Template talk:COI2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template was considered for deletion on 2007 May 18. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

[edit] Is this official policy?

Does this template represent official Wikipedia policy? If so could we modify it to get a more specific link to the policy that discourages people with a conflict of interest from editing articles? If it is not policy, I suggest that it's inappropriate (akin to mild vandalism) to affix the tag to the top of articles simply to point out that an editor has a conflict of interest -- that can be done in the discussion page or elsewhere.

The reason I ask is that the tag was recently attached to an article I'm working on, where one of the subjects of the article subsequently made what I consider minor (and valid) corrections to what I wrote. I don't think I'm the one being accused. Can't the subject of an article correct a date, a spelling, a number, something like that if there's no real controversy? I don't see any POV issue there.

Please forgive me if I'm overlooking something. If I am, other people may too -- hence the request for a clearer link on the template. Thx. 00:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC) - unsigned comment by User:Wikidemo.

Well, the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline says "Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, ...", and it defines "confict of interest" at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#What is a conflict of interest?. The template links to that guideline in the first sentence. Dunno how much clearer you could get. RossPatterson 22:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also answered at User talk:Wikidemo. I wrote it to reflect the guideline, and it was OK'd for use at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Experimental COI2 tag. Tearlach 22:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion and the clarification. However, it's not completely clear to me even after reviewing this in more depth. It looks like the COI guideline in the link is similar to the template but it's not an exact match and it doesn't completely support what the template says.

The template begins by asserting that the editor or main contributor of an article may have a COI. The COI guideline defines a COI as an "incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia ... and the aims of individual editors" then, later, enumerates a number of circumstances where this may arise. If you're going to tag an article as a COI violation you ought to cite a reason why and how there is a conflict of interest, not just assert there is one. Under COI policy, writing about your own organization is not automatically a conflict of interest, it is not even mentioned directly in that context. The policy says that if there is a "close relationship" of a financial nature there "may" be a conflict of interest. So you ought to do more than merely point out that an editor is writing about his own company. The template goes on to say that "conflict of interest guidelines strongly advise that editors do not directly edit articles on topics where they have a close personal or business connection." The guideline only says such connections may be a COA. Then it goes on to say that "if there is a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when...editing articles related to...your organization."

So there are two gaps where the template oversteps the guideline. First, a person edits an article about their company but there is no conflict. Second, there is in fact a conflict but the person has gone ahead while exercising great caution. It doesn't say avoid, it says exercise great caution.

My final concern is what a neutral or a conflicted editor has to do to rehabilitate an article, once tagged. The template advises "you" to do something about it. But what about Wikipedians who are not "you," in other words editors other than the one with the claimed conflict of interest. What are they supposed to do? Remove the edits? Remove the tag if they think it doesn't apply? It seems a little much to have to ask for consensus every time there is a claim of possible COI. But it also seems like overstepping things for a disinterested editor to simply remove edits or remove a tag.

I hope all this doesn't sound too wonky or nitpicky. I don't mean any disrespect, and I fully support the goals behind doing this. I have other fish to fry, making direct contributions and updating articles -- I'm not a meta Wikipedian. I was just hoping to understand and see if people had thought this one through all the way. It must be a very common situation, where people make harmless or not-so-harmless edits to their own company's article. Wikidemo 02:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: I think you're reading far too much into it.

Longer answer: I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you're making some mistaken assumptions. Because of the nature of Wikipedia - uncoordinated editorship - you're never going to get totally watertight logical coherence or consistency in the way of, say, a bureaucracy or legal system. It's all a best-attempt, and there are always going to be balance-of-probability questions.

The "may" is because you can't be 100% sure what's going on. The kind of situation: User:Popsykrisps is main editor of Popsy Krisps. Do they work for the company? Are they just a fan? Is it just a coincidence; their name is Stanislas Popsykrisps and they liked the look of the article? The template indicates only that it's a situation worth investigating.

As to "it ought to state a reason", that's usually done elsewhere (i.e. talk page of user suspected of COI and WP:COI/N).

So there are two gaps where the template oversteps the guideline. First, a person edits an article about their company but there is no conflict. Second, there is in fact a conflict but the person has gone ahead while exercising great caution. It doesn't say avoid, it says exercise great caution.

I don't think those matter. Your first case doesn't exist: that's more or less the definition of conflict of interest. The "conflict" isn't only when you produce biased writing; it's the actual situation of having a finger in both pies. The second: templates and other instructions necessarily offer a simplified version of guidelines and policies. In this case, WP:COI says "avoid or exercise great caution". The practicality: only a few, a very few, people can write about themselves completely objectively; most are best told not to. So for the template version, WP:COI boils down to "avoid". Telegraph that there's a loophole, and every blighter (and many already do so) will insist that they're doing it with great caution.

Point taken about the "you" being unspecified. I've amended it. Tearlach 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits required following the TfD

I'm considering the TfD result as being probational on the edits and changes being made to these templates that were identified in the TfD discussion.

• Template should be placed on the Talk page only
• Template should not suggest 'COI taint' because of the article's edit history.
• Language should not be inflamatory or suggest an mal-intent of an editor.
• There should be a clear identification of when the tag can be removed.
• It shouldn't look like angry fruit salad.

I've made changes to the templates based on this. --Barberio 09:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On the 'talk page only' thing, I'm considering contacting someone with a suitable bot, to move all the current transclusions to the talk pages. --Barberio 09:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. You don't have consensus to do that. With all respect, you are highly partisan. You don't have the right to assert what needs to be done here. You're not in charge here and now. If anyone wants to edit the templates, please suggest changes. See also Template talk:COI. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 03:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose per Jenochman. No consensus, and I believe it should be on main page along with other maintenance templates. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mild oppose Agree there is no consensus to date. COI tags should be on main page provided they really are "maintenance templates" (meaning, a clear way for a neutral editor to clean the article up and then remove the tag rather than a permanent mark. The templates need clairification on that. Wikidemo 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for a rewrite

You can read all the comments from people saying why the template should be rewritten, and how the template should be rewritten, here. --Barberio 11:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please state specific concerns and propose new wording. I am open to improvements, but oppose weakening these templates. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The concerns have already been stated, on the TfD, and above. The proposed wording was in the edits I made. --Barberio 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect you're both right so please stop the edit wars! There is no consensus at all in the TID, let alone a mandate there to edit the templates. The subject at hand was whether or not to delete so; people were not on notice that they were voting on changes. I strongly feel that some improvements ought to be made, but let's do it to strengthen not weaken the COI efforts. Barberio, I think it was a nice try but the added verbiage ended up muddying things instead of clarifying them.

The TID result was no consensus, i.e. keep the articles. Now let's have a new discussion of whether to change them and how. I propose:

1. Keep existing templates as-is but deprecate them.
2. Create a new template or family of templates something like this:

This article may involve a conflict of interest. <Type of conflict:> <template explanation for each type, including links to guidelines and policy> If you are conflicted, please do not make further edits until this matter is resolved. Feel free to discuss further or collaborate with disinterested editors via the talk page. If not conflicted, please help by reviewing the article, correcting as needed, then removing this tag once the article adheres to Wikipedia standards. If there is disagreement, you may discuss on WP:COI/N.

Of course I left out the contentious part, which is what to put in the brackets. We could have several different types of interest, each with an explanation and links. For example "personal relation to subject matter" or "writing about employer," etc. What do you think? Wikidemo 16:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's still a major point that these templates should not be placed on main space article pages, but talk pages only. This is "yet-another-ugly-tag-to-put-on-articles-I-don't-like" at the moment. If there are identifiable significant content problems with the article, those should be identified with the correct cleanup or dispute tag on the article. But vauge 'there might be a problem that needs to be investigated' should be kept to the talk pages.

It's also very important that the template reflect actual COI guidelines. COI editors are not restricted from editing, only from pure self promotion or making edits that may be contended. And it's important to note that there is no guideline or policy requiring people to go to WP:COI\N to get this tag removed.

Specific content problems with the article should be identified using the normal tags, we don't need COI, COI2, COI3, COI4...

This article may have content issues due to a conflict of interest. Editors with a conflict of interests should avoid editing making contentious edits to this article, or using the article for self promotion. If you have edits that you are unsure about making, discuss them on this talk page first. Feel free to discuss further or collaborate with independent editors. Specific issues may be discussed at the conflict of interests noticeboard. Please remove this tag if there is no longer an issue with the article.

--Barberio 17:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I am not edit warring, and never will. I haven't reverted anything here, and never revert anything more than once. The above changes seem reasonable, and I like the polite tone; however, I think the tag needs to appear on the article. If there is a problem with an article because of COI editing, anyone reading the article needs to know that. If we put the tag on the talk page, many visitors won't see it. Please give other editors a chance to weigh in before editing the templates. This will help promote harmonious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 17:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point, if there is a fundamental content problem we should warn the reader. But that's not the situation with these templates. They're saying there might be a problem because of COI. Might be is not the same as there is. And where there is an identifiable fundamental content problem with the article, there are much better tags that can be used. --Barberio 19:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do like Barberio's new template better than mine. I have a few nits and will raise them if it becomes clear that we're really working on a new template.

But I support putting it on the front page, as long as there's a path to evaluating or changing the article to remove the taint and get rid of the tag. A conflict of interest is a red flag that the article might be biased. But the average reader doesn't have the time or resources to sort that out. They come here from google, do a quick read, then they're off. Even if you're experienced you often get fooled because of sock puppets, or just because the relation between an account and the article often involves connecting the dots with facts that aren't readily apparent. Even avid Wikipedians don't read the discussion pages most of the time. So if you do find a conflict of interest it's a service to the whole community to flag it. Raise the point and let the reader decide for themselves how much to trust the article. Then after a neutral party wants to take the time to chase down the facts and see if the article really is biased, they can edit and remove the flag, or decide to leave it up if it's still a problem. It's a good system and I think it's working great. Actual bias and conflict is more of a problem around here than false accusations of bias, so let's not tip the scales too far against the people working hard to keep things clean. If there is a tag on the discussion page it ought to go inline instead of on top, and stay there indefinitely as part of a discussion. Nothing wrong with a permanent record that at one time the article had a likely conflict of interest, together with a record of how it got resolved. I wasn't accusing anyone in specific of an edit war and was using the term loosely, sorry if it seemed that way. It was just getting a little contentious. There was also the beginning of a delete / revert war earlier. --Wikidemo 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another view for the template

Here are a some alternate versions that I've come up with for the template. I picked the original version from one of the talk pages, but loss track of which one. So, I'll post the variations on the template here.

I'm posting the template messages here for comment. The message for the template still seems wordy, but this can be worked out over time. For this effort, certain lines from the one example can be mixed with lines from the other examples to come up with an acceptable template message. But, got to find a way to make the message simpler for the template. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 08:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD discussion

If you haven't already done so, pleae review this CFD debate. The consensus was to delete the category Category:Articles which may be biased which the template uses. Since I'm not too familiar with this template and where it's used, I'd appreciate it if someone who is could change it to reference an appropriate category. Thank you. -- Seed 2.0 15:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. ;) --Seed 2.0 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could we make it a guideline that this should only be placed on the bottom of the page?

Since it's really just a warning, and really just an encouragement for more people to contribute, it seems like it really shouldn't ever be put on the top of the page. It looks unprofessional, especially since it's not a policy of wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Not a real encyclopedia. Fredsmith2 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the strengths of Wikipedia is transparency. We show our sources, and we show a complete edit history. I think the COI warnings need to go at the top so the reader is aware that they are looking at a compromised article. If you like, we can add a category to the template so those who are concerned can locate all the COI articles, edit them to restore neutral point of view, and then remove the warnings. We need to fix problems, not hide them. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A category is a really good idea. I'm all for someone creating one. Thanks. As a side note, I'm not convinced that any of the pages with this template really have problems that wouldn't be better addressed by other templates. Thus, bottoming this template wouldn't hide problems if the template really isn't an indication of problems. Fredsmith2 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encourages stalking?

I finally figured out what bugs me about this template. It's that this template seems to encourage stalking. Doesn't wikipedia have some policy that wikipedians don't try to hunt down information on other wikipedians? Probably not worded exactly like that, but having this template just seems to go against being able to somewhat anonymously contribute to wikipedia if you want to.

Also, it seems likely to really make someone really mad sometime in the future. I'm not sure what the related policy is, but I think it's something like WP:Wikipedia really doesn't want any legal troubles. And, it seems that you could really slap this on every single page on wikipedia. Most articles on here were started by someone with a conflict of interest, otherwise the person wouldn't have been interested enough to start the article. Fredsmith2 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest would have to be pretty broadly defined to say that "(m)ost articles on here were started by someone with a conflict of interest". For example, I wrote several article stubs this morning on players for the 1915 Chicago Whales baseball team. I have absolutely no connection to these players (other than being a fan of modern-day baseball) -- I'm not related to them or any other baseball player, my employment has nothing to do with baseball, and I've never lived in Chicago. Most editors here would object to a {{COI2}} tag being put on that type of article.

And I'm not sure I follow how this encourages stalking. Where I've seen the {{COI}} and {{COI2}} templates used, the suspicion is created when a user name is remarkably similar to the subject of the article or someone connected in the article. (Don Fernando and Michael de Adder are the first two random articles I clicked on that link to the {{COI2}} template, and both are in this situation). In each case, the editor chose a user name linked to a subject they chose to edit -- it's not rocket science to guess that a conflict of interest might be involved.--Fabrictramp 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between stalking a user to retaliate for editorial disagreements, and investigating a user who appears to be violating site standards. This template has widespread support. Why don't you come to WP:COIN and help investigate a few cases? You'll see why this template is so useful. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

These two comments don't really seem in the spirit of wikipedia. Wikipedia wasn't made to investigate people. It was made to make this huge pseudo-encyclopedia-like-wiki project. I still think that anyone who uses this tag is lazy, and really should be using another tag instead. Is there a category that we can put onto this template like: [[Category:Needs better tags]]?

Fredsmith2 08:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fredsmith2, you don't need to be insulting to make your points. Wikipedia wasn't made for corporate vanity and advertising, so we need these templates to tag articles when that happens. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my wording if it offended anyone. Lazy doesn't acurately describe everyone who has ever used this tag, so I was wrong in universalizing laziness in conjunction with folks who use this tag. I'm not trying to insult anyone. What I am trying to do is get people to contribute content to wikipedia and to encourage, rather than discourage newbies, even if they edit articles where they have a conflict of interest.

Wikipedia already has more specific tags for corporate vanity and advertising. I still haven't seen an arguement that would convince me to actually keep this template, if it were to be nominated for deletion. It does seem that someone familiar with Wikipedia would use other tags rather than this tag. And, Wikipedia just strongly recommends that editors be disconnected to the subject material; it has no official policy that says you can't do it.Fredsmith2 21:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the situation. It does not encourage stalking as much as it causes the reader to get the salt shaker out before reading. As someone who deals with recent changes and new pages on a frequent basis, I have seen LOTS of "Article XYZ" created by "User XYZ" which was nothing more than a spam piece. Although the subject was notable and verifiable, we need tags like this to show the general users that "Hey! This article may be slanted so far to one side you may as well avoid drinking V8 for the next year to read it." That is what the tag means. It brings other editors to these pages to see what is up and what can be done to salvage the article so it is made encyclopedic instead of "Go XYZ!" Spryde 11:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You could acutally edit the article, instead of just tagging it. Neil ム 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

True. But sometimes I personally would rather tag and move on (and followup later). That is the wonderful thing about Wikipedia, you don't have to do everything :) Spryde 12:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are the guidelines for using this tag?

I think it would be really helpful if someone decided when this tag should be used and when it shouldn't be used, and wrote up some guidelines.

• It's unclear if using this tag also means that the article my not be notable. Does it?
• If someone creates a page with a similar name to their username, is this enough evidence to put this tag on it?
• Should you put a comment on the talk page when you tag a page with this template?
• How do you prove or disprove conflict of interest?
• Are there guidelines on what information shouldn't be used in tracking down whether or not there's a COI? For example, how far is too far in investigating and researching information about wikipedians?
• Does the content of the article have any bearing on whether we use this tag? And, if so, how?

Fredsmith2 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Fred, thank you for being polite. I really appreciate it. This tag may be used on any article that contains material that would be a violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. That guideline spells out COI in great detail. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite, too. Fredsmith2 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As for notability, we have two templates: {{COI}} for subjects that lack references to establish notability , and {{COI2}} for notable subjects. A subject that fails to establish notability through references isn't necessarily deletable. It's often helpful to wait a little while to see if any other editor is willing to dig up references.

In practice, I have sometimes come across situations involving multiple COI articles. When cleaning these up, there's often not enough time to research and fix each one, and I might not be sufficiently familiar with the subject to do a good job. In that case I would tag each article, and let other editors help. Wikipedia is a collaborative process. Nobody should feel the need to do everything themselves.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the only clear way to violate Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is to break this statement: "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels." So, basically if you 1) self promote, and then 2) you try to control what you started, you're violating COI. You have to do both to violate COI.

Everything else in the COI guideline uses wording like " very strongly encourage," "we strongly discourage editing," "not recommended to write," and a bunch of stuff like that.

Basically, you can't violate a warning, even though you can go against the spirit of a warning. if someone says, "I would strongly recommend that you don't take the cookie," and you take it, then you haven't violated any policy. You may hurt the person's feelings because you ignored their advice, but they only gave a behavioral guideline, and one that couldn't be violated. They did not give a violable policy.

Maybe somebody could go through my questions and answer them. Fredsmith2 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This goes to the nature of Wikipedia. We aren't a bureaucracy. Guidelines are published to set expectations, so they are generally followed but there is wiggle room for exceptions. Decisions are made by consensus and common sense. If a user does COI editing, they risk violating neutral point of view, creating spam and non-notable articles, and generally upsetting other editors. The COI editor typically will defend their articles, violating no ownership, and maybe they'll edit war. Keep in mind that the COI guideline specifically permits non-controversial editing that otherwise respects site guidelines. You should come over to WP:COIN and see what sort of cases are reported there, maybe work on a few, and experience this guideline in action first hand. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put this on user accounts instead of pages?

I've been reviewing Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It seems the the following quote from the policy is the only one that directly applies to template creation and to warnings:

"Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked."

So, maybe because of this, we should be putting COI templates on user pages instead of on articles. It seems that the conflict of interest is with the user, and not with the article. Fredsmith2 15:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The template {{subst:uw-autobiography}} covers this nicely. --Fabrictramp 17:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Or {{uw-coi}} for general use such as companies posting. The {{coi}} and {{coi2}} tags are for the articles. Both are used in their respective places.

As an example...

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you.

This is userfied version of what the article tags say. Spryde 17:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What purpose does this serve

Why, as it currently stands, do we need a second COI template? What's wrong with Template:COI? Beetstra reverted my recent redirect saying it "breaks the layout on pages". Could you provide an example? heqs ·:. 07:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Experimental COI2 tag for the earlier discussion. If you get rid of the COI2 template, you are changing Wikipedia's practices for enforcing the COI guideline, so you ought to seek consensus first. This template has already been transcluded or referenced on more than 100 other pages, so I hope you have plans for fixing up those as well. EdJohnston 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I applied the template after you changed it, Heqs, and it then transcluded the text "REDIRECT Template:COI", not the text of the coi template. There are some differences in the wording of the template, and indeed believe that (especially since there was no consensus for deletion, see top of this page), a discusion would have been in its place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm.

Isn't this a POV fork of {{COI}}? 193.95.165.190 09:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No more than {{test2}} is a pov fork of {{test}}. —Cryptic 11:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time limits

How long should this tag stay on an article? Say an article is tagged, a COI investigation is done, resulting in no prohibitions or sanctions against the editor(s) accused of COI, so they continue to contribute without seeming to violate Wikipedia policy, but they are still accused of COI by those that oppose them. When can the tag be removed under those circumstances? Dreadstar † 23:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide an example? EdJohnston (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And can you explain why the passage of time alone (rather than the contents and neutrality of the article) makes a difference? I'm not seeing how it does. Thanks! --Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the example: Transcendental Meditation. Since there is no further COI investigation going on, and no violations of COI - it seems to me that the tag should be removed. Time alone isn't a factor, the question is how long the tag should remain in place...in other words, what is the criteria for removal? Perhaps "time limit" wasn't the best way to put it...;)

There has been no COI discussion in over a month, and those accusations were merely being used to harass the editors on the other side of the dispute. The article seems to be fine, an RfC was filed in early November 2007, but no further dispute resolution has been needed. The discussion seems to be making good progress and positive edits are being made to the article. Dreadstar † 09:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)