Template talk:Coi-stern

Balanced?

I have concerns about this template. Yes, many (new) users may need some stern talking to about COI, but what if the accusation isn't true? What if there isn't a conflict of interest? In its current form, this will likely see new users walk away from Wikipedia if they have been accused of something that they aren't guilty of. Could we please have a discussion how this can be amended so that editors learn what they can do if they want to defend themselves of unjustified accusations? Pings to Newslinger, Deb, and DrThneed (who's been slapped with this template without having no COI whatsoever). Schwede66 23:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this @Schwede66 - I think I was given a Template:Uw-coi instead but the same problem applies, there is nothing in the template to indicate what a user should or could do if they feel the template has been unfairly applied. If I were a new user I would be completely at a loss, and would probably walk away. Even as a more experienced user, I find it quite unpleasant. I also have questions the template doesn't answer - does this count as a black mark against me, despite being unreasonably applied? If so, how do I get the warning removed? What were the grounds for applying it in the first place, and why does the editor using the template not have to say what those are when applying it? I have looked at the conflict of interest policy and don't see any answers. If experienced editors can go around slapping these sort of off-putting templates on people's talk pages with no basis (at least in my case) then I am amazed editor retention isn't even worse than it is. DrThneed (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The current Coi-stern template is not the original. I changed the wording a while ago, with consensus, in order to have an additional level which was more clearly worded, rather than repeating the same Uw-COI message (which specifically refers to paid spamming) multiple times on the same page. We get so many spammers now, as well as people who simply haven't checked the guidelines, and I personally only use this template when the COI is obvious, e.g. if the contributor has only ever tried to create an article on one topic or has been previously warned. I don't fully understand DrThneed's concerns - the message won't stop him editing and there is nothing to stop him deleting it. However, what most people (other than those with a blatant COI) do is respond to the message in one of two ways:

1. I don't have a COI
2. I do have a connection but I didn't realise it was a COI.

I would agree, however, that it would have been helpful if Toddst1 had made it clear which of your many articles he was concerned about. Deb (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I did not make my concerns clear. I appreciate that in the majority of cases where this template and others like it will be used, there is a COI. But I think this template is lacking any acknowledgement that sometimes it will be applied in error. It gives no direction about what do if that is the case, and I think that is a pretty important omission. To anyone new to Wikipedia that is incredibly off-putting, don't you think? How would a new editor know that it is OK to delete the template (I've been here for years and I don't know that, or that the number of warnings an editor has isn't stored in some stat somewhere)? The template doesn't suggest any way to even respond to its placement, which for a new editor might be useful. Community norms can be quite opaque here. I'm simply saying that something along the lines of "If you believe you have no COI and this template has been placed in error, here is what to do" would be useful and more welcoming.

In my own case @Toddst1 made it clear which article he was accusing me of having a COI with (Deirdre Hart), but not what the reason for his belief is. He applied the COI template to my page after I reverted an edit he made to a commonly-used heading on a new page I had written, about someone I have no COI with. I am still waiting for any explanation from him. DrThneed (talk) 09:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I see. I think you're extrapolating an issue that would apply to most warning templates. Any such template can be applied in error, by anyone, at any time. If someone were in the habit of using warning templates indiscriminately - and this has been known - you could make a complaint about them to an administrator (or at ANI) and they would probably get a warning themselves. But I don't see how it's a problem specific to this template. As for telling people what to do, beyond not doing it again, there isn't a specific course of action. This is a community; no one rules. Deb (talk) 09:48, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Deb, I'm uneasy that you cannot see the issue here. The template, if applied in error, may be most off-putting to new editors. That this kind of problem also exists with other templates is not the point. The point is what we are discussing here. How should this be amended so that new editors who have been targeted in error aren't lost to Wikipedia? What message should we be giving to those editors? With regards to Toddst1 not explaining himself to DrThneed thus far, that is of course his choice but I might ask for him to give an explanation at another venue (ANI perhaps) if the silence continues. Schwede66 00:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66 I don't see any way round that unless you plan to introduce new guidelines. You have the opportunity to do that, of course. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:Template index/User talk namespace would be the place to raise it. Deb (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)