Template talk:Connected contributor/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 Wikipedia: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#Mitigating_Corruption)

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. --El on ka 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. --El on ka 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 declared=yes 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)

Done. 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)

@Nick Levinson: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?

Use a different template
Tweak this template so it works OK without any parameters
Create a new template
Just name names anyway
Something else...?

Any suggestions? bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

IP range connected contributor

Just curious, is it necessary to tag IP ranges as a connected contributor? For example, the host for 216.29.96.198 (talk · contribs) 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?

— 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. — Cirt (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Merged template

Mdann52 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)

@SlimVirgin: 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)

@Peteforsyth:, 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, Dialectric, 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#RfC:_Terms_of_Use_-_how_to_disclose_broker_.28Elance_etc.29 Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding parameters: employer, client, affiliation

Previous discussions at:

I discussed this template with WWB Too, 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 following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of the article. Relevant guidelines covering this situation include Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Peteforsyth (talk · contribs) | Employer: Wiki Strategies | Client: Acme Corp | Affiliation: Free Geek

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

| 6 = {{#if:{{{U1-employer|{{{U1-employer}}}}}}| {{!}} Employer: {{{U1-employer|{{{U1-employer}}}}}}|}}

| 7 = {{#if:{{{U1-client|{{{U1-client}}}}}}| {{!}} Client: {{{U1-client|{{{U1-client}}}}}}|}}

| 8 = {{#if:{{{U1-affiliation|{{{U1-affiliation}}}}}}| {{!}} Affiliation: {{{U1-affiliation|{{{U1-affiliation}}}}}}|}}

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

Primefac 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)

Peteforsyth and Alakzi, would it make sense to have {{Connected contributor}} and Connected contributor (paid)? 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 Frietjes 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 {{Connected contributor (paid)}}. Does anyone know what to write so that we have:

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1 = A | person or company paying for the contributions = Smith Public Relations | client = Acme Pharmaceutical Inc.}}

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)

(edit conflict) 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. Jbh ^Talk 20:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Forgot to ping Alakzi and Peteforsyth 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)

Alakzi, done. Sarah ^(talk) 21:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please delete the doc page as well. Alakzi (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi 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:

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=SomeUser|U1-employer=SomeCompany|U1-client=SomeOtherCompany}}

which produces:

SomeUser (talk · contribs) has been paid by SomeCompany to edit on behalf of SomeOtherCompany.

and

{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=SomeUser|U1-employer=|U1-client=SomeOtherCompany}}

which produces:

SomeUser (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown 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. Jbh ^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.

Jbh ^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)

(edit conflict) Can the script not simply do something like:

If CLIENT==null : /*Swap CLIENT and EMPLOYER */

                               CLIENT=EMPLOYER

                               EMPLOYER=NULL

and continue the script from there or put some logic that does a bit if bounds checking like:

If (CLIENT != null && EMPLOYER=null) | CLIENT==EMPLOYER) then "SomeUser has been paid by SomeCompany to edit on their behalf."

Sorry for the crappy pseudo-code I have not written anything in decades. Jbh ^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. Jbh ^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? Jbh ^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. Jbh ^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:

{{Connected contributor (paid) |U1-client= |U1-employer= |User1=Test}}

Side by side comparison