Wikipedia talk:Best practices for editors with close associations/Archive 1

Conflict-of-interest statement on a user page?
I didn't see an example of a conflict-of-interest statement on a user page in this best-practices discussion. I think it would be useful to offer examples because the issue is so common: the things a person knows are often closely linked to the things the person has a strong opinion about. I believe it is not feasible for editors to avoid every conflict of interest nor for them to identify and articulate every conflict-of-interest on article talk pages. So I've started a generic conflict-of-interest section at the bottom of my userpage. It's an experiment. Mine is an easy case and there's no need for most others to go that far. Still, it's a good practice/technology to work out. Any advice or other examples? -- Econterms (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a conflict of interest statement on my userpage as well.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  01:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

User names
In the last couple of years, the community practice has changed. We're now more concerned about hidden COIs and less concerned about the "promotional" effect of someone saying who they work for in their usernames. "Microsoft" is still a banned username, but "Joe at Microsoft" is not. We have many dozens, if not hundreds, of good editors who include a product name or a company name as part of their username. As the example, I've given one of the most extensively discussed username changes (from "Alcoa", which is a clear problem, to "Mark at Alcoa", which is not). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect?
It has been suggested to convert this essay into a redirect to Conflict of interest, for reasons explained at User talk:Jimbo Wales*. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * (* Now at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 226.) 173.228.123.147 (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Learn the rules
The first thing that is boldly displayed in an interested new editor's face is "Learn Wikipedia's rules." That's pretty unfriendly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Merger of COI guides
There is a discussion about a merger of COI guides at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 31 that involves this page. Trialpears (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this explanatory supplement an interpretation of policies and guidelines or an explanation?
Was there any discussion prior to upgrading this essay to "explanatory supplement"? This goes much further than our policies actually indicate, and thus are an extension or interpretation of policy rather than an explanation. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 03:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I would oppose any downgrading from explanatory supplement. Would you like me to post an RfC and see what the consensus of the community is?


 * In my opinion, you have a different opinion of what an explanatory supplement is that most editors, as evidenced by your use of "explanation" as if that was the same thing as "explanatory supplement".


 * You might want to read Template:Supplement. which explains that "The noun supplement does not mean "an interpretation" nor just "something added". It means precisely "something added, especially to make up for a deficiency", in this case a lack or gap in an official Wikipedia's policy or guideline. The intent is to further elaborate on Wikipedia's policies or guidelines in an impartial and informative manner."


 * Look at WP:BRD. it is "an explanatory supplement to the Consensus and Be bold pages." It also goes much further than those policies.


 * IMO The problem is that you think an explanatory supplement must be an explanation and cannot be an interpretation. ("extension" is a red herring. the header clearly states that it is not not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't just change a heading someone else created as part of their message. You changed it from a statement about this page to a question about explanatory supplements which recontextualizes this thread and winds up a TPO problem. Restored.
 * In forming my opinion, I'm not looking at template documentation pages but what the text of the template says on this page and the section of the guideline it links to, WP:PRJ:
 * "[information + how-to pages] are intended to supplement or clarify Wikipedia guidelines, policies, or other Wikipedia processes and practices that are communal norms. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way"


 * This page is advice. It's an interpretation of policy which takes the policy further than it actually goes (what I mean by "extension"). Whereas BRD and other supplements (those that come to mind anyway) typically account for "deficiencies" in the way they synthesize policies, apply to common situations, provide clarification, or otherwise reflect the way the community actually operates, a list of rules for people to follow as best practices is advice.
 * But maybe it can also be improved by editing. For example, the line that stands out given the context in which this came up, is don't add links, citations, or mentions to other articles that highlight a company or group you may be affiliated with, which it seems you're interpreting as "an employee of an organization cannot add a citation to that organization anywhere" (unless I'm mistaken). There are several Wikipedians in Residence who have done just this, as well as journalists and researchers. When done in a way that improves articles, in line with policy, this is not disallowed (even if it is good advice in many cases). Using this page to tell someone not to do something (a page which claims to explain rather than advise), doesn't seem in line with what an explanatory supplement is for. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 13:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I once again removed your editorializing in the section heading.
 * WP:TALKHEADPOV is crystal clear on this:
 * "Keep headings neutral: A heading on an article talk page should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it."
 * If you re-introduce your editorializing in the heading one more time we will be discussing your behavior at WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You changed the subject, not just the wording, of what I wrote with your first edit and threaten me with ANI (or rather, threaten to waste other people's time) when I restore it? Good times. This second try of yours is fine btw. You could just say "how about this instead"? Sigh.. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 21:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Misleading claim in lede
This page claims to be "an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page". It then says, in its lede:

"you are bound by some restrictions. The short version: [...] Don't edit any article related to your associations; instead, submit an edit request on the article's talk page"

Nobody is bound by such a restroction; and that is not what Conflict of interest says. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)