User:Mangojuice/COI unblocks

This page is about handling COI unblocks, which is a disturbingly large portion of unblock requests. A typical situation is that a user creates an account that basically matches the company name, e.g. User:SharkSeafoodInc and proceeds to write an article on Shark Seafood, Inc, either at Shark Seafood or possibly at their user page. They get blocked, often with the spamusername message, and then very often come back with an unblock request like: ''I apologize for my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's rules, I inadvertently used the company name as the username for this account and didn't realize that isn't allowed. Please change my username to User:TopShark007. Thank you!

People in this situation always get pretty much the same deal from me, if I'm the first to respond to the request.


 * 1) They must agree to follow WP:BESTCOI and read and understand WP:COI.
 * 2) They must suggest an appropriate username.

WP:BESTCOI is an essay I wrote that outlines exactly how to behave so as to be clearly on the safe side regarding conflicts of interest. It includes a specification that the user not directly edit about the topics they have a conflict with, that they may make requests but leave the decision up to the community, and that they not push if the community doesn't respond the way they would like. BESTCOI is pretty strict, but unlike COI it at least spells out exactly how the user is supposed to behave. COI brings up a source of difficulty but deliberately avoids dictating what users should or shouldn't do.

I usually phrase my responses as follows: ''Your new username is acceptable, however, the bigger issue is that you have been editing inappropriately with a conflict of interest. If you want to be unblocked you'll have to agree to follow the strict rules at WP:BESTCOI for any edits relating to your area of conflict.''

Users who accept my terms get unblocked to change username; I check up on them occasionally, and will reblock if they (1) aren't taking the COI issue seriously and/or continuing to advertise, or (2) if they don't get themselves renamed. I don't give 3rd chances to continue appropriate COI editing if the user breaks promises or acts in bad faith. This is a harsh treatment, but these people very often think Wikipedia is some kind of directory and the block is just some kind of red tape they have to clear.

However, there are many variations in my responses; the new username may not be acceptable. They may not have suggested a new username. They may have questions about why their edits violated policy. They may have already made a promise close to what I'm looking for. They may need some more corrective language if they claim they weren't trying to advertise. What remains here is a list of issues and my general take on them.

Not advertising
Many times these users will say something along the lines of I apologize, it was not my intention to post advertising, only to include factual information. This needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes the article will be a reasonably written stub article. For users of this type, I am usually nicer and make a response like I recognize you were trying to create an appropriate article, but Wikipedia still has a problem with such contributions coming from the companies themselves because of the appearance of self-interest.

Mostly, this kind of claim comes when someone has written an "ad-speak" article which is not really blatant junk, but at least a little POV in a self-interested way. Sometimes such articles could in principle be salvaged with help into an appropriate stub. For users like this I tend to ignore the claim that they weren't advertising and continue to write, presuming that they were and they know it.

Sometimes people make this claim when they've posted an article so blatantly promotional it's hard to believe they have any concept of what "advertising" means. Things like "SharkSeafoods is an Oregon-based regional seafood distributor with connections to specialty providers overseas, to satisfy all their customers' needs," and so on. When I see this happen, I don't even mention the deal: they are still at the phase where they need only to be educated about their problem. I respond like "No, you were advertising and your ad has been deleted. You will not be unblocked if you are unable to recognize the problem with your edits."

Not making money
When the entity being promoted isn't a company or financial venture of some kind, you'll often get the claim that since they don't stand to make money off of Wikipedia, we shouldn't be worried. This most typically happens when the entity is a website (often a blog) or a non-profit group or government group. E.g. The Chippewa Falls Chamber of Commerce isn't going to be making any money off this, there is no reason to worry. The response: money isn't the issue, it's self-interest. The Chippewa Falls Chamber of Commerce may want a Wikipedia article because it's free to have one and raises their visibility.

First person plural
If the blocked user uses the term "we" to refer to the company, even if this is only in the article text, be extra careful to make sure the account is operated by a single person. Often a single person is the one involved and uses "we" because they are speaking for the group... but sometimes companies really do try to set up Role accounts, which are strictly forbidden.

Name issues
Normally I am looking for the user to pick an appropriate username that has little or no connection to the company. However, I do make exceptions.


 * 1) Especially for blogs, I do not always insist that the user change names at all.  Blogs are often websites but named after someone's internet handle, and an internet handle is preeminently a good choice as a username.  Similarly, businesses or bands are sometimes named for people.  If a user wants to continue using the name part of the username, I typically assume that is okay; real names are also perfectly acceptable as usernames.
 * 2) If the username sounds generic and the user wants to keep it, and has agreed to completely drop the COI edits, I won't insist.

This said, if the user offers to change username, I tend to avoid complicating the situation by mentioning if my opinion is that they could keep the name.

What about X?
You very often see things like "Microsoft has a page here, I don't see why MyPersonalFreewareCompany can't have one." We all know the refutation, and unfortunately, it's important to include it.