User:Marvellous Spider-Man/COI

Editors will not admit that they have links to the company/organization/political party/politician. They try to remove criticism controversies from reliable sources. Their editing pattern shows bias. Where the username and the article name matches, it is easy to identify.

But for those who don't disclose their conflict of interest and censors controversies/negative contents from the article? Marvellous Spider-Man  05:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It can be a sensitive subject. Of course it happens (sometimes a lot), but at the same time one shouldn´t assume that someone who removes negative info have a COI in WP-terms, doing so can be quite correct, a good faith-edit, or a WP:ADVOCACY edit (not much better than COI from the WP-standpoint). Jytdog, care to impart some wisdom on the subject? User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 07:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I can speak very generally, sure. First, everybody has to assume good faith, and everybody has to edit content according to the content policies and guidelines (using good sources, summarizing them according to NPOV (in other words, giving WEIGHT per the WEIGHT in what the recent, solid reliable sources say), etc) and everybody has to try to stay calm and behave well.  Second, please keep in mind that the overall problem is non-NPOV editing, or "advocacy" as we call it.   COI is just a special form of advocacy, and the editing of a "fan" (or hater) is indistinguishable from an editor with a COI.  Both break NPOV.    Keeping that in mind,  it is one "bucket" for something like a company or a product, and another for other matters (like politics).   It is more likely, if somebody is editing in a non-neutral way about a company or product or non-political person, that they have some financial or personal relationship that creates a COI; if somebody is editing non-neutrally about politics it is more likely they are a non-conflicted advocate.  Generally speaking.
 * So.. If you are butting heads with someone on content about a company or product or non-political person, and it appears that the other editor has a very clear POV (for or against X) the first thing you should do is really listen, and really try to see if they have a good point; maybe you or others have been pushing too hard one way. And I mean really try.  If you check your head and what you have been doing is OK... and if the other person really has been not following the content policies and guidelines, then go to their talk page (not the article talk page) and ask - and i mean really ask, don't be rhetorical - if the person has some connection with the subject of the article.  Don't say they have a connection and don't assume they do -- ask.  (you cannot know if they do or not).  (Note - if you have acted badly at the article, it is impossible to have an authentic conversation - this is one reason (among many) to act decently at the talk page.)
 * At their talk page, you can introduce the question by explaining, briefly and nicely, how it seems to you that their edits are not following NPOV. A couple of diffs are useful, if you can bring them. But when you ask, you have to do ask nicely, because they are might think you are just trying to "beat" them on the content issue by bringing this up. (and make sure you are not doing that!)  Anyway, they might say yes, they might say no, they might get mad at you.
 * If they say "yes", point them to the WP:COI guideline and ask them to follow it (to disclose their COI at the talk page, and to offer suggestions on talk instead of editing directly). If they say no, it is difficult.  They might really be a "fan" (or you might be wrong and they are actually editing more neutrally than you!).  But if they say "no", you have two choices, really.  You can let it go, and just remind them again to try to follow NPOV and maybe to read WP:ADVOCACY, and then just go back to editing the article.   The other option, if it is really clear to you that they might have a COI (an actual financial or personal relationship), then tell them nicely that you are bringing the issue to the community to discuss, and file a case at WP:COIN.  And finally, they might just get really angry at you and not answer at all.  You have to stay calm if they do that.   Just explain again that it is really a question, and it would be useful if they would answer. Do that once, at the most.  And if they say no (or just yell at you more) again you will have to decide to let it go, or file a case at COIN.
 * If you file a case at COIN, be brief, and bring diffs showing the non-neutral editing, and say you have a concern about COI - don't say that the person has a COI for sure.
 * but you have to stay calm through that whole thing, because your own behavior and editing will end up being judged.  people sometimes file COIN cases and the community says that they were acting or editing badly.  So it is important to be self-aware.
 * that's it, pretty much. it is really hard to deal with COI when it arises in the context of content disputes. You have to be really careful to keep the article Talk discussion clean, and the conversation at the other editor's talk page clean.  And to be sure that your own editing is really solidly grounded in the content policies.  Great sources, neutrally summarized.
 * I hope that makes sense. User:Jytdog 08:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That was an impressive effort, so I hope you read it! ;-) User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 08:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Be very, very, careful of calling editors out as COI editors. WP:OUTING is taken very seriously, it can get you blocked. User:Dodger67 08:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes! don't make claims; ask authentic questions. User:Jytdog 08:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And it sometimes happens that an editor will deny any COI and become an administrator. This happened with User:Wifione with the article Indian Institute of Planning and Management. He fought tooth and nail to get any negative information about IIPM removed, denied repeatedly that he had any association with that institution, spent a lot of time in other areas gaining trust (see the numerous accolades on his user page), and passed WP:RFA. I raised an objection there, and it was discussed but he still passed. Finally he was banned, among other things for sockpuppetry. The story of his rise and fall actually made the mainstream news (and is therefore mentioned in the IIPM article). ~User:Anachronist| 08:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And sometimes an editor takes a different approach: User:Joedesantis User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång 08:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey . For a warning series you might find of use here, see through . See also the write-up we worked hard on in our recent overhaul of NPP, at New pages patrol. Best regards--User:Fuhghettaboutit13:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)