should be able to handle what is being discussed. On a side note I think trying to do all of this in connected contributor as not a good idea. This template has to do with regular COI, paid editing is a different animal all together and we should keep them separate.  J bh  Talk  20:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , I agree with your suggestions re: simplicity. Re: two templates, we were thinking of and . Connecting them like this stresses the difference. Sarah (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Forgot to ping and  earlier. But let's keep the discussion here, even if we create another template. Sarah (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, please delete it, and I'll move the other one there. Alakzi (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , done. Sarah (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please delete the doc page as well. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, also done. Sarah (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Break 1

 * OK, I've given it a shot. I've not added any bolding yet 'cause someone disagreed on that point. Alakzi (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks good. I've tried:



which produces:


 * SomeUser (talk · contribs) has been paid by SomeCompany&#32;to edit on behalf of SomeOtherCompany.

and



which produces:


 * SomeUser (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown&#32;to edit on behalf of SomeOtherCompany.

Sarah (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We need something prominent after employer = to signal that it is unknown. Sarah (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that, if the script is capable of such flow control, if only 2 parameters are given that
 * SomeUser was paid to edit on behalf of SomeCompany.
 * be displayed. 'Unknown' should only show up if there is in fact a reason to think there is an unknown agency involved. For the most part we should remember that the paid-editor himself will be filling out this template unlike connected contributor which is often filled out by other editors. J bh  Talk  22:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, something that signals that the information is missing and ought not to be missing. An alert, or the word unknown in bold. Perhaps:

SomeUser (talk · contribs) has been paid by [name of paying entity not provided; please provide this information] to edit on behalf of SomeOtherCompany.

Sarah (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Jbhunley, who is paying must be disclosed, per terms of use. They can't say "I'm editing on behalf of X," and leave it there. Sarah (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooppss. That is what I get for not copy/pasting from my own suggestion. :) How about -
 * SomeEditor has been paid by SomeCompany to edit on their behalf.
 * J bh Talk  22:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That's good for when client and employer are identical, and employer is known. The question now is what to write when client is known, but employer is not known. We could try:


 * SomeUser (talk · contribs) has been paid by [whom?] to edit on behalf of SomeOtherCompany.


 * Sarah (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, according to WP:PCD, both the employer and client must be disclosed. Why are we hiding the client when it's not given? Alakzi (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand, Alakzi. Sarah (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not specifying a client simply results in the "on behalf of ..." fragment to be omitted. Is this desirable? Would we not want to display a similar warning to the employer's? Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, how's this? Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Can the script not simply do something like:
 * and continue the script from there or put some logic that does a bit if bounds checking like:  Sorry for the crappy pseudo-code I have not written anything in decades.  J bh  Talk  23:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and continue the script from there or put some logic that does a bit if bounds checking like:  Sorry for the crappy pseudo-code I have not written anything in decades.  J bh  Talk  23:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The assumption is that if we know the employer, and no separate client is mentioned, then employer=client. In those cases, the template should say: "SomeEditor has been paid by SomeCompany to edit on their behalf."

But I would prefer that employer= and client= always be filled in, and if not filled in, the template produces [whom? or some other alert for the empty field. But if both employer=A and client=A, then the template should say: "SomeEditor has been paid by A to edit on their behalf." Sarah (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But by putting in a whom? you are implying that an editor has not fully disclosed and therefore is in violation of the ToU when they would not beif they are working directly for the client. J bh  Talk  23:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And how would we know that if they've not filled in "employer"? It could be that they're working directly for a client; or it could be that they've forgotten to fill in "employer"; or it could be that they've not disclosed who their employer is. Both fields must be specified to dispel all ambiguity. Alakzi (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Dealing with one thing at a time: the employer is the person/company who is paying the user. So if they save the template without filling in that field, it should say something, e.g. whom?, to signal that it is missing. Can that be added? Sarah (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of logic. If the client is paying, the client is the employer. If someone else is paying, someone else is the employer. In either case, the employer field must be filled in. Sarah (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I am reading this is what you are looking for:
 * Editor is paid by company to edit for company. Input can be:
 * CLIENT==SomeCompany, EMPLOYER==null
 * CLIENT==null, EMPLOYER==SomeCompany
 * CLIENT==SomeCompany, EMPLOYER==SomeCompany
 * All should display: SomeEditor has been paid by SomeCompany to edit on their behalf
 * Is this correct? J bh  Talk  23:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, only the third should display that message; for the other two, it would be guesswork. Alakzi (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that a lot of the problem is we are getting caught in the weeds of the variable names. The only thing that matters to people editing the page is whether and by whom SomeEditor is being paid. Because the many possible employment relationships and a lack of and standard in how people refer to them I submit all three cases are equivalent cf. A freelancer on piece work says SomeCompany is a Client but on long term contract may say SomeCompany is their Employer. This is magnified by how non-native English speakers may define such a relationship however from a disclosure point of view it does not matter to us the only thing that matters is there are only two parties to the disclosure rather than three. J bh  Talk  23:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Please keep it simple. Two things matter. (1) Who is paying for content on Wikipedia? That is what we call the employer. (2) On whose behalf is this happening? Who asked for this to be done? That is what we call the client. It is important that both be named. The Foundation requires this. So we need to produce a template that can handle:


 * employer=known; client=known (and they are different);
 * employer=known; client=known (and they are the same);
 * employer=known; client=not known;
 * employer=not known; client=known;
 * employer=not known; client=not known.

And the template should signal when a field has been omitted, rather than simply leaving it blank or using words that avoid mentioning it. Sarah (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is working well. I've just added it to Talk:Peter Hancock (CEO), and I was able to use it to add a link to the paid editor's draft and a link to where it was added to the article. Sarah (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Break 2
OK, here's how it works in the sandbox now:

Alakzi (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice work ! Please make all three fields (employer, client, and affiliation) be required.  This is what the ToU says. Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good work. If you are going to make all fields required you need to specify in the documentation what to do when one or more field truly does not apply to the particular paid editor in question. Whatever that instruction is will need to supress the big red error messages otherwise there will be very sloppy looking tags boldly asserting incomplete disclosures on people who have disclosed properly. For instance allow the express use on VAR=n/a or VAR=none. People who are being compliant to our policy likely would be at least annoyed at having big red error messages next to their name when they have done everything right. J bh  Talk  01:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed with this last point, for sure: there won't always be a relevant answer for the affiliation template. Oftentimes the relationship between the client and the editor is a direct one. This also raises the question of whether "employer" should be required as well. I happen to work for an established company that offers this service, but does this mean individual editors will be expected to list a company name even when they are a sole consultant?
 * Also, big thanks to Pete for taking the initiative on this. It's long overdue. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. All three parameters should be optional. If "client" is required, very few of my own clients will able to use it, because they are typically employees of the organization. (See, e.g., Pixetell, where was at the time a staff member of Ontier/Pixetell.)
 * I appreciate the shout-out, -- but actually I think  is more deserving of kudos, it turned out she had been working on this for some time before I came along. -Pete (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, but I wasn't able to write the template. A huge thanks to for making it work. Re: the parameters, employer would never be optional. The employer is whoever is paying for content on Wikipedia, and the point of the ToU and template is to keep track of that. The employer might be the same as the client – that is, the company/person paying for the edits might be paying on their own behalf, in which case you wouldn't need to fill in client too. , sole consultants would list who is paying them, not the name of the company they operate as. Sarah (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see we are all too humble to take credit..the nature of collaboration, I suppose ;) Yes, I also thank you, Alakzi.
 * I don't understand why employer would be required in all cases, and I think it's a mistake to force a certain concept of reality on all scenarios. The ToU requires that each class be disclosed if it exists. If there's payment, at least one must exist. But if Jenna is an independent contractor and writes is paid by Acme Corp to work on the article about them, I would think she would describe them as her "client." If she found herself forced to fill in the "employer" field, I think she would either (1) throw up her hands and skip filling it in, or (2) fill in "self." (2) isn't really a problem, but it doesn't benefit anyone; but (1) is a problem, as it leads to a hodgepodge of different approaches (which is the mess, I think, that we're trying to get out of). I'd like to see a template that can be readily applied to all instances of paid editing, and doesn't make anybody seek out a better way to disclose; that way, we can start building some structured data here that might actually be useful. -Pete (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Pete, whoever is paying is the employer. That's the definition here. (I wish the Foundation had used a different term.) So if an editor is being paid, an employer exists. The template page explains that, but I wonder if the template itself should do so invisibly or succinctly. Sarah (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, very clear instructions should be given on what information should be entered in which field. There should also be an option to affirmatively enter "none" in 'client' and 'affiliation' to turn off the error messages if the person filling out the template avows they are not applicable. Personally I think we are getting way too hung up on terms here. Based on common usage 'client' is the person on whose behalf you are editing while employer is the PR company you work for. This is how a person doing contract work understands those terms. Freelancers are unlikely to think of the person who they write an article for as an 'employer' they are a 'client'. If you work for a PR company they are your 'employer' and whoever you are writing for is the 'client'. In both of these the 'client' is the one who has contracted for editing services. Trying to shoehorn the use of 'employer' as the 'payer' all of the time is just going to be confusing in most use cases. Just my two cents but if we are going to get hung up on terms, might as well get hung up on the right ones.  As to the terms the Foundation used I thought they just said "employer, client and affiliation... must be disclosed" but did not really define those terms hence all of the confusion about what to disclose.  J bh  Talk  00:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The terms are clearly explained at WP:PAID. Alakzi (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. WP:PAID clearly says "the paying client or employer" which I think supports my point. I agree that we're getting hung up on terms -- they way to not get hung up is to permit people to use them naturally. A Wikipedia policy definition will not, practically speaking, replace the way people use terms like "client" and "employer" in their business operations. If it were clearly, rigidly defined in the TOU, that would be one thing -- but it's not. We need to allow people the flexibility to report what is actually going on, in the language used in their normal business operations -- otherwise, the template will tend to get ignored or, worse, used inaccurately. -Pete (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, WP:PAID has a couple other use cases that need to be dealt with in the template documentation in particular the language these people possibly have nether 'employer' or 'client' since they might be 'principals' and would, based on our usage have a template that, when properly filled out, would be  . Depending on, well lots of things, people in that category would neither be nor consider themselves as having a 'client' or 'employer'. The question I have is, for the purposes of this template, do the labels matter? The important information is who is paying for the edits followed by who is paying for the editor's time that would be employer and client in our current terminology. I would simply change the variable names to   and   and write documentation that says   Essentially make some slots the information you want to collect and stop messing about with labels, it is a script not a contract if the variables cause confusion change them, it is the information that matters.  J bh  Talk  01:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Jbh, be careful not to confuse owner/stakeholder (broader financial COI) with paid editing. Look, this couldn't be simpler: disclose who is paying for the edits (employer), and disclose on whose behalf those edits are being made (client). Sometimes employer=client and sometimes not. But if an editor is paid, someone is paying, and that someone has to be named. Sarah (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah, Nothing I said says the person paying should not be named. I said that, in the real world, there are many financial relationships to which our paid editing policy applies that do not fit into the 'employer' 'client' pigeonholes being established here. That by using those terms rather than specifying the type of information we want in each field we are creating needless confusion. I pulled the 'stakeholder etc.' use case right out of the policy at WP:PAID where is says "If the following applies to you:you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of a person or organization (as owner, officer, employee, contractor or other stakeholder); or as a representative of a person or firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes...you must provide full disclosure of the COI on your user page, along with who is paying you, the name of the client, and any other relevant affiliation. (Emp. mine)" There are a lot of use cases that will become confusing to the people who we want to have fill out this information. All I am saying is that the infromation does not change no matter what we call the variable. If we call the entity paying employer or A or Rainbow_Bright it really does not matter so long as we tell the person to  we will have the information we are asking for . * I use the phrase "from which you receive compensation" because the way WP:PAID is written it seems to me to apply to any financial COI .  J bh  Talk  02:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed owner and stakeholder from PAID: you're right, it seemed to confuse a general FCOI with paid editing. Sarah (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sarah OK, I have a concern that by doing that you are changing the character of the policy. I do not know the history of how that text was generated but if it was by a community consensus I think you need to get more input before making such a broad change. If it was just 'written up' then I have no major problem with your change other than I would like to see any financial COI disclosed, which is what the prior wording called for. That is, however, only a personal preference. J bh  Talk  21:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The text used to cover a general FCOI and paid editing, and it shouldn't have been copied in both. See WP:FCOI, which contains the owner, stakeholder, etc. wording. FCOI has to be declared too, and paid editing is a sub-category of it. But it is only paid editing to which the TOU apply. Sarah (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, That works. It might be worthwhile to use this chance to get the FCOI declarations completed, either as part of this by using the old WP:PAID wording - since PAID is local policy implementing and we can use the momentum here to just get it done. Alternately I guess we could create a separate template based on this one once it is finished to handle FCOI disclosure. Personally I think it would be better and more importantly much more likely to get done and deployed if we do it with this template using the old PAID wording. It is not something I will push for if people are really against it but we have the tools (Already existent wording that covers both situations), and the mandate to create a disclosure template. I fear we can really only get one template accepted by the community but you have more experience with the community and a better feel of what will be accepted now. J bh  Talk  23:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jbh, can be used for any COI, including financial COI, in which the editor is not being paid to edit Wikipedia. Sarah (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. I was not thinking... It is true that we do not really need the same detail in the those other situations and it is unlikely we will need to track those types of editors across multiple articles. Works for me. J bh  Talk  01:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice work. May I make the rather minor suggestion that the templates should use sentence case throughout, e.g. "conflict of interest" instead of "Conflict of interest"?  Schwede 66  22:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Example broken
The example is broken - the parameters without an "=" fail, and a quick fix wasn't obvious to me. Widefox ; talk 18:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

New variant needed
A variation on this template should be crafted to deal with contributors connected to a religion, or other faith. These are usually not "paid" but still are done for non-encyclopedic motives. Likewise we need a variation for politically-connected editors. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Template split and usage
RfC content by JzG, inline sigs omitted for reasons of clarity.

Way back in the mists of time, this template was called "notable Wikipedian" and was used to identify the Wikipedia accounts of article subjects, a rightful celebration of the involvement of experts and authorities in building the project. With the rise of paid editing and other malfeasance, the template has been repurposed until by now it is essentially equivalent to "Warning! WikiSpammer!". I have absolutely no problem with alerting readers and Wikipedians to conflicts of interest, but it seems to me wrong, possibly to the extent of violating WP:BLP, to assert that, say has a COI in respect of the article. There seem to me to be three classes of use of this template: I suggest that mixing these three is a bad idea.
 * COI editors;
 * Active Wikipedians on whom we happen to have articles
 * Drive-by edits by article subjects fixing trivial things with no other significant contributions, e.g..

Additionally, I would advocate that we deprecate the use of the template for biographies where the article subject has less than a handful of edits to the article itself and is mainly commenting on Talk, in line with our standard guidance to biography subjects. I think it's important that people are allowed to fix issues with biographies about them without forever wearing a badge of shame. I would draw your attention to Advice to biography subjects, an essay I wrote, which is copied from the boilerplate OTRS advice to article subjects, which I also wrote. I suggest that the badge of shame is inappropriate for those who are following this advice, especially when the account name is blindingly obvious.

I think the options are as follows:

Template

 * 1) Do nothing to the template.
 * 2) Split the template into Notable Wikipedian and Connected / COI
 * 3) Add a parameter to allow display text ensure that we don't imply that notable WIkipedians are COI editors unless they actually are editing with a COI.

!votes

 * 2 (first choice); 3 (second choice). Guy (Help!) 10:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2. Alexbrn (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 and oppose 3 J bh  Talk  13:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 only reasonable choice.  DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support 1, and I'm not sure I understand the point of the proposal. There are two templates used to alert readers and editors to COI editing: and . The latter was created recently, and will slowly be swapped to signify to readers that a paid editor is or was active on the article. See WP:DISCLOSE. Those templates have nothing to do with simply being a notable Wikipedian;  has not been used that way for years., if you want to create a separate template for notable Wikipedians, go ahead, but I can't see what is meant by splitting it off from this one. SarahSV (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Creating a separate template would be option 2. That would also mean replacing a significant number of connected contributor with the new template, because a lot of the instances I find are from the historical usage that you and I both remember. In the early days after the change this was not such an issue, but the profile of COI editing on Wikipedia has increased enormously now and there is real stigma attached. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , sure, if the template has been used wrongly, we can swap it for a new "notable Wikipedian" one, or just remove it without a swap. I've been wondering whether a bot could swap connected contributor for connected contributor (paid), where appropriate, because it's a lot of manual work, but I don't think it's something a bot could do. But my priority recently has been to try to make the COI guideline more readable, and make the instructions for how to disclose easier. Having those two templates is a big part of that, so I wouldn't want to see anything that makes things more complicated. SarahSV (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, so it sounds like you support option 2, with complete clarity about when to use which template. Guy (Help!) 20:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer option 1, because I can't see that a "notable Wikipedian" template would be needed. If a subject arrives to edit their article or talk page, they have a COI, so the "connected contributor" template is used: "The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article." This is a polite way of saying the person has a COI. The disclosure is honorable, not a badge of shame.


 * But if an article subject stays away from their article and talk page, in what circumstances would we add a "notable Wikipedian" tag to draw attention to their use name? Perhaps the subject herself would want to add it, but I'm guessing that most would prefer not, and no one else should be adding it without their consent. Perhaps that's why this one was changed a few years ago to be about COI, because otherwise there's really no point. SarahSV (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support 1 - I guess I don't see the difference between keeping this template the way it is, and just adding templates for "Notable Wikipedia" and/or "Verified Wikipedian" as suggested below. Of course Brian Josephson, the editor, has a COI in respect of the article Brian Josephson, but that doesn't mean the Connected Contributor is a badge of shame.  I like the "Verified Wikipedian" template idea to prevent Joe Jobs.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 I think the current setup makes the most sense. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see any urgent need for this proposal. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Please put threaded discussion here.
 * Even in the best cases a person editing or discussing their own article has a massive COI and will drive their BLP to a positive POV. This is inherent in human nature. Even the most self reflective person will see themselves and their actions through a positive lens and their critics, or their critics arguments, through a negative one. So, even when they have the best intentions, working with the subject of a BLP one must be on guard against what is effectively civil POV pushing. In many cases one can want to help the BLP subject so much that bias creeps into the article because everything in the article is filtered through or is the result of a compromise with the subject. If what we write about even the most negative/controversial things in a person's life ends up being made acceptable to the article subject the article will likely be very far from NPOV. TL;DR The subjects of BLP's always have a COI with respect to their article. J bh  Talk  13:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Deprecate use
Deprecate use on WP:BLP articles where the user concerned is (a) the article subject and (b) acting in obvious good faith, especially when following the advice to biography subjects.

!votes

 * Support as proposer. Guy (Help!) 10:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per reasoning in proposal. Alexbrn (talk) 10:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comments below. Other editors need to know when they are dealing with the article subject and they need to know that an account representing itself as the article subject actually is the article subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbhunley (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. This is a widely used template. It isn't used for someone who is simply a notable Wikipedian, but to signify that someone has edited an article or talk page with a COI. There is a separate template for paid editors, . Yes, of course, Brian Josephson has a COI if he is engaged in writing the article about himself. But it's a badge of honesty, not a badge of shame. It's done to alert other editors and the reader, per WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE, and to drag Wikipedia out of the 1950s when it comes to COI. SarahSV (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - just use the other alternative suggested on this page. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Please put threaded discussion here.
 * I would support something like the split for people editing their own BLP, say Verified BLP subject, however removing it completely would be problematic. What I suggest is people who are editing their own BLP should verify their the account is held by the subject of the article with OTRS and a template simply stating AccountName has verified with OTRS that they are Bob Smith, the subject of this article . This protects the article subjects from impersonation and allows editors who participate on the talk page to know who they are dealing with. If some non-verified account asserts something about a BLP I will pretty much ignore them. If an account that is verified to be the subject of the article asserts something I will work with them to figure out if and how to address the matter. The process of identifying to OTRS might also provide more 'buy-in' for the article subject and will increase the trust of other editors that they are here to work on a good biography rather than just promote themselves. An editor who does not identify to OTRS should probable still get this CC template, complete with its 'warning spammer' because they are likely here simply for self promotion or can be an impersonator either of which requires more, and a different kind of, care from the editors dealing with them. J bh  Talk  12:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting removing it entirely. What I'm suggesting is this:
 * When the article subject is an active Wikipedian and not a COI editor of the article - usually because they don't edit it at all! - we use Notable Wikipedian as of old.
 * When the article subject has appeared only to make a couple of comments suggesting changes, and is not actively editing, and not pushing changes on the article, we omit any template.
 * When editors with a substantial COI are active at the article trying to change content to favour their interests, then we use Connected contributor as now. That would apply, for example, to something like the transclusion at Talk:Columbia Pacific University (randomly selected, no special merit to this one).
 * I am thinking here especially of the stigma which attaches to using the same template for COI editors and Wikipedians with articles who never even touch that article. Consider and . WMC has made a handful of uncontroversial edits - e.g. adding a category for people from Berkhamstead - and doesn't watch the page. Is that a COI? Or a Wikipedian about whom others insist we have an article? I say the latter. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would a there be any template at all placed on a page if the editor who is the subject of an article never touches the article? If they do not participate in the article or its talk page there is no good reason to have any template for them. If they are participating in the article then they should prove to OTRS they are who they say they are. Aesthetically I have no problem with the accounts of verified BLP subjects having their own template but functionally we can do the same thing noting it in the CC template. Personally, I think no COI editing of either the talk page or the article should be allowed for subjects of articles and all matters should go through OTRS. This would prevent the inevitable drift from NPOV that will occur when you have one person who is highly motivated to look good and can spend all of their wiki-time dedicated to that purpose. I know it will not happen but there is a huge difference between a NPOV biography and an autobiography or an "authorized" biography. I am also unconvinced there is any stigma attached to being identified in connected contributor. If an editor sees it as stigmatizing the way to avoid it is to not participate in their own article. Since we allow subjects of BLP's to participate in their articles we must identify them as such no matter how minor their contribution. What starts as minor may become major over time.  J bh  Talk  20:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think stating that you have a COI is a badge of shame - it's actually the opposite. A "notable Wikipedian" template could be used where the subject has made no edits.  A "Verified Wikipedian" could be used where the Wikipedian makes minor edits and talk page suggestions for his/her own article and has made a declaration with OTRS.  "Connected contributor" would apply for anything else.  Note that this would not require us to read the editor's mind or assume good or bad faith. Your suggestions above seem to require mind reading or determining intentions - which would just mean tons of arguement.  It would go on forever.  Please just keep it simple.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Things are really simple at the moment. If you edit an article or talk page where you have a COI, which includes being the article subject, use connected contributor. If you're being paid to edit, use connected contributor (paid)., is there any real benefit to introducing more options? If the first template has been added where the account named in the template hasn't edited the article or talk page, just remove it. But if they have edited it, it's being used appropriately. The point is so that readers and other editors can check the history and those edits, if they want to, and it means the COI editor can be upfront and transparent. Disclosure is the key to dealing with COI editing. SarahSV (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

UX-declared parameter
I would like to change the template and its documentation regarding the UX-declared parameter. The template should be changed from "This user has declared a connection" to read "This user has a declared connection". The template presently assumes there is only one way for a user to have a declared connection: 1) the user has declared their connection/financial interest. However, a user can have a declared connection where that connection is declared at COIN, even if the user themselves do not make the declaration or agree with the COIN decision. Please post your thoughts. (Ping: User:SlimVirgin, User:Mdann52, User:SilkTork). -- Jreferee (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of registered usernames
I removed the use of some registered usernames in this template's documentation, as this appeared to not be intentional. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking to autobiography
A user expressed concern at AN that the article about them had this template, which links to autobiography, even though they have not edited the article. The concern is that linking to autobiography could give the impression that the article is an autobiography or that the person has otherwise edited it.

This strikes me as a valid concern. As the most straightforward fix I could think of with minimal changes, I've modified the text to link to autobiography as normal in all cases unless U1-EH=no, in which case it's simply left out. As this is a widely used template, I realize this a somewhat bold edit so will hold off on updating documentation to see if it's contested (or if there's a preferred method). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that there may be other ways to soften this method of linking to connected contributors. This is more to do with the general spirit of encouraging disclosure than the issue raised by Ymblanter. For example, UX-EH could add text after the username to say that the user has not edited the article in the way we do for users that do edit the article. We could also modify the text that contains links to policies if there's only one user linked and he/she has not edited the article. Leaving that an open question for now as there's no simple answer (and I don't know what the ideal would be). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious to me that this template should not list users who may be connected but have never edited the article in question at all. I can think of no reason other than harassment for someone to go around placing this template on talk pages when the user's editing has never been an issue on that article. If U1-EH=no, shouldn't that user just be omitted from the template as displayed on the talk page? I'm not quite sure if that's what you're proposing here, but I don't think it is. ~ RobTalk 10:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A while back the "notable Wikipedian" template was merged into this one, and it's become standard, I think, for it to be added to any article that is about a Wikipedian (as long as the user identified him/herself). In other words, it serves to tag articles about people with Wikipedia accounts as well as to mark COI. I wasn't part of that merge discussion but it makes sense to me to keep them separate. Or perhaps the latter usage is unnecessary given we have Wikipedians with articles. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I too struggle with "Notable Wikipedians" being part of this template. Jytdog (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, "tagging people with articles" is in no way the same goal as "marking COI". On the other hand, I'm not convinced there's a need to tag articles that happen to be about Wikipedians, unless maybe the template is set up to produce a big red Don't do this! if the username parameter is different from the username of the editor adding it. This is exactly the sort of thing that attracts well-meaning "a place for everything, and everything in its place" cleaner-uppers to attempt consistency where it's unneeded and undesirable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like the template were merged because the languages used was similar at the time, not because their purposes were necessarily conflated. Really, a notable Wikipedian template should just say "An editor on Wikipedia, [username], has identified himself or herself as the subject of this article." Then we can handle COI issues using the connected contributor template if they edit the article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedian subject template?
I've taken a stab (well, two stabs) at creating another template. The first is currently at User:Rhododendrites/Template:Wikipedian subject. It takes "user" and "pronoun" parameters (pronoun for a reflexive pronoun to optionally replace "himself or herself"). It does this:

Another version is at User:Rhododendrites/Template:Wikipedian subject2. The big difference is that it requires a url parameter pointing to a diff where the user connects him/herself to the subject. The idea, of course, is to try to avoid outing (most likely unintentionally). If it doesn't receive a url it will not output the username: User:Rhododendrites/Template:Wikipedian subject2 User:Rhododendrites/Template:Wikipedian subject2

Thoughts? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, right, and it adds Category:Articles about Wikipedians. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 18:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is great. Thanks!  I reckon someone will find this too navel-gazing or the like, but i am fine with it.  Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be concerned about this being added without the editor's consent, so that if someone happens to mention that they're X in real life, this tag is added to draw attention to it. The privacy issue apart, is it a bit like adding "this user is on Facebook and Twitter?" SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's like some arbitrary social networking link, as it is this website (FaceBook/Twitter don't really have something analogous, except maybe something like an unofficial Hilary Clinton support page linking to her personal Twitter account or something -- but even then, we're not linking to the page from the article but from the talk page...).
 * Others probably know more about the history of this question from a privacy perspective than I do. I presumed there was a consensus that users who have identified as the subject of a page should be listed with this template and at Wikipedians with articles unless there's an objection (otherwise why does that page exist?). That is just a presumption, though. Speaking just for the template, the url parameter could require linking to a person's statement of consent to add the template (rather than just linking to a user identifying as the subject). That seems like a pretty safe approach, though would require going through all instances of this template and removing it from articles that were not edited by the user. I'm fine with that, but perhaps that sort of broad action would best be done through an RfC? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what is meant by the RfC. The history is that we had a template that was added to talk pages of subjects who had also edited Wikipedia. It led to all kinds of problems, and was eventually merged/moved (I forget what the process was) to this template, which is only about COI editing. This template should not be added to talk pages of people who just happen to have edited Wikipedia.


 * Now you are suggesting recreating the previous template. I'm saying that, if you do that, you will have to anticipate all kinds of issues. Must the editor have given consent? On Wikipedia or anywhere? Can it only be added if a link to that consent is added? What if the editor gets into trouble (socking, community ban)? Then we are linking to BLP violations. Can they insist that it be removed? And so on. Ideally, it should all be worked out before the template is created.


 * But even if it's all settled, there will be editors who add it out of process. And it creates an additional nuisance for article subjects to have to deal with. SarahSV (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparent COI
Re: the recent proposed change to "apparent COI," my understanding of the template is that it should be used when there is no doubt about the COI (because it has been disclosed) or there is no reasonable doubt (because it has become obvious in some other way).

If we start to use the language of "apparent COI," it would cover a much broader range of people, bearing im mind that editors adding this template may not know much about when to use it. That's why I reverted the addition of "apparent." But I do agree that the wording could use some improvement. SarahSV (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits reviewed / checked variable
It would be extremely useful if we could introduce a variable that indicates that the contributions of a COI editor have been reviewed/checked for neutrality. That way, people checking the talk page know if they should still be worried about unfixed NPOV issues, or whether the issue is historical and now fixed. What do people think? T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 23:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've boldly added this, since it's so obviously an improvement. When a date is supplied to, the template will now display a sentence in the block of text before contributor names that indicates when the edits were last checked. This date applies to all contributors, not just one. ~ RobTalk 01:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding this. This is quite useful! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary 'edited here' parameter
If I'm reading this template's documentation correctly, then it seems to say that it should only be included for articles where users with potential conflicts of interest have already edited said articles or contributed to their discussions (making them "actual" conflicts of interest). Given this, it seems to me that the EH parameters are redundant and can be removed. Am I missing something? – Quoth (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Identifying the edit containing the declaration
Is there any interest in adding parameters to indicate the edit in which the contributor indicated their COI? Largoplazo (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I could see this being helpful if the diff isn't the addition of the template itself to an article's talk page. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That goes in the "Otherlinks" parameter - we do that all the time. The documentation says that as well. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed that! (I can't say that "otherlinks" is very specific, though.) Thanks. Largoplazo (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

What does "checked for neutrality" mean?
Pinging editors who have recently edited this page or the template. I'm asking because it appears to say that the edits have been checked to make sure that they are neutral. Is that what is actually meant? And if it is, supposed they aren't, or some editors are and some not? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the flag is the following. Suppose a COI editor has edited many articles in the past, and has just been added to the talk pages of those articles. At some point those articles should be checked. Having a checked flag in the template helps to keep track of those articles. I think the intended meaning of "for neutrality" here is more like "for obvious COI issues". Manul ~ talk 14:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * was added following discussion here. from what i have seen, usually the person who places the tag had already done cleanup, and lists themselves there.  I don't use it myself. Jytdog (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yea, the original idea was to differentiate an article which has rampant and uncorrected wp:COI and promotional problems versus an article that had a problem five years back but was subsequently checked and any T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 12:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be obvious. It was added to an article where I'd identified socks and looked as though I'd done cleanup as Jytdog suggests. Maybe needs better documentation. Doug Weller  talk 12:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Declaration
Could we please add a parameter to easily link the declaration of COI? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have U X -otherlinks. Other links: This optional parameter may be used to provide a link to the diff of the editor's COI declaration. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 15:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That is where i put it. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Weird sentence here
Template currently contains the text "The template should not be used solely to identify an article subject as a Wikipedian." What does this mean, exactly? Could someone explain/ justify? Thanks. KDS4444 (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyone who creates or edits an article is, by definition, a Wikipedian. Some would argue that editors creating or editing an article about a Wikipedian are "connected" to the subject by virtue of also being Wikipedians. The sentence explains that we don't count that as a "connected contributor" situation. Compare this to the argument by some that the article about Wikipedia should be tagged as a conflict-of-interest article because anyone working on it is a Wikipedia user who, therefore, has a conflict of interest with respect to the article's topic. Largoplazo (talk) 12:57, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

BLP concern
The documentation of this template currently says:


 * For paid editors, use Connected contributor (paid).

(emboldening in original). Since this template is not for use in relation to paid contributors, the mark-up  should be removed.

Otherwise, the use of the template in many cases falsely accuses named article subjects, who have made often good-faith corrections to their biography, of paid editing. Such false allegations are contrary to our own BLP guidelines. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with removing that. We should use the other template for paid editing. SarahSV (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you SarahSV. Following your comment, I removed that text. I have now been reverted, contrary to WP:DRNC, with an edit summary of "this does not have consensus". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As someone who is a serial WiR - a role discussed in the COI guideline and PAID policy, you should not be directly editing this template anyway just as you should not edit the COI guideline directly. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:COI says this about WiRs:  There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as benign. These include Wikipedians in residence.... Apart from that, you are, of course completely wrong in what you say. But in any case, you will notice - as will other editors - that before editing this template, I came to this talk page and obtained consensus for my proposed edit. A consensus which has withstood your attempt to override it through edit-warring. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, we are careful with using the PAID template which makes a definitive statement X "has been paid". This tag is used when there is either a declared COI that is not necessarily a "paid editor" per se, or where there is WP:APPARENTCOI, which could be paid, or autobiography, or any of the other numerous kinds of COI that are possible.  The "may be" with the several options, is essential for this template. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog: Agreement and or consensus do not require an Ivote. There is discussion here which followed and supported a specific move. You seem to feel you can override the two editors who are working here; a somewhat high handed action. Second, you continue to attack Andy despite explanations from multiple editors on the role of WiR. While you certainly have a right to your opinion your persistent attacks and disruptive actions are less than productive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC))
 * User:Littleolive oil about your edit note here, where do you see actual consensus here, in a discussion that was opened just today? We don't change templates that are transcluded on many, many pages willy nilly.
 * If we have to get this template protected perhaps we should do that... Jytdog (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is agreement to remove. Jytdog your actions given the collaborative tone of this agreement is disruptive. There are no time restrictions on when agreement is reached. If you had a concern with the changes made you should be here with the other editor discussing it not reverting to your preferred version despite the agreement. You've reverted two editors despite the agreement. I agree with Sarah and Andy here by the way.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC))
 * There is not, and again, we don't edit templates willy nilly. The discussion (and this is a discussion, not a !vote) was opened just a few hours ago and nobody has actually responded to my response, now have they.  Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Weakly agree with Jytdog, but maybe it could be worded in a way that makes it clearer the paid editing disclosure only applies in some cases?
 * Also, I have to assume the "do not revert again" edit summary is based on a misreading of the situation, since restoring the contested edit in this situation, on a template used on more than 9000 pages, is not great. x2 The comment I see after edit conflict indicates my assumption was wrong, unfortunately. Regardless, follow BRD. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The template says: The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include Paid contribution disclosure, Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view." It is already nuanced; not sure what further would need to be done. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * i have asked for more input at WT:COI. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Adding WP:PAID does suggest that there might be undisclosed paid editing, a terms-of-use violation, which is more than the usual COI. I agree that it could amount to a BLP violation. When we know there's paid editing, we use the other template, so I can't see the point of adding PAID to this one. SarahSV (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a question.. It seems like there's some confused language in the template and documentation. It is not for assumed conflict of interest, per the documentation, but whether or not it's been declared is an optional parameter. That would just leave a scenario whereby other editors find out with certainty that there is a COI, but it has not been declared? If that were the case, wouldn't they know whether or not it's paid editing or something else? If it's not just for when it's certain there's a COI, what separates appropriate use of this template from the "assumed" in the documentation? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's very confused. I'm about to try to fix it. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In practice we use this template in situations where there is declared COI that is not paid, and where there is apparent COI which may be paid or otherwise. The use of may in this template is essential; people are reading it against its plain wording. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SlimVirgin please don't. There is obviously a lot of disagreement about this should say. This is not a time or page to be BOLD. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It needs to be fixed because the context in which it was written has changed. At the time people had been using this template (for years, as I recall) to identify BLP subjects who were Wikipedians. That usage changed as understanding of COI increased. The way we wrote the instructions at the time made sense in that context: use it for actual COI, not potential; that is, not simply to point out a connection between an editor and a topic. But it doesn't make sense now. SarahSV (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I originally added PAID in September 2015, but I thought better of it and removed it again the next day.  Then  restored it in December 2016.  SarahSV (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here from the note at WT:COI. (If there continues to be strong disagreement, I suggest opening an RfC.) I've looked at the dispute, and I agree with the editors who would omit PAID from this template, and use the other template for paid editors. An alternative that I can suggest is to say: "Relevant policies and guidelines may include Conflict of interest, Autobiography, and Neutral point of view (see also Paid contribution disclosure)." For me, the issue is to be clear and fair about how we characterize what an editor has done. However, I think that invoking BLP in this case is WP:CRYBLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Templates

 * , a major issue is that the templates aren't flexible or easy to use. Ideally we would have one for normal COI only (with confirmed, not confirmed, and declared options), and one for paid editors (ditto: confirmed, not confirmed, declared) that are easy for new editors to fill in. I wonder whether would be willing to help. SarahSV (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just been working with the ones we have, dealing with what they actually say. If folks want to make better/different ones that is fine with me.  fwiw the big distinction that I make -- given the current templats -- is between declared paid editing and everything else. To me it is a serious thing to use the PAID template because of its definitive statement about the editor, and I don't use it unless we have a disclosure of paid editing from the editor.  I've debated using it on articles edited by socks of sock farms that do paid editing, but even then it is not clear if the account edited that particular article for pay, so even then i am reluctant and prefer this one.
 * also fwiw i liked your changes; am not sure others will, but i did. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The paid template doesn't need a disclosure. I wonder whether the WMF would help us to write a good PAID template, given that it's a terms-of-use issue. SarahSV (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I dont know if you recall this, but the position of various arbitrators has been that they didn't want to touch paid editing issues with a ten foot pole because of personal legal liability issues with regard to making statements about actual people (the editors in question) when we have no way to verify questions of whether X paid Y or not. Here is one such statement (from a pretty hard core "content not contributors" person).  I have heard similar from other arbs but cannot put my hands on diffs at the moment. Anyway, the fact that people here in the community say those kinds of things -- people with the power to indefinitely block and the like -- has made me take using the paid tag very very seriously. That, and I personally have no leash on OUTING issues as a condition of my unblock for violating it.  So no, I am not going to change the way I used the PAID template as long as it makes the definitive statement "X has edited for pay" and fwiw I think others should be that cautious as well. Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

, of course. I'd be more than happy to help make this template more flexible and easier to use. Can I check what options you think are best? For example, is there a practical difference between declared and confirmed? created a template Template:Connected contributor (WiR) very recently, so that may be something that you might also consider. As you know, I'm very keen not to alienate our Wikimedians in Residence, so we ought to make clear here that there is a more specific template available. Are there any more useful options? Are the ones above sensible/complete/contradictory? What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you! There are so many options, I would need time to think about it. Ideally, we would have one template and a template wizard to take people through the options to choose the right parameters. For starters, we have paid/non-paid; suspected, confirmed, disclosed; WiR/non-WiR. For paid: do we know the client, employer and other affiliations; or do we know just one of them; or are client and employer the same? And for both paid and non-paid, there may be multiple editors. And we need a space to link to disclosures, draft edits, and affiliations.


 * Re: disclosed/confirmed. Disclosed is when the editor acknowledges that they are paid. Confirmed would be when some other factor makes it clear, even if the editor has not disclosed. SarahSV (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also of the position that it is important to have separate templates for WiRs. We will need to keep an eye on things, such as paid editors claiming that they are a WiR when they do not really qualify. But it is still an important distinction and we do not want to paint both groups with the same brush. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * When I wrote above that ideally we'd have one template, I was thinking of a situation where we had a wizard to guide us through the fields, and that once we'd answered all the questions, the wizard would create the template for us. If we had that, new editors would be able to use it. As it stands, very few people add these templates. SarahSV (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

How will this work when there are multiple editors with different statuses? Do we have up to 7 different templates at the top of a talk page - some articles already have screenfulls of templates already. What is the process for when user:A accuses user:B of being a paid editor and user:B denies this? User:C marks that they are connected with the subject of the article, user:D insists that they are being paid to edit, user:C says they aren't - which template is used? Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Distinguishing between direct and indirect contributions
Right now, we just have a parameter for "This user has contributed to the article." (or "Their editing has included contributions to this article." in what is presently Template:Connected contributor (paid), slated for merging at WP:TFD; which is better wording?). We're not drawing any distinction between directly editing the article versus working on it via sandbox and edit-request. These are very different and we should be making the distinction, either with an additional parameter or a variant parameter, per-user. We CoI editors to use sandboxing and requests, for internal policy reasons. However, part of the purpose of the template is notifying any readers that care enough to look at the talk page that a non-neutral party was involved in the content development. Thus it is not desirable to either give no indication of CoI involvement just because the CoI editor didn't edit directly, nor conflate both approaches to CoI editing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 March 2018
Please add, per a nomination by  &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Template threshold
What is the appropriate threshold for using this template? WP:COIEDIT is referenced in the documentation, but I believe there should be more granular guidelines listed here as well. This was discussed a few years ago, but nothing was decided. The reason I am raising this is because I saw an instance where an editor posted this template on the various talk pages of all previous (and current) companies where he/she has worked. However, as far as I can tell this editor is in good standing and has not done anything wrong or improper in these articles. I understand the desire to be transparent and to disclose any potential conflict of interest, but this struck me as bordering on self-promotional. To be clear, I don't think this editor has done anything wrong and I don't want to imply or suggest that. Clearly this is not a large issue, or we would see this template used everywhere, but I think it deserves some discussion. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 18:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 March 2018
Please remove the TfM template from this page, as the TfD result was keep. Luis150902 ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 20:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for closing the discussion. SarahSV (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The message for banned users needs to be much better
It is very poor writing to say "all edits by them should be reverted on sight per WP:REVERTBAN" for the following reasons.
 * It doesn't actually confirm that the user in question has indeed been banned. One could easily interpret the line as saying that all users who declare a connection are condemned to suffer this fate.
 * It misrepresents Wikipedia policy. WP:REVERTBAN does not instruct people to automatically revert any edit by a banned user no matter how helpful. Nor would any policy crafted by thinking people. It simply says that the presumption should be in favour of reversion.
 * It has the word "them" hardcoded. If a pronoun in the sentence is still desired after the above two problems are fixed, it should either have a manual field for this or some fancy piece of code that scrapes the gender section of the user's profile. Connor Behan (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bumping before the bot moves this. Connor Behan (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed "should" to "may", which seems to better sum up policy - it is triggered by the parameter "Ux-banned", so I think it is clear enough when to be invoked. As for the pronouns, the vast majority of users (IIRC) do not bother setting this parameter, so it usually is not accounted for in templates like this. Mdann52 (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That helps but I think the linking of this phrase to "Ux-banned" would only be clear to experienced editors. Let's say I read the following phrase on a talk page without looking at the source code: "This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. All edits by them may be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN." If I were a new editor, I might think that anyone who contributes to an article and declares a connection may be reverted on sight, and start exceeding 3RR for non-banned users. It would be more clear to say "This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. This user has been banned so edits by them may be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN." Connor Behan (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammar fix
I think it'd flow more nicely to change "the article" to "this article". - Sdkb (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Documentation
I have copyedited the documentation:
 * starting off with a succinct example
 * example actually uses the more complicated parameter "otherlinks"
 * this example uses quality-of-life templates and is ready to be copied and pasted by readers
 * advice/recommendations previously emphasized using bold now uses mboxes
 * standardized presentation of parameters
 * separation / explanation of single-user usage and multi-user usage

Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedian
Notable Wikipedian redirects here, and older versions of this template were more about recognising notable people who had devoted time to Wikipedia than the current, more COI--focused version. I think it would be good to split out Notable Wikipedian at this point for article subjects who have made non-trivial contributions to Wikipedia. I'm thinking here of Mike Dickison, aka, whose Wikipedia contributions have been mentioned as exemplary in media coverage (without naming the account in the ones I've seen). I would hate to add a "badge of shame" to that article, it would be downright rude, in fact, but I think we should celebrate highly regarded people who donate time to improving the project. Nike Dickison is far from the only example. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can someone explain to me how and why Notable Wikipedian redirects here? What is or was its function? CapnZapp (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The message for banned users needs to be much better (and the archive rate is too fast)
Last month I made a complaint that "all edits by them should be reverted on sight per WP:REVERTBAN" was poor wording. It now says "all edits by them may may be reverted on sight per WP:REVERTBAN" but there are still at least three problems: Hoping someone can fix this. Connor Behan (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't actually confirm that the user in question has indeed been banned. One could easily interpret the line as saying that all users who declare a connection are condemned to suffer this fate.
 * The paid version still says "should" which misrepresents Wikipedia policy.
 * The documentation example The U2-banned to U10-banned parameter text says this as well.
 * Hi Connor Behan. You're referring to the text on this page: Template:Connected contributor/doc? Which specific edits are you proposing? I'm having a bit of difficulty following what the request here is. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake on that last point. The documentation is actually fine (and it is the only thing I would have been able to edit seeing as the template is protected). The text I do not like is the following:
 * | 4 =


 * | 3 =


 * | 4 =


 * | 4 =
 * | 4 =


 * In place of this, I would like Template:Connected contributor and Template:Connected contributor (paid) to say "This user has been banned and so edits by them may be reverted on sight per WP:REVERTBAN." Or perhaps a variation like changing "so" to "therefore" or changing "them" to "him / her". The reason is that users who declare a connection are not automatically banned and yet the template seems to imply otherwise. A new user reading it would see "This user has declared a connection. All edits by them should be reverted on sight per WP:REVERTBAN." This makes it sound like the carte blanche for reverting him comes from the fact that he has declared a connection. It does not make reference to the true reason which is that he has declared a connection and been banned. Connor Behan (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:MZMcBride and User:Mdann52 to speed up the process :). Connor Behan (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Connor Behan. This template has a sandbox page at Template:Connected contributor/sandbox that you can edit. It has also has accompanying test cases at Template:Connected contributor/testcases. Once you've updated the sandbox template page, it'll be easy to review and sync a diff. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure MZMcBride. I just made two changes to the sandbox. The testcase page doesn't show any surprise so I'm happy with it. Connor Behan (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Can an admin please sync Special:Permalink/847643953 with Template:Connected contributor? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Killiondude (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to complete the talk section - the bit about "(and the archive rate is too fast)" in the title referred to the archive bot previously archiving every month, archiving Connor Behan's original request before anybody responded. As part of the response, the archival parameters where changed, notably lowering the rate of archiving from one to six months. CapnZapp (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

UX-banned
Good day, friends! As this template has an important function in the COI area, which is certainly not my primary area of interaction, I don't want to try to do this unilaterally. With the arrival of partial blocking, would anyone be opposed, or willing, to adjust the UX-banned option to allow a new option, "partial"? I have recently partial blocked a couple of COI editors from their COI topics, allowing them to edit constructively elsewhere or use the talk page properly. However, I cannot denote this in the template. UX-banned=yes is much stronger wording than I think warranted for a partial block. Such a change should also probably be made to the paid version of the template, if adopted here.

Of course, this might be considered unnecessary bookkeeping. Thoughts? -- ferret (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Issue with parameter
The template will display up to 10 users, then give up. Is there any way to display more? CanadianOtaku Talk Page 16:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Should editedhere=no display anything?
At Talk:Molly White (writer), I added the connected contributor tag with no. However, the template doesn't actually display anything to indicate that she has not edited the page. Should it? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Readability revamp
I've made various adjustments to this template's language in the sandbox to help improve readability. See here. The changes include things like using singular or plural rather than (s), displaying text for no, and repurposing (with backward compatibility) the declared parameter to allowing linking to the diff. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns; I'll plan to implement in a day or few if all looks well. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅, following sandbox testing in which all looks good. Will update documentation shortly. Please let me know if any issues arise. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2022
Per WP:ACCESSIBILITY, the  tags make it really difficult to read text, especially on mobile devices and other small devices. Please change

to

&mdash; CrafterNova  [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 13:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'r there 20:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"declared" parameter issue
The template text seems to ignore the value of the  parameter. Whether "yes" or "no", it always displays "has declared a personal or professional connection". A value of "no" should produce "may be personally or professionally connected". Examples: Draft talk:Barbara Haering, Draft talk:Jacques Picard. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can just remove the parameter. Nardog (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)