Talk:OneTrust

Conflict of Interest Declaration
Hello. I work for OneTrust. I tried to follow all the Wikipedia content policies and guidelines WP:POLICYLIST in my proposals. FriendofKittens8 (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Page looks great! I don't see any conflict of interest issues. I've moved the page to it's own article. DecorumForum125 (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing the article, . A COI flag was recently added by User:CNMall41 to the top of the article. - the COI was already disclosed on the Talk page before you placed the flag, and  already left a Talk comment stating they thought the article was in good shape. So an independent editor aware of the declared COI already did a neutral point of view review. That’s what the flag requests but it was done.

Therefore, I’d request one of you to please remove the flag. If someone thinks the article needs work, I’d be happy to address any specific issues. FriendofKittens8 (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Being that it still has an advert tone, I would not be inclined to remove the tag until an experienced editor has reviewed and cleaned up. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I am open to making changes to address what you refer to as an “advert tone.” Can you start a discussion that specifies the issues or just leave a note here and I will prepare a “Request Edit” to address the issues you see? I am ready to address your tag.


 * Based on my research into tags, if a Talkpage discussion is not initiated, the maintenance template should be removed. WP:WTRMT. The policy says that when it comes to neutrality-related templates such as  (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or  (associated with the neutral point of view policy) “strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.”  WP:WTRMT.FriendofKittens8 (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Here is the discussion. Needs reviewed for neutrality since you are an employee of OneTrust (already stated at this edit summary). As a COI editor, I would strongly recommend you NOT do any editing to the page, including removal of any templates. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Addressing maintenance template
I’d like to request removal of the maintenance template stating a major contributor may have a close connection to the subject of the article: “COI|date=August 2022”

CMall’s placed the template and stated in the Talk section above: “Needs reviewed for neutrality since you are an employee of OneTrust.”

A review of Talk and History shows that I both declared my COI on Talk from the inception of the draft, and I already requested and received an independent review of the draft, rather than bringing it to mainspace myself, as per WP:COI. User: DecorumForum125 did the review. Decorum Forum actually left a note on Talk in the above section, “Conflict of Interest Declaration”, that says: “page looks great.” Therefore, not only did I comply with the WP:COI policy by declaring my COI on Talk and my own user page, but this note from DecorumForum proves they were aware I had a COI when they moved it through the AfC process.

Since everything asked for in the tag was already completed, it should be removed. Nothing in WP:COI asks for two different reviews, without a specific reason.

Placing a tag on the article that says “A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.” implies there has been some skullduggery – an undeclared conflict of interest editor sneaking in edits in violation of policy. This tag is intended for articles where there has been no COI declaration and no review prior to publication on mainspace. Neither is true here.

As for the substance, any article which describes a company’s products can be said to have an advert tone since even the most neutral description of products or services might be argued to be of benefit to the company. But I stayed away from “puffery” as much as possible. For example, OneTrust was the fastest growing private company in America in 2020, according to Inc. Magazine, but I left this out. The company was the subject of an in-depth profile in The New York Times, but despite the abundance of press coverage I kept the article to a very short 365 words.

Finally, the editor did not properly start a Talk page discussion to explain the problem - the tag can be removed by any editor for that reason alone under WP:WTRMT. This policy says that when it comes to neutrality-related templates such as “tlx|COI” (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or “tlx|POV” (associated with the neutral point of view policy) it is “strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.”

Like any article, I’m sure it can be improved, and will be over time. And I will assist with any specific requests. FriendofKittens8 (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The article looks fine and completely neutral to me. What do others think?  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not assess this article free of COI issues without further research; There may be some negative information excluded or cherry-picking or references. There are, however, no glaring issues IMO. I have added connected contributor above and am not opposed to removing the COI tag from the page. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , . Thanks for replying. As it's now been 8 days since anyone participated, can the tag be removed? I am happy to continue to do any work if anyone wants assistance dealing with any issues, but I think COI disclosure and review have now been addressed. Thank you for taking the time to consider this. FriendofKittens8 (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is OK to remove for me. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:57, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed ~Kvng (talk) 21:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)