Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 18

Input from a paid editor
I would like to kindly request the RFC include an option for discussion whereby paid editors are required to disclose an affiliation, COI, or financial connection, but not necessarily personal information such as an "employer, client, and affiliation" as currently required by the TOU.

As a one-person company, I cannot disclose my employer without outing myself and risking harassment, lawsuits and other issues as a result of my volunteer editing. Additionally, in one example a concerned relative of a BLP hired me to improve an article with BLP problems. I disclosed a COI, but I think disclosing the client in that case is an unnecessary exposure of personal information.

WMF's FAQ explains that disclosure of a financial connection is required by law, so I don't think it's actually a practical discussion as to whether the community wants to expressly allow unlawful behavior. It is more reasonable to discuss exactly how much disclosure is needed and if there are any exceptions, such as when you have probable cause to expect harassment for your disclosure. CorporateM (Talk) 15:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why, as you just did, for employer, could you not say: "Self" As for the BLP, if your cleint is a person on behalf of the subject why could you not just say: "A person acting on behalf of the subject" Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the ToU requires more specific disclosure than that. Just saying "self" or "someone related" doesn't seem to work. However, I'm not clear on why there is an outing concern here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you say it does not work under the TOU? They have identified themselves as their employer (which they are), and they have identified that their client is a person who is acting on behalf of the [subject], fill in subject with BLP article title. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You never have - you arn't clear on things that contradict your viewpoint. I pray you are never outed - it's a very terrible feeling being threatened with harassment.--v/r - TP 17:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem, disruptive and unnecessary. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm flexible about requiring the employer to be released, but I assume that there isn't an issue with requiring identification of the client? On the grounds revealing a specific COI is the same as revealing one: saying "I have a paid COI on article X" seems to be saying "X (or their manufacturer/organisation) is my client". The alternative seems to be to allow people to just generally say that they are paid to edit Wikipedia, without requiring them to acknowledge the articles where they have a COI, which I assume was not your intent. - Bilby (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would imply that every edit is a COI edit. What if COI editors had a separate account for COI editing.  Or if they revealed the topic area where they have a COI?  "I have a COI in hair care products" ect.--v/r - TP 18:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the disclosure must be in correspondence to a specific article or edit to be meaningful. However, all that should need to be disclosed is that a COI, affiliation or financial connection exists. For example, a PR agency staffer that discloses their employer essentially breaches their NDA with the client by making it apparent that they are the agency of record. From what I've seen, excessive disclosures tend to make PR pros feel like their edits were rejected based on the personal information they disclosed, whereas limited disclosures keep the discussion focused on content. We can handle paid editing without being destructive to our fundamental principles of anonymous editing, focusing on the content, etc.


 * However, I think the subject that warrants discussion is exactly where to draw the line. I was surprised when I learned that user:Drmies, who has assisted me on at least a half-dozen articles where I had a disclosed COI, did not realize that I was a paid editor, as oppose to some other form of COI and whether that level of ambiguity is acceptable I think is up for debate. CorporateM (Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia should be concerned with the agreements made by the COI editor to their employeer such as an NDA. The COI policy is an agreement between this community and the COI editor and the COI editor is bound by them at the point of making an editor.  Business practices of the COI editor should conform to Wikipedia policy - not the other way around.--v/r - TP 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A PR agency's NDA with their client already exists, whether or not they participate on Wikipedia. It's not practical to ask them to create a new contract with their client before asking for a correction on Wikipedia, especially when there is no reason to actually do so. However, that's also just one example of the types of issues that arise when there is a requirement for excessive disclosure. CorporateM (Talk) 19:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Asking someone to change is impractical - but it's not our business. There are two ways PR agencies could address this: 1) Change the contract so future clients are agreeing to the appropriate platform that complies with EnWP policy, and 2) Not edit Wikipedia until or unless a client specifically requests it and inform them that their current contract is incompatible but if the client would like to update to the new contract, they may then perform the edits.--v/r - TP 19:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) edit covertly to protect their client's privacy. CorporateM (Talk) 20:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully the chance of it blowing up and receiving magnitudes of bad PR like the case of Wiki-PR would be a deterrent to that and no option is ever going to prevent underground editing. I believe we need to create a path to COI editing that encourages disclosure but I do not believe we need to create the path that is most beneficial to PR companies.  There is give and take.  We give by not having a draconian policy such as the ToU and the PR agencies can follow that path to show good faith.  If not, then they get no mercy when they are found out.  We arn't negotiating with PR agencies, this isn't a discussion where they have a horse in the race.  These arn't international waters.  We are on WMF soil and if they want to enter our borders, we have a path to semi-citizenship :)--v/r - TP 20:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion forebodes the nature of questions to come--who is and is not a "paid editor" and if disclosure is required, then what are the procedural details necessary to ensure compliance with the disclosure requirement. Every different class of potential "paid editor" (I suspect it is a very large group of editors) will have their own concerns about disclosure details and the impact on them personally and their employers. The TOU, if adopted as community policy or even strengthened, has indeed created a new challenge for the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But FIRST (1st), the question that remains for the community to answer is: To disclose or not to disclose? (details to follow) --Mike Cline (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would posture "how much disclosure" rather than "whether to disclose". Just as yet another example, I have heavily edited an article about a business whose primary claim to notability was for suing their online critics. OUTing myself would expose me to substantial legal risk on that article alone. A disclosure is required by law, but the personal information serves no benefit to anyone and offers tremendous opportunity for harm, harassment, legal risks, etc.. CorporateM (Talk) 20:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've heavily edited such an article as well. And I am easy to find, online and in person.  I'm not sure this is a good example.  The most transparent paid editors are definitely those editing on behalf of large corporations: full disclosure and real names.  It is not clear to me why others should do less. –  SJ  +  05:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you would have to say what "side" you are working for in that litigation for it to be meaningful. I assume you mean your client is the article subject, so yes, that's information that you would need to make clear, and not make others assume.Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's neccessary - really. First of all, I'm sure we could all guess which side a COI editor is on.  And if we can't - good on them for being neutral in their editing.  Second of all, just having a COI is all that we need to know.  Their edits will get extra attention, that's what's important.--v/r - TP 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the point of guessing? It's just a matter of being upfront within the TOU. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is little point in spelling it out in explicit detail either. Declaring oneself having a COI is going to bring attention to the editor.  What Wiki-processes require additional info?--v/r - TP 23:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that a false assumption was made that I have a COI in that example actually led to some interesting conversation. In the case of a lawsuit, you cannot disclose which side you're on without also outing yourself. However, if an editor feels more disclosure is needed to evaluate the situation, they can bring it to COIN, where the trade-off between privacy and disclosure can be weighed on a case-by-case basis.  CorporateM (Talk) 02:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What? Under the TOU, if you are not being compensated then there is no required information to disclose. You've just demonstrated that being unclear about it leads to misunderstanding and waste of editor time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Editors who choose to utilize Wikipedia as a business are making a rational choice based upon their business requirements. Volunteer editors are under no obligation to tweak the rules to make their business models more successful, as is being suggested here. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Side observations from the cottage industry
(See my disclosures, which I have not updated because it's pretty obvious I work for myself, I don't need to point out any of my edits as not conflicted, and I don't really know whether any changes would be required during this transition anyway.) In May I noticed a 2012 conversation where User:Ocaasi asked a number of questions answered by User:Silver seren about WP:WikiProject Cooperation, where I was an early member. I felt called to add my own commentary, in much the same way I feel like I should advertise it here now that it has significant relationship to the current discussion. In one sentence, my position was, "forced disclosures are valueless; the only useful disclosures are voluntary", and honestly that has not changed much, as I don't see the TOU change having gained WMF anything. I think I have some "ethics" answers to the TOU question but I need not comment in detail now. Anyway, since I made the linked assessment before any CREWE or WMF announcement, it might be a useful and unretouched set of suggestions and I'd be interested in reactions to comments from any of the three of us. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The hyperlink to your user page is called "my disclosures," but you don't disclose your employers or clients. Clearly the TOU is squarely intended at this very same kind of non-disclosure. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wondering how new provision helps
This is related to Corporate M's and Frieda's points above. I'm puzzled by the Foundation's imposition of this new provision, though as a volunteer rather than a paid editor. I'm pinging in the hope that he can explain the trustees' thinking.

The status quo ante was a typical English Wikipedia fudge, but it was a fudge that seemed to be working, namely the provision in the COI guideline:


 * 1.   Paid editors should provide full disclosure of their connection, when using talkpages, making edit requests, and similar.

It was a position that was gaining consensus among paid editors. It said should, not must, which people felt was less draconian. It asked for "full disclosure of the connection," rather than names of employers, so it left room for privacy. Editors working for individuals or small companies would typically say, "I have a COI here, so I'll stick to the talk page." It left a bit of space for paid editors to make minor changes without disclosing (e.g. correctly unambiguous errors). The big corporations offered full disclosure, often with the real names of the employees working on the article.

But on 16 June the Foundation imposed a top-down replacement:


 * 2.    Paid editors "must disclose [their] employer, client, and affiliation ..."

This is problematic in several ways. BLPs may not want to say who they have hired. PR companies may have confidentiality clauses, or may not want other PR companies to know who their clients are. Editors may not want to name their employers in case it outs them.

SJ, can you explain the trustees' reasoning? The only thing we need to know (if someone wants to become involved in an article) is whether there is a financial COI. I can't see any benefit in Wikipedians knowing the name of that person's employer, or why it matters if it's PR company X, rather than PR company Y. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, SV. First, a point of context: Almost all of the discussion about language took place in public, not in private, between editors and readers and the foundation's legal team.  The trustees reviewed the results of the public discussion (in which the wording and three possible variants were chosen), decided that an amendment was appropriate, and approved one of those options.  The trustees noted that parts of the amendment might have unintended effects and need to be revised, over time or from project to project.  Since changes to the TOU tend to be slow, each project is able to try out alternatives locally at a much faster rate.
 * The rest of my reply is from my recollection of the public debate. The clause you mention, in particular, received a lot of attention and modification during the public discussion.  I don't know that anyone feels this clause is perfect; it was a compromise capturing many things, including trying to make disclosure unambiguous and compatible with userpage disclosure, and trying to state that concisely.
 * To my reading: the spirit of the amendment is that indicating that a financial COI exists should be fine, if such indication is given whenever there is such a COI from an employer, client, or affiliation. However the letter of the amendment is both terser and more precise than this, and asks for this explicit set of information as a way of indicating that COI.  This could conceivably lead to some of the problems you suggest.
 * I recall a few reasons that people pushed for this language about disclosure:
 * a) this allows disclosure once on a userpage rather than on every edit / talkpage; b) This leaves little question about what sort of disclosure was appropriate, or what sorts of relationships should be disclosed;  and c) this lets third parties decide whether a COI exists for a given edit (assuming that it is easier for an editor to identify relationships than to identify a topic-specific financial COI).
 * The use of 'must' rather than 'should' was intentional: not to catch out people making minor changes, but to reduce ambiguity.
 * It would be helpful to have additional actual [if anonymized] examples of where explicit disclosure would deter useful editing, to consider those tradeoffs and motivate possible alternatives. I hope this helps.  –  SJ  +  05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for the response. The disclosure provision predated the discussion on meta. It didn't emerge from it. See 11 February posting: "To ensure compliance with these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution to any Wikimedia Projects for which you receive compensation."
 * So it did, my mistake. Alternative disclosure methods were discussed extensively, but the final language was there from the start.  Where the idea originated is a fine question for the legal team, who drafted that original language.  I believe they looked at past discussions and the COI language on a number of wikis and took them into consideration.


 * What I'm wondering is where this idea originated – that we need to know exactly who someone works for, rather than simply knowing that there is a financial COI. I feel that the Foundation has caused unnecessary work for volunteers, who now have to hold discussions about holding an RfC simply to confirm that, as you said, "the spirit of the amendment is that indicating that a financial COI exists should be fine." That's what we had before the new ToU and it seemed to be working well. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant to say "...indicating that a financial COI exists, and what sort of relationship it is..."
 * As to the comparable guideline: what does "full disclosure of connection" mean to you? To some, it means exactly "disclose employer, client, and affiliation".  Simply saying "I have a COI" seems to fall short of "full".  Could you spell out other interpretations that you feel work better?  This goes for  and others as well (especially CM because of your anecdote above involving Drmies).   –  SJ  +  09:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Break

 * I too am interested to hear direct from the horse's mouth on these questions. However,  I am surprised to hear you say that what we had was working fine.  You were very active in the uproar of COI policy proposals that arose in the aftermath of the Wiki-PR scandal and you are very aware that the community has so far failed come to a consensus on a COI/paid editing policy.  If you look at the WMF Board reaction to Wiki-PR, it is clear that they wanted to take action, but from my view there was little they could do. They finally acted in November 2013, at the time that all our policy proposals were clearly failing.  If you look at the letter they had Cooley send, the second paragraph goes directly to the disclosure issue - the letter puts that first and foremost.  The letter claimed that Wiki-PR's meat/sock activity violated the ToU.   In my view, the grounding for that claim in the actual ToU was very very slim.   I infer that the board - again in the wake of the failure of the en-Wiki community's ability to provide clear policy grounds to prevent something like this going forward - decided that they needed very clear legal grounding to be able to act against entities like Wiki-PR in the future, and that entities like Wiki-PR should have unambiguous guidance that undisclosed editing for pay is not allowed.    Fair warning to all, and clear grounds to act if the rule is breached.  Much more solid ground legally, than the WMF Board was on before.    On top of that, the bedrock of any COI policy  is an obligation to disclose the conflict (not "should, but must); policies diverge and often give situational leeway about whether a given conflict can be managed and how it should be managed, or whether a certain kind of COI is not manageable, but rather requires the removal of privileges or other some recusal.  So it accords with widely-used COI management practice to at least require disclosure.  This is what I infer from everything that has unfolded.   On the specific language they chose and the problems it causes self-employed paid editors like CorporateM... I don't know if such cases were specifically considered or not.  And if they were, I am not at all sure that those problems justify removal of "employer" from the ToU.   We care that entities like Wiki-PR exist and I think the community has an interest in seeing how widespread their activity is; without the employer disclosure, we cannot know.  But I don't understand why you would say that what we had was "working well" when you have been a leader in trying to generate policy on these issues.  Where are you coming from, when you say that? (real question) Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for the TOU was obvious. Paid editors were under no obligation not to edit articles and did so without sanction. One might argue that COI editing is inherently disruptive. When editors chose to disregard the COI guideline, volunteer editors were powerless to do anything about it. Now it is prohibited. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , the point you make about needing to know which companies are operating multiple accounts across the project is a good one. That answers my question as to how it helps to know whether it's PR company X or Y.


 * The reason I said the previous fudge seemed to be working is that a consensus seems to have evolved across the project that disclosure really is required. The bright line doesn't have consensus yet, but the need for disclosure does seem to have been accepted. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm... a fragile one, perhaps. But the endless bickering over the actual fixing of that proto-consensus on this page shows how fragile it was, if it existed at all. And what we had, wasn't actionable policy. It is very clear (to me) why the WMF Board acted.  Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Meant to also say but failed to -- but I agree SlimVirgin that it would probably be useful for the community to hear direct from WMF legal or Board about how they arrived at the requirement to disclose "employer, client, and affiliation" per se. I think it makes total sense and covers what we care about, but it would be useful hear direct from the horse's mouth. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems to be some confusion about my concerns (see my Talk page). As a paid editor, the last thing I want is for covert, non-disclosed, unlawful paid editing to be allowed. Rather I'm asking for something more like the following to at least be considered, as an alternative that requires disclosure without requiring outing (it is in fact possible to have it both ways). I realize it may be contentious for me to be involved in this discussion... CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

You are very transparent when you are conflicted, CorporateM, and because of that I have no problem with your editing in general nor with your participation in this discussion. However I think the requirement to disclose employer is good for the community. I wonder if the WMF might be open to amending the ToU to include an exception from disclosing employer, for sole proprietorships like yours, in the interest of preserving privacy. I think that might be the most direct way to handle the problem without losing the clarity of the current statement of requirements. I wonder if any data exists on how many such single person shops there are, that would be obligated to out themselves under the current ToU.Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have also shared a couple examples where even disclosing the sponsor (a non-notable BLP) would create privacy issues. I don't think the community needs to know if person XYZ's wife is the one I have a financial connection with. However generally speaking an exception where more ambiguous disclosures are allowed when privacy is a consideration would alleviate my concerns. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes you have. I would still have things set up so that the current formulation remains, and one would have to apply for an exemption from making specific disclosures for privacy or other reasons.  Entities with COI policies often have boards or committees that implement the COI policy, and that are obligated to maintain confidentiality of persons who come before them with specific conflicts that need management.... Jytdog (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , you would not need to name your own company. You could simply say who your client is. The client is the employer for that particular article. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, CorporateM doesn't agree and neither do I - he is an employee of the company through which he does business. This is not a thing where we want to start splitting hairs.  Companies like Wiki-PR likely engage editors through contracts rather than outright hiring them - we want "employer" to be read broadly, not narrowly. Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * An editor need only say that he is self-employed. Otherwise he's outing himself, potentially revealing a name and home address if someone tracks down the company's details. It's enough to give the name of the client; the client is the employer at that point. I wish the Foundation has said "employer or client"; it's not clear whether they wrote "and" deliberately. Also not clear what "and affiliation" means., can you give us some background on how the trustees reached the decision to okay this, and what they meant by it? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I could subcontract work to another Wikipedia editor. I am wary about granting blanket exemptions on privacy grounds, as it might allow editors to game the system. One other thing to consider, in any COI policy scheme, is enforcement. That has not been discussed. Failure to disclose should be subject to blocking. We are so anxious to go "yea" or "nay" on the ToU, and so anxious to assuage the valid and not valid concerns of paid editors, that we are completely neglecting our responsibility to figure out ways to enforce the ToU.


 * We need to be scrupulous to avoid excessive deference to interested parties, as well as enforcement of the COI rule requiring persons who have engaged in paid editing to disclose that in the discussion. That rule has not been enforced in this discussion and is something of an "elephant in the room." This is not a casual concern but is central to avoiding a kind of regulatory capture that exists when rulemakers are excessively deferential to the persons they are supposed to regulate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * {reply|Figureofnine}} I imagine that implementing a software mechanism for displaying some sort of indicator in the User signature when a COI has been declared might suffice for altering others editing a given article.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about CorporateM, he has been clear that he is a "paid editor", throughout and in the very title of this Section. If you are talking about someone else, my preference would be that you ask that person on their user page to state their COI here, and if they don't do it themselves, state the username of the  participant whom you know is a paid editor with a diff to the absolutely clear evidence. (if where you are coming from is some vague notion not backed by a very clear and explicit disclosure by said user, please just leave it alone.) Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not talking about CorporateM. The fact that you don't know who I'm talking about is an indication of how unfortunate it is that there has been no disclosure. The subject has been raised on his talk page by other editors, to no avail, and on these pages repeatedly, most recently at . Look at the hatted comment. Go to the link there. It was hatted by the editor who is in breach of this guideline. It is fruitless raising the issue with this editor. The core of the problem is that he said on Jimbo's talk page in November 2013 "Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it." The guideline we are discussing here is quite clear that editors who have done that must disclose in the kind of discussion we are now having, and he adamantly refuses, with such vehemence and in such a threatening tone that it's pretty much silenced people. Not surprising, as he is an administrator. The subject has been raised repeatedly here, but since it is an administrator the reaction has been a kind of pained silence. I recently weighed in on his administrator review, but didn't raise the issue of his COI nondisclosure here because I knew that I'd get a tantrum in reply, and that there would be no point to it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs)  18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Smallbones mentioned it on Jimbo's talk page just within the past day or so. I'm surprised you're not aware of it, as it has been discussed often here, but usually in tones of frustration, as this is the proverbial elephant in the room. It also explains a lot of the personal animosity that you see emanating from this editor on this page. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * hmm.TP doesn't agree that he is a "paid editor"; others think he is. I would say that it is extremely unproductive to bring that up here.  If you feel so strongly about this you should bring it up at COIN and get community opinion there.  It doesn't belong here. I will continue on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, he called it a "form of paid editing." But it doesn't really matter what he called it. He wrote an article and was paid for it. Another editor actually put it in Wikipedia. If this isn't paid editing, shouldn't it be? Does it matter how it gets in Wikipedia? Putting aside the disclosure issue, that is something that we (meaning people who haven't actually done it) need to discuss. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As suggested, I have raised the issue at COIN Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are self-employed, hired through an organization, that falls under neither employer, nor client, but under affiliation for those edits.Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't agree. Self-employed = self is employer that must be disclosed. We should probably open a new section on this so as not to clutter this discussion.  This is not going to be an easy thing to resolve.Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're not agreeing with. I already addressed "self" above for employer, here I am addressing affiliation disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you wrote way above, and am just addressing what you wrote just above, which seems to contradict what you wrote way above. ("Affiliation" is a funny thing in a context that is clearly limited to "paid editing''.  It is definitely relevant for the broader notion of COI, where you might have some affiliation that causes a conflict yet are not specifically paid to edit.... but here we are talking specifically about paid editing.)  Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It does not contradict. They just address two things. Affiliation is not funny, it's merely meant to supplement the other disclosures: an employer has employed you to contribute; a client has engaged you to contribute; a party has affiliated you to contribute. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's say I'm hired by a company to edit an article. I don't have the time, or I can't or won't for some other reason. I pay another editor to do so. I am editor A, the editor I hire is editor B, and the client of editor A is company X. Editor B only knows that he was hired by editor A. He doesn't know for a fact that editor A was hired by company X. I think that it is mandatory in such situations that the TOU be enforced as written, that the name of the employer be disclosed. We are under no obligation to protect anyone's "privacy" (scare quotes intentional) under such a scenario. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, 'hired by User:_____ to do [X] contributions' will give us and the WMF two users to talk to about [X]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would. But if I use my real name in hiring somebody, that's just my tough luck. I don't think that outing rules should apply in such circumstances. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Plus we're getting into "meat puppet" territory.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, if they team to do [X]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Why this new provision helps
I wanted to respond in a simple way to SlimVirgin's question above. The reason this new provision helps can be summed up in one sentence: Wikipedia does not have a conflict of interest policy. Efforts to enact one over the years have failed. Instead we have a guideline that is purely voluntary. There are no consequences for violations of this guideline. The proof of that is that an explicit provision of it is routinely violated on this page, and there have been no consequences.

If one reads the discussions above, one can understand why the Foundation took this action. Repeatedly, the action of the Foundation has been described in pejorative terms, as being "imposed" and "top-down," as if there is something strange about the owner of a website imposing reasonable disclosure rules on volunteers who choose to profit from their affiliation with the website. Editors who advocate COI rules that are best practices everywhere else are described here as "radicals" and oddballs.

There is also an assumption that COI rules, to be just, must be "agreed to" by the persons with the COI themselves. There is talk of how there was an emerging "consensus" among the COI editors. This is a position that can be found in no other organization that I am aware of; it is unique to Wikipedia and reflects the degree to which editors with conflicts of interest influence Wikipedia's culture. Requiring the disclosure of such profiteering is a minimal step, far short of prohibition, one that reflects the extent to which a form of regulatory capture has enabled the COI editors themselves to influence the process. If they did not influence the process as much as they did, we would not be discussing how a minimal provision helps but how it should be enforced. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

What does "employer, client, and affiliation" mean?
, as someone who is on the board of trustees that ratified this, can you clarify what "employer, client, and affiliation" means exactly in:

The word and (rather than or) suggests that both employer and client must be given, if applicable. This will lead to self-employed editors being outed. The word affilation remains a mystery (in relation to paid editing, rather than general COI) if it's not employer or client. Can you explain what the trustees have in mind? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * But isn't the "employer" issue something of a red herring? The general sentiment, when this was discussed a day or so ago, was that it was perfectly all right for an editor to say "self" and not his/her name if he/she is self employed. I think it was a valid question to ask, but it was answered. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution" (paid contribution, that is) I think this could use a bit of discussion, but ultimately is common sense. "Affiliation" is the only tricky part, and I think it just means "anybody else closely involved" so that different interpretations of employer and client are all covered. Examples might work best.

Say a self-employed PR agent has a client John Smith who pays to have the John Smith article edited. This should all fit into the edit comment, right?
 * Let's try "Paid edit:self, John Smith, -" no outing of the editor is required and if JS doesn't like being disclosed the PR guy should say "Sorry, but the rules prohibit that".

Now let's say, John Smith was referred to the PR guy by the Freed Death Row Prisoners Association, who have a special project going and have dealt with the same PR guy before:
 * "Paid edit:self, John Smith, Freed Death Row Prisoners Association" since the FDRPA is clearly involved in more than just a passing way

A more complicated example. XYZ corp employs Biggie PR who subcontracts to Wiki Doctors who employs User X to change the XYZ article:
 * "Paid edit:Wiki Doctors, XYZ, Biggie PR

I think the same format might be used when an employment board is used. Say XYZ corp employs Biggie PR who advertises on WEB (Writer's Employment Bureau) to change the XYZ article
 * Paid edit:Biggie PR, XYZ, WEB

I would have thought the requirement to disclose "any" paid edit, would be more controversial. Clearly, in the context ToU means "every" paid edit, not "any paid edit that the paid editor chooses". A single permanent disclosure on the user page wouldn't cover that. A user page declaration would have to be updated with each edit.

Some calm discussion on this rule and a few examples would be a help to everybody. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This has come from the trustees, so it would be good to hear what they intended it to mean. We've already seen an editor claim that "employer" must refer to the name of a company for a self-employed editor, rather than simply "self". I'd like to hear from whether that's correct. The phrase "and affiliation" remains a problem. If you've said "self-employed, hired by John Smith to help with his BLP," what is the remaining affiliation? (Remember that it says and not or.) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The FAQ has this discussion on the phrase "employer, client, and affiliation". I think it is reasonable to disclose the components as applicable, so if a disclosure of employer and client is fully descriptive of the nature of your contribution and there is no affiliation beyond this, then this is sufficient. Regarding disclosure on a user page, the FAQ discusses this as well; it clarifies that a simple disclosure covering the area of conflict and who is paying you for related contributions is sufficient. isaacl (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) corrected links isaacl (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Affiliation is a useful addition but it will not always be useful (other than to at most say no-affiliation - just as employer will be un-useful for the self employed).  The disclosure just has to be meaningful in relation to the compensated contribution. FAQ because your link did not work for me. As for Sj, he can give you his own thoughts but he is hampered, as we all are, by the lack of a real case.  The propriety of the disclosure will always turn --in part-- on the case at hand, and needed honesty under the circumstance, as with all our policies.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello SV, for further detail about what specific clauses mean, it would be best to ask this on the [|FAQ talk page]. The common sense approaches others suggest above agree with my own understanding, but an expert opinion would come from WMF's legal team; and that is where to get it.  (Including on how to disclose self-employment, or why "and" vs. "or").
 * There is no extra hidden meaning or intent in the amendment beyond its text and the associated FAQ. Anything that is not clear in those documents is open to interpretation, and clarifications should go hand in hand with FAQ updates. –  SJ  +  11:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my thought too, and I don't understand why we're dealing with issues that are dealt with in plain, common sense terms in the FAQ. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What is and is not a "paid contribution"
Although the focus of this discussion has clearly centered of those "Wiki PR" types of paid contributions, I believe the TOU requirement to disclose "paid contributions" goes well beyond that type of contribution. Smallbones comment above about "calm discussion" of this question is important. At some point in the future, the community will begin to identify "paid contributions" and challenging those editors who do not disclose to comply with the TOU. To do that effectively, and without disruption, there should be great clarity and a lack of ambiguity around what is and what is not a "paid contribution". The following list (not inclusive) highlights some of the scenarios which in my opinion the TOU would classify as a "paid contribution". The list is most likely much longer, but these came to top of mind. If these types of contributions were made without disclosure, they would be in violation of the TOU.
 * 1) Editor: A paid staff member of a Political Action Committee, Edits: Contributions to any article on the PAC, on a person or topic that was being promoted or challenged by the PAC
 * 2) Editor: A paid staff member or board member of a non-profit advocacy group, Edits: Contributions on an article on the group, on any topics that were directly related to the stated mission of the group.
 * 3) Editor: A paid staff member or board member of a trade organization whose mission was to promote the products, services and member enterprises of any particular industry. Edits: Contributions to articles related to the products, services and companies within the scope of the industry trade group.
 * 4) Editor: Paid Marketing or PR staff of a commercial enterprise. Edits: Any contributions to articles on the company, its products or services.

I am making an assumption with scenarios 1-3 above, that any paid relationship with an advocacy organization, whose sole mission is the advocacy, promotion and support of a POV, automatically creates a "paid contribution" situation when the article contribution is directly related to the advocacy mission of the organization. The scope of advocacy and POV of any non-profit (in the US) is public information. I am assuming in scenario 4 that merely being an employee of a commercial enterprise, whose purpose is the production of products and services (not advocacy), does not automatically create a "paid contribution" scenario. In this case, the purpose of employment (i.e. PR or marketing) creates the "paid contribution" scenario. Of course depending on who the employee is and their role in the organization, any contribution might fall under the "paid contribution" umbrella.

I would be interested in what others think, as the "identification of paid contributions" should be consistent across the encyclopedia, and more importantly not biased for or against different classes of editors as the TOU is enforced. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's the "I did it on my own time, I wasn't paid for it" disclaimer that many editors acting in both good and bad faith will claim. Those acting in good faith should be quickly but gently reminded of the COI rules and asked to simply avoid directly editing articles that overlap with their conflicts of interest, at least until they become experienced enough to do so in accordance with WP:COI (e.g. removing copyvios, etc.).
 * If a non-paid board member or a person who is paid hourly edits Wikipedia on his own time, technically he can just say "I wasn't paid for it" and the burden shifts to those who claim he was to prove he's a paid editor. Ditto people who may be paid a salary but they work in industries or countries where it's clearly understood that what they do out of the office is "on their own time" and not part of "their job" and who claim they were editing "on their own time." The editor can still be reverted or blocked for COI editing.
 * On the other hand, the person who is paid "a salary" and works in an industry and country where these assumptions don't hold true will technically have the burden to prove that his edits are not "paid edits." A claim by such a person that "I'm not an executive, and my edit is outside the scope of my job description" puts the shoe back on those who would accuse him of paid editing.  Again, even if he is not a paid editor, he can be reverted or blocked based on his COI editing.
 * Company executives and the like are presumed to be "paid editors" any time they edit in a way that would benefit their company.
 * Similarly, those who edit in a way to manipulate the value of stocks, securities, or other items in a way that benefits them are presumed to be paid editors, even if they aren't paid to make the edit (the payoff will come later, if their attempt at price manipulation is successful).
 * Then there is the opposite situation of a non-COI editor who is editing Wikipedia "on company time". Technically, he's being "paid" while he's editing Wikipedia, but he's editing things totally unrelated to his job.  I would recommend that this hyper-technical interpretation of paid editing be ignored completely by us and the Foundation, as that is at worst purely a personnel matter between him and his employer.
 * In general, WP:AGF should hold except in obvious cases, and sanctions should be proportional to the damage done to Wikipedia and the attitude/rehabilitation-possibilities of the editor. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Company Organization executives and the like are presumed to be "paid editors" any time they edit in a way that would benefit their company organization. I would like to see us refrain from singling out "companies" with statement like this and adopt "organization" as a more universal term.  WP:CORP provides us a very useful definition of organization that can be referred to easily. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * In general, WP:AGF should hold except in obvious cases, and sanctions should be proportional to the damage done to Wikipedia and the attitude/rehabilitation-possibilities of the editor. Even assuming that all contributions are made AGF,  we should be able to clearly delineate scenarios that contribute to what is or what is not a paid contribution.   Since under the current TOU, all "paid contributions" require disclosure, it would be extraordinarily unfair to allow some "paid contributions" to go undisclosed while challenging others when the scenario was the same.  Because we AGF for all contributions, the consequences that befall the editor who does not disclose a "paid contribution" will almost always be contextual.  But the consequences of undisclosed "paid contributions" is not the question here. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Again this looks like a topic that is mostly common sense but could benefit from some calm discussion. I mostly agree with the 4 cases listed above (but my emphasis might be different). There are obviously other cases so this might be part of a "paid contributions include, but are not limited to:" sentence.  But really the only major thing I want to add is that I've seen some discussion that indicates people really want to strictly limit "paid contribution" to something like: Editor A works for a PR firm and is paid to edit XYZ's article.  But he is uses his own judgement on edits, is not paid by the edit, and is not instructed or required to make specific edits. Therefore no particular edit is a paid contribution, and A is not a paid editor.  I suppose we can't guard against all wikilawyering, and we can't guard against all loopholes that might possibly be imagined, but I am strongly against any interpretation like that.


 * I'll rewrite and add some to Mike's list, to see what people think


 * 1) Editor: A paid staff member of a Political Action Committee, political campaign committee, or of any elected official. Edits: Contributions to any article on the PAC, on a person or topic that was being promoted or challenged by the PAC, campaign or official.
 * 2) Editor: A paid staff member or board member of a non-profit advocacy group, Edits: Contributions on an article on the group, on any topics that were directly related to the stated mission of the group . (Just make sure that WMF employees, who all might need to edit here occasionally, are not included. The WMF is not an advocacy group.)
 * 3) Editor: A paid staff member or board member of a trade organization whose mission was to promote the products, services and member enterprises of any particular industry. Edits: Contributions to articles related to the products, services and companies within the scope of the industry trade group.
 * 4) Editor: Paid managerial, marketing or PR staff of a commercial enterprise. Edits: Any contributions to articles on the company, its products, services, and other firms that are customers, suppliers, or competitors.
 * 5) Editor: Employees, owners, and contractors of PR firms. Edits: any contribution related to any of the firm's clients.
 * 6) Editor: Employers, owners and contractors of firms such as Wiki-PR which advertise that they write, edit, or monitor Wikipedia articles, or which advertise for writers for Wikipedia articles. Edits: any contribution.


 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Editor: Paid managerial, marketing or PR staff of a commercial enterprise. Edits: Any contributions to articles on the company, its products, services, 'customers, suppliers, or competitors. Nice clarity SB.  I question (or better yet, wonder what a simple definition of "customer, suppliers or competitors.") might mean.  As I come out of the consulting world and am very familiar with the restaurant industry, I'll use that industry as a case study for my question.  This is purely hypothetical, but I'll use real world entities for my question.  Assume I am a senior manager at Chick-fil-A, a quick service restaurant chain and an experienced Wikipedian.  I want to make contributions to articles on our three chicken suppliers, our two potato suppliers and our beverage suppliers.  Are these paid contributions?  I want to make contributions to many other articles on restaurants in the QSR category. (There are 100s of these). Are these paid contributions?  I am also a baseball fan and want to contribute to articles on popular players.  David Justice, the former Atlanta Brave star is a big fan and customer of Chick-fil-A in Atlanta.  Because he is a customer, if I edit his article, is that a "paid contribution"?  I  think it is very challenging to identify customers, suppliers, and competitors in the context of "paid contributions". --Mike Cline (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added and other firms that are customers, suppliers, or competitors, to make it more clear. The German court case was about a competitor, and I think that it is clear that we don't want editors putting down their competitors.  Suppliers: a manufacturing firm may make almost all its sales to one or a few customers who then combines many manufactured items into one product, so the supplier is very dependent on the sales of its main customer. It would tend to be very biased when writing about its customer. Customers: firm may make most of its own sales by packaging or retailing products from one company - same logic applies as in the last case.  Perhaps we could put in "competitors and other closely related firms."Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would tweak the above definition to include all employees, including interns, of organizations, persons and enterprises that have articles in Wikipedia. Including just "managerial" and "marketing" employees creates too much of a possibility of a loophole. In many firms the line between "managerial" and "nonmanagerial" is slim. What if I am a professional employee but not a management employee? We also need to include interns. There is an army of summer interns out there, and frequently they are not paid monetary compensation but in experience, references, and other valuable consideration. Given their age, I think that interns are more likely to actually edit Wikipedia as part of their duties as are full-time employees. If we exclude non-managerial employees and interns, we provide a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Coretheapple (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just be aware that this proposal would prevent anyone from editing topics associated with any field related to their employer without a personal disclosure, even if they do not personally work within the field in question. An Apple employee working on camera hardware, for example, would have to make a disclosure to make an edit related to online music. Some companies are involved in a lot of areas, which the employee might not even know about. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But if we aren't firm in this area, we sanction situations we've had in the past where congressional employees, identifiable by their IPs, edit articles about their bosses and adversaries, resulting in embarrassment to the project. If an Apple employee who works for the camera division writes about online music, we'll either not know about it or, if we know about, he can be reminded of the TOU. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As Mike Cline has pointed out, the network of relationships is far-reaching, even more so for large companies, and typically for a given employee, a lot of areas would fall within the scope of your proposal. Regarding problems motivated by politics, personally I feel this is better addressed through guidelines on advocacy, as there are many people who will happily make ideological edits without any financial compensation. isaacl (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As others have said, this is very far-reaching, and it would disqualify employees who work for conglomerates from editing on many, many topics that are unrelated to their job but which their employer may profit from unless they are willing to make information they would rather remain private public . Likewise, it disqualifies university employees, from the Janitor to the Dean to the President, from editing on any topic which their institution is doing any research that is earning them a profit, even if the editor is ignorant of what his employer is doing unless they are willing to make information they would rather remain private public and are willing to take the time to verify that their employer's work doesn't intersect with their editing, for each and every edit .  Basically, the wording you propose would force many editors to either 1) find out every possible thing their employer is involved with - an impractical task for most of us, 2) disclose information they would just assume keep private for just about every edit (or on their user page), or 3) quit editing Wikipedia.  In an abundance of caution, I would seriously consider #3. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Updated to clarify I am speaking for editors who for whatever reason do not want to announce who their employers are.  Update made in light of 's reply of 01:57, 9 July 2014 to 's reply directly below.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  21:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, OK. Uncle. These are not bad points. I just think that we need to be alert to loopholes and attempts to game the system. When we specify a long list of potential conflicted people, we risk creating loopholes. Coretheapple (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that nothing, absolutely nothing in the TOU disclosure requirement "disqualifies" any editor from making any contribution to the encyclopedia, especially contributions that comply with our content requirements. The TOU only requires disclosure of "paid contributions", it does not prohibit or discourage them. I would submit that any contribution whether a "paid contribution" or not is a good contribution if it complies with our content policies and guidelines. Implying that a disclosure requirement disqualifies editors from contributing is just plain wrong. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right, and by the way you should go to Talk:Jimbo Wales and tell that to the founder, who is dead set against paid editing and keeps saying that the ToU change is the beginning of the end of the practice. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this alarming NEUTRALITY: The thumb-rule of WP

 * http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/07/06/look-whos-visiting-the-wmf/
 * http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100013979/wikiwashing-how-paid-professionals-are-using-wikipedia-as-a-pr-tool/
 * http://www.legalmorning.com/writing-services/wikipedia-articles/
 * N.B: Being active only an year and little more, i don't know am bringing this at right place. If i erred, experienced editors may take this to right place and necessary action may be taken. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"COI editing"
Since nobody has heckled me off the page yet (any takers? no?), I notice that many paid editors that facilitate poor COI edits in a Bright Line-compliant matter defend their compliance with WP:COI by saying that this guideline refers to "COI Edits" and they did not actually "edit" the page. However, I notice that the guideline actually defines "COI Edits" as a user's "contributions" not necessarily as their article-space edits.

Therefore, can someone still be found to be in violation of this policy if they facilitate poor, self-serving edits, but they disclosed and followed the Bright Line? This is actually quite common. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Short answer, yes. Longer: No matter where they "contribute" they need to comply with TOU.  If they do not directly edit articles, they have some latitude to write all kinds of "polite" content non-compliant things, but that according to this guideline and our other policies can get old (as well as damaging their credibility)  especially if persistent and won't take no for an answer. (connected contributor template should also be added to the talk page). If they are "shading" sources, then it's also likely to be tied to their COI.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Dealing with single-purpose accounts" section
(1) I renamed this section from the old name "Blocking", because "Blocking" is the fundamental policy which basically says that any behavior that violates any clause of any policy in an abusive way is to be blocked. Therefore I don't think at the moment this policy needs a special section called "Blocking".

(2) What actually the section "Dealing with COI" needs is to clarify the "Handling of SPA" issue. Currently this section contradicts the community practice of handling malediting. Namely, I have a problem with the phrase "If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked." As you may recall, all our warning templates, even for vandals have a "three-strike" rule: uw-v1,... etc. Therefore I suggest to rephrase from "after the warning" to "after repeated warnings". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

(3) Additional concern: Quite often these SPA are new accounts, and their apparently repeated violation ma simply come from inexperience, hence WP:AGF kicks in. Therefore I would also suggest to add something to the end that blocking must be contingent on refusal of the SPA to engage in a reasonable discussion. If the SPA does engage in a discussion, the proper handling should be via the non-emergency ways outlined in the rest of section "How to handle COI". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Amendment proposal for "How to handle conflicts of interest"
Currently this section starts with a subsection called "Noticeboards and templates" which says "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, incidents may be reported on the conflict of interest noticeboard (WP:COIN), and users may be warned with the uw-coi user warning template. Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid (see criteria for deletion)."

I propose that: "If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or is a paid editor has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline. If the editor does not change his or her behavior to comply with this guideline and/or the Terms of use, create a posting on WP:COIN, following the instructions there. Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with Connected contributor, and the article itself may be tagged with COI. COI allegations should not be used as a 'trump card' in disputes over article content.  Do not work outside the advice provided here and hound the conflicted editor in Talk pages across the project, which can boomerang and can lead to sanctions against you."
 * we delete the subsection header
 * The text say instead:

"If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might be a paid editor have made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith. You may raise your concerns, in a civil manner, on the editor's Talk page, but it is generally unwise to pursue such concerns further without clear evidence in the form of a disclosure from the editor. Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines, and whether the issue may be advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN.  The appropriate forum for concerns about POV-pushing and advocacy is WP:NPOVN.  If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.  If there is evidence of a COI or paid contributions outside of a direct disclosure from the editor, obtained without violating the outing policy, you may bring a case at WP:COIN but be aware that raising Raising accusations of COI or paid editing without clear evidence can boomerang and can lead to sanctions against you."

I think we need section to be much more clear, especially now that the ToU makes paid editing a policy issue. The rest of the section should remain as is. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (amend as per Mike Cline's suggestion, and with an additional thought Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC))


 * Although I've been drafting some thoughts along these lines, they are not yet ready for open discussion. But I would like to suggest that we refrain from using the term "paid editor" and use instead "paid contributions".  The TOU does not use the term "paid editor", although it is used once in the FAO.  The requirement is that "paid contributions" are disclosed.  The amendment, however it is written, should focus on how to deal with suspected undisclosed "paid contributions".  We must remember that it is the nexus of editor, organization and contribution that creates a "paid contribution", and thus a contribution that must be disclosed.  When there is evidence of such a nexus and no disclosure has occurred, the guidance here should provide the best advice and process to ensure editors understand the need for disclosure and how it should be accomplished.  We must keep foremost in our minds that the reason for the "paid contributions" disclosure policy is not to punish or challenge editors, but instead a means to promote and ensure integrity of content in the encyclopedia.  Put the focus on the contribution, not the contributor. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * mahusay na mahusay --Mike Cline (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ? Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC) (I see that is tagalog for "excellent" :) Jytdog (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC))
 * mahusay na mahusay = "Excellent" in tagalog with some exuberance. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The key is going to be making it clear that paid editors are not inherently 'bad' by default. Bad paid editors violate other policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V.  Something here needs to be clear that we don't treat paid contributors like dirt just because they are paid contributors.  That's not sufficient justification.  Furthermore, paid contributors, like all new editors, arn't going to get WP:NPOV and WP:V right off the bat.  Let's not get into the habit of giving paid contributors a '1-strike you're out' situation when we give every other newbie 10 strikes.--v/r - TP 17:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and added this, this morning. Included a new subsection referencing WP:BITE. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, paid editing is inherently bad. That is why the Foundation is requiring disclosure. The purpose of this guideline and any conflict of interest rule is to curb paid editing, not to encourage it or to excuse it. But the way you two are tilting this COI guideline, filling it with unnecessary admonitions, you'd think that the main problem is opposition to COI, not the enormous numbers of commercial services that operate for the express purpose of exploiting Wikipedia's brand for selfish private interests. Coretheapple (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Core you know that there are strong feelings all around on paid editing issues, which is why the community has spectacularly failed to reach any consensus on addressing paid editing beyond that this guideline has said. you know that. We do have strong and clear disclosure requirements now, thanks to WMF taking action when we could not. i hope you can see that the significant chunk of the community that has worried about the effects of stronger action on paid editing has concerns that - in a context where we are trying to remain together and work together as a community - can reasonably be addressed. i hope you can see that. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

subsection on BITE
I added a subsection on BITE in this dif as per discussion above and below. Core reverted in this dif with edit note "We don't need a lecture on the subject, especially one that misapplies WP:BITE to non-newcomers, a sentence is sufficient". I understand what Core thinks is missapplying BITE... As for utility, i myself have gotten grumpy and have bitten newcomers over clearly promotional editing... which was clearly done in ignorance. With clear intent to be promotional (which is what teed me off) but also in ignorance. i regret having bitten. i think the little "lecture" is helpful to "", in this context. am happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:BITE is specifically for newcomers. Non-newcomers are covered by other policies/guidelines, which are cited. We have plenty already making the same general point, and also I thought the tone was unnecessarily condescending. Coretheapple (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * for what it is worth, in the content I proposed, i literally copied the first three sentence of BITE and then added "Take time to educate new editors and give them time to learn. Please do not bite the newcomers." Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't object to referencing BITE, but there is no need to recite it, as if people are too stupid to follow the link. Also it implies that COI editors are generally or predominantly newcomers and I know of no evidence of that. The most troublesome problems we've had are socks and longstanding accounts. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for leaving the link in. Jytdog (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which longstanding accounts? How many, whom are they, who do they work for, and what were they advocating?--v/r - TP 22:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The civil way to challenge undisclosed paid contributions
I believe there is a civil way to challenge undisclosed “paid contributions” within the WP community. It will require some discipline, some guidance in an appropriate guideline and a clear role within our COI Noticeboard processes. The discussions above and at COIN demonstrate that undisciplined, unsupported accusations of undisclosed “paid contributions” by one editor to another cause nothing but angst for everyone involved and rarely resolve the situation effectively. If editors always based their initial actions in this arena with WP:AGF in mind, I suspect the number of undisclosed “paid contributions” accusations that would have to be dealt with at COIN would be small. Noticeboards tend to be viewed by inexperienced editors as very punitive and unfriendly places where the “gang” holds all the cards. I think there is recognition, as evidenced from the discussions above, that there are/or will be a lot of “paid contributions” that will require disclosure. A great many “paid contributions” will be made by editors who, by virtue of their inexperience, will be totally clueless about the TOU and its COI implications. I would like to see the community approach these undisclosed “paid contributions” in the most civil manner possible and suggest we adopt something like this as the recommended first step in dealing with suspected undisclosed “paid contributions.” (This is just a first concept draft template and most certainly can be improved)

Our guidance would suggest that this information box be placed on the user talk page of any editor where an undisclosed “paid contribution” is suspected. It is designed to be “non-accusatory”, giving the editor the opportunity to disclose and the information, rationales, policy, methodology etc. via links to educate the editor on the disclosure requirement. I suspect most “clueless” editors would appreciate this approach. It can be supported with whatever narrative the particular contribution warrants. How the particular contribution is dealt with from a content perspective would follow normal community content guidance and policy. I think this approach would fit in well with the changes Jytdog is proposing above. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that is great, and would be happy to have that incorporated into the current or amended section. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this helps. Coretheapple (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * quick note, the ToU requires disclosure of "employer, client and affiliation", not "or" affilation... Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I made the change, but we'll have to ensure the template matches the actual disclosure requirement in a grammatically correct way. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is good for user talk pages, but what about a discussion like on ANI?--v/r - TP 17:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would think that notifying an editor of a undisclosed "paid contribution" on their user page is just the first step. If they disclose, no further action re "disclosure" is necessary. If they fail to disclose and there is sufficient credible evidence that the editor should have disclosed, elevating undisclosed "paid contributions" situations to either COIN or ANI should be part of a disciplined process.  But in my view, ANI or COIN should never be the first step, and when it is, those discussions should be closed and all parties directed to the disciplined process.  Whether any given "paid contribution" is disclosed or not, it should always be subject to our normal content scrutiny. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but given a scenario where an editor goes to ANI for perhaps battlegrund behavior or BLP concerns, and then it's revealed that they have a COI - what do we do then? Leave the notice on their talk page still?  How do we address it in existing ANI threads?--v/r - TP 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that scenarios will arise where suspect undisclosed "paid contributions" are not the precipitating event in the discussion. In those cases, the appropriate discussion venue will flow from the context of the situation--it could anything covered by our noticeboards, move or deletions discussions, etc.  Just as we do with all complex issues, disputes, behavior problems and content issues, we try to contain discussion in one venue, and generally direct it to the most appropriate venue for the context.  In any discussion venue, once there is some evidence that an editor has made undisclosed "paid contributions", the established, disciplined process we establish should be followed. I believe the first step in the process should be the benign, civil notification on the user page. The additional context of that notification can certainly include references to other discussions.  What we want to avoid, and that's why I am suggesting this approach, is situations were a AGF editor, unaware of TOU disclosure requirements is slammed at ANI or COIN without any opportunity to do the right thing. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

removal of dubious restricition
The following new addition removed as questionable:
 * "Do not work outside the advice provided here and hound the conflicted editor in Talk pages across the project, which can boomerang and can lead to sanctions against you."

First, what the heck is "Do not work outside"? I may work wherever I want, unless against wikipedia goals and major policies. Second, accusation is wikihounding cannot stop me to watch over a COI person. This the whole purpose of the discussed disclosure: a paied editor requires extra scrutiny, even if AGF and all. If I am abusive, you have prove it, not vice versa. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right. There is no reasonable basis for the additions, which undermined the ability of editors to police conflicts of interest. They placed restrictions upon editors that were completely unreasonable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * please read discussions in the three sections directly above. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually I did read. And this reading prevented me from knee-jerk reaction to revert the whole addition and limit myself to the encroachment of my rights to protect wikipedia from spam. This policy is supposed to restrict COI POV-pushers, not me. If and when anti-COI vigilantes go amok, then we will think how to deal with this new abuse. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have no rights on Wikipedia - at all. Period.  Dot.  WMF has decided that it is harassment to out a user and doing so, whether you suspect a COI or not, is going to get you blocked.  You may follow the approved channels, only, and take private information to Arbcom.  That is what is meant by that line.--v/r - TP 02:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorrry, I am not native English speaker. Are you being ironic? If a community of contributors has no rights in wikipedia and more than 300 major editors will feel this way, aren't we running off the cliff into a major schism fork? When Jimbo was "benevolent dictator", he had certain moral rights of a pioneer. But somehow I don't feel that WMF inherited these rights. Besides, you know, monopoly is a screwed thing, even if based on noble ideas. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no irony. You have no legal or otherwise rights to this encyclopedia.  Each time you hit the "submit" button, you waive even your own copyright rights to your contributions.  You just have none.  There can be no encroachment on your 'right' to protect Wikipedia because that 'right' doesn't exist.--v/r - TP 22:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that Staszek meant "ability" not "legal right," so there's no need to bite his head off over this. Coretheapple (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably right, but after patrolling ANI for so many years, 'my rights' just makes me shake my head.--v/r - TP 01:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from. But please understand that there are strong feelings on many sides of the paid editing issues.  People who have been worried about policies like the new ToU - which are a significant chunk of the community -  have valid concerns.  One concern, is that if an editor discloses a COI or paid contribution, other editors will follow the conflicted editor around the project and will attack the conflicted editor -- that others will focus on "contributor, not content" which is a bad thing.  We are a community and we have a responsibility to at least try to see each other's point of view and to actually try to find ways to work together.  Now that we have stronger disclosure requirements, it makes sense that we have stronger warnings against outing, personal attacks, and harassment.  We all need to focus on content, not contributors.  Yes it is fine to scrutinize a conflicted editors contributions, but it is not OK to attack and hound the conflicted editor, personally.  Right? Jytdog (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As it is, paid/COI editors who have done great damage to the project invariably cry "harassment" when their depredations are countered. What you are proposing makes it harder to deal with the problem, and gives more tools to bad-faith COI editors and more roadblocks in the path of volunteer editors seeking to curb their disruption. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * i don't agree with what you write above nor the rhetoric in your edit notes, but i am fine with the actual changes you made to the guideline. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He is right. I have also changed the language at the top of the page to conform with what I and everybody else agreed to at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I agreed to certain language, all of us did, and now it is there. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not agree to any language that said I was paid to edit. I agreed to language that said I had a conflict of interest.  I've reverted your unilateral changes - someday I hope you will learn that you shouldn't WP:BEBOLD on controversial changes which you know are going to be opposed.--v/r - TP 02:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You agreed to the precise language that I have just inserted at the top. We all agreed to it, including you. I have put it back up as it is what I agreed to, and as honorable people we keep our promises, and that includes administrators.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not insert the links to the disclosures that were in the original language, even though we all agreed to them, in the interest of comity and to put an end to this matter. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For rhetoric I apologize. I am not native English speaker, so my texts are blunt, unfortunately. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * it is kind of you to apologize. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I basically agree with Staszek, even if I would express it differently. I think the recently added sentences which Staszek removed or qualified do not have consensus, at least.  I think I agree with most of what Jytdog added, though. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One example of standard behaviour which those sentences would seem to limit would be G11 CSD filings. The sentences  say that one should not go beyond the advice given for dealing with paid contributions.  It also says that it is "generally unwise" to make accusations of paid contributions without a disclosure from the editor.  Filings for CSD G11 are almost always accusations of paid contributions:  That's exactly what is being claimed—that the editor is including "Unambiguous advertising".   And these filings are never made on the basis of a disclosure from an editor. It's rather more or less the "duck" test.  And the practice is certainly beyond the advice given. G11 CSD filings are very common; I can't quite tell how many I've filed myself, however.-- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the editor in this discussion had read the recently added material, perhaps they could've avoided a block. This is existing practice by the wider community.  Practice is dictates policy.  Policy does not dictate practice.  Don't include it if you don't want to, doesn't mean the folks at ANI arn't still going to block editors who throw around COI accusations w/o evidence the first time if neccessary.--v/r - TP 05:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks for the reasonable discussion. The stuff I added in cases where there is not explicit self-disclosure says "consider going to WP:NPOVN" and in my mind, CSD G11 is indeed about content (not contributor) - it specifically references WP:NPOV.  The section of the guidance on not explicit self-disclosure also does the leave the door open to going to COIN.  Do you see what I mean? Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this guideline is to curb COI editing, not to curb enforcement of the guideline. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Figure I don't agree. This guideline tells the whole community what constitutes COI, how people with a COI should act, and provides guidance to the community how to handle possible or actual COI. There are appropriate ways to handle it, and inappropriate ways to handle it. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The preexisting language is fine. I realize that you were unfairly naggged for COI, but that would have happened no matter what kind of language exists in this guideline. You went overboard in your language. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this guideline is to describe community practice in handling conflicts of interest. It is not to make up new rules, it is not to limit it to just a certain topic.  It is a reflection of community practice.  If community practice is to discourage outing and harassment when accusations of conflicts of interest are made, community practice should be reflected here.  If there are any doubts about that, read WP:Policies and guidelines which exactly describes what policies and guidelines are.--v/r - TP 18:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The community practice that forbids outing and hounding is covered in the corresponding policies. No need to repeat it repeatedly and verbosely and threateningly in each and every other guideline. A brief reminder would suffice. This was basically the point of my change. Otherwise the changed policy section became full of threats against me and ridiculously pussyfooting around paid editors. (I am fine with the current version.) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC
Hey guys, where are we on this RFC? Are we moving forward?--v/r - TP 22:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm out, TP. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would argue that based on the inability to generate any kind of consensus (by editors who actually understand some of this stuff) around what an RFC might ask is that there's no real need for one. We have a Wikipedia policy on disclosure of paid contributions.  It is codified in the TOU.  What remains to be accomplished is the establishment of some reasonable guidelines around preferred disclosure process, etc. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I gave up. The rancorous and unproductive discussion among the few editors who tried to draft an RfC left me even more convinced that WP is incapable of governing itself on COI issues.  My suggestion for avoiding the dead end - to entrust someone to draft and post an RfC -  was not taken up. I really don't know how to proceed.Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, am I free to assume that trying to develop consensus on RFC wording failed because of a few who filibustered and I should proceed with my original intent of filing an RFC by myself? Would you oppose me using your own proposal?--v/r - TP 23:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you are asking me in particular but I will answer for me. What i had hoped is that everyone would agree to step back and allow a trusted noninvolved editor (or admin) lead a process to obtain community consensus on confirming the ToU or putting something definitive in its place as our "alternative disclosure policy". You withdrew your original RfC, which I am still grateful for, and you are free in my eyes to do as you will now.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, it's not something I'd have an interest in initiating, but I posted a draft here of an RfC with just one question. Anyone is free to run with it (or any other). SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well ... I'm very surprised, but I'm back in. The new Arbcom case involving the Foundation and RfCs means that I don't have to be making judgments on things that are far above my paygrade, I'll follow whatever guidance comes from that case. FWIW, I'd recommend waiting a week (till the evidence phase is over) before filing an RfC ... even better would be to wait until the workshop phase is over, which might be 3 weeks. I apologize that I was slow on the uptake earlier; I've done better with past RfCs, and I'll try to do better with this one. I completely understand SV's reservations about my lack of distance ... but now I can let Arbcom deal with those tough questions where I might have had a hard time finding the neutral path. As always, I'm open to any suggestions that I might not be the right person for the job. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please explain the pertinence of that arbitration case? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'll encourage the voters to vote on the issues and not "for" or "against" the Foundation, but for the closer(s), the Arbcom case is pertinent. It's possible the Foundation will disagree with my close ... given the votes last November, it's way too early to prejudge the outcome. If you read what's been written in that Arbcom case so far, you'll see that there's a track record of awkwardness in similar situations. I don't think anyone ... including me ... would have been happy if I had tried to handle that kind of conflict myself, that's clearly in Arbcom territory. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked is because there is no dispute that we have the explicit right to create a different COI policy than the one stated in the TOU. So I do not see a conflict with the Foundation here, nor any effort by the Foundation to directly intervene with its personnel as in the arbitration case. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I also don't see any connection between that case and an RfC about the ToU. Holding RfCs to determine alternative disclosure policies was the Foundation's idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Foundation said anything about RfCs but did not prohibit them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You guys aren't seeing the intervention because, in the other cases, it came after the RfC, not before. We won't know till it's over. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but the preliminary statement by 28Bytes indicates an action that just does not seem within the realm of possibility here. Even if it were to happen, how does that affect what we do now? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't affect what voters do now or during the RfC (hopefully). My preference would be not to say why I think the odds are higher that they may intervene after the fact, because my opinions might influence someone's vote. If it bothers anyone that I brought it up to the point where they think I might not being doing a good job, I'll tell you the things I was concerned about that caused me to withdraw earlier (but that aren't a concern for me, now that other people are dealing with these things in another place). - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you brought it up, though I'm still not quite "getting" it. I will look closer at that arbcom case. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Some general notes on the problems of self-promotion, or famous for being famous
I've been involved in dealing with a few COI incidents in recent months. I'm starting to see a pattern. A few years ago, most COI incidents seemed to involve music, usually garage bands trying to promote themselves. WP:MUSIC provided guidance thre. That still comes up now and then (it seems to be mostly DJs now, rather than musicians). More COI problems today, though, involve business people.

In the last six months or so, I've been involved in COI isssues involving Banc de Binary, Daniel A. Epstein, Yank Barry, Better Place, Vivek Wadhwa, and Brandon Mendelson. In each case, notability is marginal but sufficient for Wikipedia, the subject of the article engages in extensive PR efforts, and there's been an effort to suppress negative information. Often, the PR efforts are of a much larger scale than the actual accomplishments. (Better Place, the electric car company, was a notable example - vast amounts of hype, many meetings with heads of state, not many cars on the road. They went bankrupt and were liquidated.)

Often the positive information comes from PR sources with WP:RS problems, while the negative information comes from independent reliable sources such as lawsuits. So the Wikipedia article ends up emphasizing the negative items, and the article subject gets very upset. This is a direct consequence of Wikipedia rules - if the real accomplishments aren't very notable, after we throw out the unverifiable PR, what's left is all the verifiable bad stuff. This enrages some article subjects. Banc de Binary (which at one point offered $10,000 to have its Wikipedia article "fixed") and Yank Barry (who filed a lawsuit) were extreme cases of this problem, but there's some of that in all the articles mentioned. This sometimes results in complaints of "undue weight" being given to negative information.

It's not "undue weight". It's a consequence of being "famous for being famous". It's a problem for article subjects which owe their notability to their own PR. For most of the above articles, if the subject didn't engage in substantial PR efforts, they wouldn't be in Wikipedia at all. For those with real accomplishments, articles are more balanced, even with the negatives. See Henry Ford, Charles Lindburgh, Thomas Edison, or Steve Jobs, who have been judged by history. Their negatives are in their articles, but are outweighed by their successes.

So that's how Wikipedia gets into these contentious situations.

John Nagle (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm confused by your claim that a lawsuit is an "independent reliable source". All official lawsuit documents are banned sources for BLPs, and the pleadings are as completely non-independent as it is possible for a publication to be.
 * Perhaps you meant that news stories about the lawsuits are independent and reliable? I could accept that.  Of course, so are news stories (we assume and hope) that are based upon PR efforts.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

That giant header
Here is the agreement on the header disclosure text as drafted by User:Jytdog. I agree with there being a header but I don't agree with its being so large and repetitive and I thought a permanent top section would have been better as originally proposed. Please also see edit summaries on my bold cutback and Figureofnine's reversion. Figureofnine agreed with my edit but feels the text should be left alone.

I am going ahead with recombining and styling the two boxes without text changes. I think the sentence "The starting list gathers various disclosures already made on this page.", the repetition of the COI quote (instead of simply "the obligation quoted above"), and "Listed in alphabetical order, with link to disclosure:" are overmuch. (I also swapped "paid editor" with "paid to edit", which is what COI says and is subtly different, but I see Figureofnine is right that an editor implied preference for the ambiguous version instead.) I would trim more, but we can start talking with that. Everyone in the previous discussion should still be around. Has it been an eyesore long enough yet? Frieda Beamy (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the standard "connected contributor" box or the one I drafted over at COIN. The big clunkiness of mine comes from the extra text intended to warn editors against abusing the disclosure, not to highlight the disclosure! :)  But really either way is fine with me.  It was FigureofNine who swapped the standard box that CorporateM had installed, for the one I drafted, not me. Jytdog (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know. I have now also cut back redundancy in the archives section without losing anything significant, which does a great deal for appearance. If I were suggesting a draft about COI right now it would look like this:

"Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia." —WP:COI. To satisfy this obligation, new contributors can add their own usernames here, or others may add them. Link to disclosure must be definitive and not speculative. This list is not here to promote personal attacks, outing, or harassment, or to be used in refuting arguments made by conflicted participants. Participants in discussions of the COI guideline, who have been or are paid editors, include: BlackCab, CorporateM, Frieda Beamy, TParis.
 * I don't think connected contributor would work with the large number of connections expected. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I got the ping, but I abstain per WP:COIMICRO. I have already spoken my piece regarding privacy and have no plans of being a regular on this page. Regarding the above, it seems there is a delicate balance between the requirement for disclosure of an act that is itself "very strongly discouraged" therefore any disclosure will lead to "discouragement". CorporateM (Talk) 03:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * meant to say that i am not picky about any particular format - i am fine with any simple and persistent means for the disclosure to be made and seen, ideally with warnings not to abuse it. what you wrote above is also fine! Jytdog (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently "don't abuse it" doesn't extend to equating COI editing to drunken driving .--v/r - TP 13:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read that a little differently. I was disappointed not because it related to drunk driving (I didn't think of it), but because it said "COI" editing, not "bias" editing. Totally different. Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the last discussion, just as a chance for me to misrepresent everyone at once. Jytdog provided the long version; Isaacl preferred and provided a short version. Coretheapple preferred either version (but not CorporateM's), and thought either had consensus. SlimVirgin preferred no header (but this seems resolved by consensus that the Connected Contributor template is a good model). Others did not comment on the long or short of it, but Figureofnine preferred Jytdog's over mine (described above). So it looks like Isaacl's version should have broad support:
 * "In accordance with the guideline to disclose a history of paid editing when discussing a conflict of interest guideline or policy, the following editors have disclosed that they have received compensation for editing Wikipedia:
 * Editor 1 (link to disclosure)
 * Editor 2 (link to disclosure)"

TParis objects to "paid to edit" but apparently not to "paid editor" because he is an editor who admits being paid, but not to edit, so for this we might change the end to "that they are compensated editors:". (I'm not fond of "paid editor" but that's irrelevant.) The COI quote would still lead in as usual. I have also slightly modified Connected Contributor to indicate what it would look like if that template's practice were almost exactly followed here, which is more vague and is preferable for that reason:
 * "Wikipedia contributors [ (declared here),  (declared here) ] have declared a personal or professional connection to conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia. Relevant policies include Terms of use, No personal attacks, and Harassment."

The ordinary handling is that editors are expected not to abuse connected contributor lists without needing long header guidance, and can be reported upon just as TParis has done. (I believe the long version was presented so as to make it more favorable to TParis, but I don't think length was significant there.) Also, the statements that any editor can list someone and disclosure must be clear-cut are also ordinary expected handling and watchers here can correct any misuse without needing to warn about misuse in advance. Because of any editors who would rather this were not handled by me, I would like someone else to consider making an edit to shorten the header. Frieda Beamy (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC) (If the declaration is on the user page, there is no need for a separate "declared here" link, which is also the accepted practice right now.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that we, and especially you and other editors who are covered by the notice, should leave well enough alone. The current version is fine. It was the consensus version, and agreed to. I'm uncomfortable with editors who are subject to this notice being quite so dominant in formulating the notice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * figure...  to me, the main thing is that the disclosure is made and is persistent and warns not to abuse.  moving past principle to reality....what concrete details of the disclosure matter to you? Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and as per all the warnings attached to the COI disclosure notice, please do not use the disclosure as an excuse to comment on the contributors or make general dismissals based on who made the contribution.  Please comment on content, not contributor.  The purpose of the disclosure is so that everybody can read the contribution in the context of the contributor having made paid contributions, but actual responses should focus on the comments themselves (the content) not the contributor.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're off-base. People subject to a particular notice are dominating this discussion and in one instance unilaterally changing the notice that we agreed to. There is nothing wrong with expressing discomfort with that, so please get off your high horse and stop the condescending scoldings. As for the elements of what we agreed to, it was a list of the persons covered by the notice, disclosure that they are or were paid editors, and links to their disclosure. I reverted Frieda Beamy because one change she made was, though acceptable to me, unacceptable to TParis. Instead of appreciating that goodwill gesture, I get another lecture from you, and I losing patience. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please comment on content, not contributor. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, you "put the ball in play" a few lines above. If you don't want trouble, don't start trouble. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake by not seeing that "paid editor" was taken as an ambiguous expansion of "paid to edit", and I should have been reverted there and that is resolved by my changed proposal. But the question of long and short is not resolved by your reversion and nobody has officially opposed a short version due to its length but only on side issues that are now answered. The idea of templates is that they say the essentials (what Figure 9 has listed) and leave much unsaid. The idea of BRD is that certain unilateral changes are a good start, as happened here. I think that while there is goodwill all around, JYT is also saying that the fullest expression of not abusing this list includes not making it so significant which person makes the text of the proposal. All the same it would be appropriate for someone else to evaluate what consensus exists on this one. Frieda Beamy (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to anything that says I am paid to edit, though I dispute the circumstances that other editors wish to use to label me as one, the only matter I dispute is anything that suggests I am exclusively paid to edit - as in that is all I do - when in fact it amounts to 0% of my edits and perhaps .02% of my overall effort put into the project.--v/r - TP 18:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My proposed text deliberately used the same phrasing as the Terms of Use, which states that you must "disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." Personally, I think a much more concise disclaimer is sufficient, but I also think having the disclaimer is more important than tweaking the text; if keeping the current wording is the easiest way to satisfy the most people, so be it. isaacl (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, leave it alone. Boring already. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
If there is not already a way to do this, can we create a way for people who wish to to certify that they do not have a COI? It seems there is a process for someone to verify their off-wiki identity (though I haven't figured out how to do that, or the pros/cons of doing it), but what if you want to wipe away others' concerns (or outright allegations) of COI? Hell, I'd be willing to provide a signed affidavit to functionaries, or maybe even a copy of my income-tax form (with sensitive material redacted) if that would stop people from suggesting that I have a COI. I imagine others would be eager to do this, too, because some editors seem to have no compunction about attacking others in this way. Lightbreather (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was hassled with COI accusations to the point where I went to COIN and asked for an admin there to allow me to disclose my RL identity privately so he/she could look at the articles where the accusations arose, look at what I do in RL, and state whether I had a COI with respect to the topics people were angry about. I was strongly advised not to do that by experienced editors here b/c of the risk of the person I disclosed to mistakenly or purposefully outing me. I did it anyway and the outcome satisfied most of my pursuers. So that is always an option. (btw, nobody is completely free of COI with regard to everything, but one can be free of COI on specific topics.)  I cannot imagine that anybody would be happy to volunteer to be the COI-vetter in some kind of established process like you suggest and I am not sure that would be good for the project. We are supposed to AGF and if you are being hounded by particular editors that is sanctionable behavior... Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I like part of your solution - a self-initiated COI investigation - so I have started one. My proposal is slightly different than yours, but I hope it will have similar results. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Everybody has a COI with something/someone. The question is whether you edit a subject that you have a COI with.  If you want to certify you do not have a COI, you can approach either someone on Arbcom or one of the functionaries.  Alternatively, a possible avenue might also be to approach someone who has already identified with the foundation though I'm not sure if anyone would support that idea.--v/r - TP 19:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I mean, TP. I started a self-initiated COI request as indicated above, but I am going to consider your advice as well. Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ... Except, what does "someone who has already identified with the foundation" mean? Lightbreather (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're in the classic Catch-22. If you have an interest in proving you don't have a conflict of interest, someone might say your interest (in vindicating yourself) automatically conflicts with Wikipedia's unselfish goals (and if you don't have an interest you don't get to bring it up). If you've been judged as edit-warring, the best response is to step back, try editing somewhere else, and let everyone calm down, not to stir it up. It's fine to mutter and grumble to yourself as you walk away with apparent cheerfulness, but walking away is what some Wikipedians call for. Also you could hardly prove you're not conflicted, you could only prove things like e.g. the only money coming in that you declared to tax agencies last year came from a nonnotable company, which is old news and quite a bit different. So I think there is a brink that you could step back from here. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree Beamy. I think that editors who persistently insist there is a COI conflict w/o evidence are violating WP:NPA.  There is no catch-22.  Editors who make accusations of COI should do so carefully and delicately.  That's a farcry from what actually happens, though, as editors routinely think this guideline overrules WP:OUTING and WP:AGF.  What you recommend is good advice, the stepping away part, but the onus is not on the editor to prove they don't have a COI when these accusations come up, but for the accusers to present evidence.--v/r - TP 20:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TP. Normally, I would agree with you about whose burden it is to prove what, but this has come up enough times now that in my case, I'd like to preemptively prove my lack of COI. I have two documents that I could show a functionary that would probably relieve most of this heartburn. But what about my question? What does "someone who has already identified with the foundation" mean? Thanks.
 * (edit conflict) FB, you kinda lost me there in the first part of your reply. As for the edit warring, I have stepped back from that topic. This is a separate issue, unrelated to any particular topic. As a woman, I have seen and experienced some things on Wikipedia that I find personally disturbing and that, according to WP policy, should not be happening without consequence to those breaking the policy. Regardless of where I choose to edit on Wikipedia, I'd like not to be diverted into discussions about me and my intentions, and I'd like for other good-faith editors not to be diverted in this way, either. It's hard to say if it's a sexism problem, but it is a problem. At any rate, IMO, the NPA and harassment policies deserve as much attention as NPOV, but they're not getting it. I can ask others to observe those policies, but I can't make them. I can hope to see such conduct shut down faster if I can say (regardless of who is being attacked) either, 1. Shall we take this to the Civility board? or 2. This has already been discussed, so unless you have some new evidence to submit, let it go. Lightbreather (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a follow-up, that self-initiated COI went nowhere fast. I will try TP's suggestion. Thanks again, for your suggestion. Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * hm. sorry about that . I just checked it out - you framed that badly and so set yourself up to fail.  They could have been kinder and helped you reframe it, but the request was impossible. I wasn't aware (and didn't inquire) as to whether you had a history of tendentious editing. Which it appears you do.  It looks like the issue that gets you into trouble is WP:ADVOCACY which people often mistakenly call WP:COI - they are two different things and we handle them in different ways.  We deal with COI at WP:COIN and issues with advocacy are addressed at WP:NPOVN (and ultimately at Arbcom, as happened with you).  Anyway, good luck to you. I hope you are able to set the advocacy aside in your work here, as you were advised at Arbcom to do. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, JYT, but just to make sure you didn't mean to frame your response poorly. There are a handful of editors who have accused me of advocacy, but who have provided no evidence of it. I just re-read the essay you pointed to (which of course I've read in the past) and its Identifying advocacy section is critical. I don't use weasel or peacock terms in articles, and I do the things that are suggested under "Useful ways to avoid advocacy." Allegations alone are not evidence, no matter how often they're repeated. I was recently speculated to be a "paid advocate," so I think that COI does apply. At least it would be one allegation that I could easily prove false, and have one less personal attack to deal with. Thanks again. Lightbreather (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

, I think you're going about this all wrong. 1st, as pointed out several times above everybody has a COI on something, so nobody can make a complete denial "I have no COIs". Perhaps you could make a statement, "I never edit in areas where I have a COI" but it would be difficult to completely convince people of this. I think you really mean to say "I am not a paid editor." A negative is almost always impossible to prove, but one thing you might consider is making a public commitment. Just say "I am not a paid editor" on your user page. People love to cut down hypocrites, so after awhile getting no contradictions to this might increase the credibility of the statement. A more Wikipedian way to do this is by having a user-box or something similar. Here are a few I've picked up along the way:

Making a commitment to the WMF is not really possible. Many editors in positions of trust, e.g. ArbCom members, have to provide evidence of their real world identity to the WMF, which is what was likely being referred to. But these editors don't provide tax returns or anything like that. If you have questions on this, maybe contact, but he'll almost certainly tell you he can't do what you're asking.

The only way to really convince your fellow editors that you are not being paid is to edit using your own judgement and good sense, provide all the required references and make a reputation for yourself. Even that will not completely immunize you from these attacks, but you will know the truth, as will most other editors who have seen your work. I've been called a paid editor 3 times, and my feeling is that those accusers are just outing themselves by making that absurd accusation (one was a bit more complex - I think her argument was that "everybody is a paid editor" - which of course is completely absurd). On the other hand, I do believe that a polite question such as "May I ask if you are a paid editor?" or "Are you aware that the is a new rule saying that paid editors must declare their employers?" are perfectly reasonable is many cases. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC
The Arbcom case isn't generating much drama, so I don't have any objection to starting the RfC. I think it's likely (for a bunch of reasons) that we'll get more than the usual number of votes from anonymous voters and from voters with no track record on Wikipedia. If that starts happening, I'll add a small "info" banner that outside opinions are definitely welcome, since this is a discussion, but at the same time, it's also a vote by the English Wikipedia community, a community that I'm not allowed to disenfranchise, and wouldn't want to. I'll add a small "info" banner to the RfC saying that, if it turns out that the voters are focusing on different questions than the ones presented (which seems likely to some extent, in light of the six simultaneous RfCs on similar questions last November), then the closer(s) will lead a short discussion after this RfC to figure out which questions got the most attention, and we'll suggest those questions for a new RfC. [Inserted: Per discussion below, we won't push a new RfC, we'll use the language: "This RfC neither encourages nor prevents an immediate follow-up RfC to continue working out consensus".] I have two requests on timing: I would prefer this RfC last for exactly 30 days (in a deadlocked RfC, moving on to new questions is usually more productive), and I'd prefer to have closers for this one sooner rather than later. It's been a problem with big RfCs over the last few years that closers have needed a fair amount of time to get up to speed and to come up with a closing statement, and that has seemed to sap the interest and focus of the community. I'll try to do better with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * [copied from my userpage - Dank] Hi. It seems unusual and perhaps unseemly to promote a potential and unformed future COI RfC for the closer to close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have more faith in community processes than a lot of Wikipedians do ... I think that, no matter what we do here, we'll find consensus in the long run. But if someone doesn't reassure the voters that their concerns (whatever they are) are going to get an equal hearing, it can set the process of getting to consensus back by months, or years, while people argue over whether the wrong people were drawing up the questions and argue over what they're supposed to be arguing about. My only goal here is transparency. The discussion on this page doesn't have a lot in common with the discussions we saw in the six RfCs from November (plus one large discussion at WP:AN). That's not a bad thing, at all, we've got different questions to look at now ... but it does mean that it's likely that discussion will be all over the place, and not necessarily focused on the questions you're presenting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, although I find it difficult to follow. If you don't know what the questions are (will be), it's difficult to know, for example, if one as (potential) volunteer closer already has a fixed view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean me, or whoever else (hopefully) closes? I closed most of those November discussions, so if someone had a problem with my neutrality on any of those issues, we would have heard about it by now, probably. I was obsessive in the past (not so much now) about asking if anyone had any problem with me being a closer on these big RfCs for any reason; apparently, I'm either acceptable, or I'm better than the alternatives (especially when there are no alternatives). - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone. As for you, we have no idea, because there is no RfC. But as you have spoken about "the area" in the past, there is no way of knowing in the present, how your past statements will appear, in light of as yet unformulated questions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

this is vague and frustrating. Here is what I see happening. (Dank correct me if I am wrong about your intentions.) Dank is going to frame an RfC and post it for 30 days. We will get someone to close when it is time. (as far as I can see no one concrete has been named. Could be Dank, could not be.)  When it is time to close it will be very clear what the RfC was and whether potential closer is "involved". Is that the story Dank? If that is accurate, Alan, what is your concrete problem with that story? Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone is welcome to open an RfC, but Dank, it would be better if someone completely uninvolved (perhaps three editors/admins) were to close it. You opposed promoting the bright line to policy last year, so that alone creates involvement. We should wait until a couple of weeks before it's time to close, then ask for someone on WP:AN/RFC. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. The so-called "bright line" hasn't been under discussion since November, and isn't under discussion now. If it resurfaces, and if anyone cares, I'll recuse. 2. I withdrew that vote. 3. I was commenting on the connection between the proposal and our CC-BY-SA license ... please read the comment. "Opposing with the possibility of supporting" after the discrepancy had been discussed and dealt with isn't the same thing as "opposing". 4. Most important, and this is one reason I offered to close: for many months in my first two years of adminship, I was the most diligent COI patroller on Wikipedia, dealing with promotional pages and with usernames that showed a connection to the material being promoted (avoiding the problem of outing people ... I dealt with people who had already disclosed a likely connection by their edit and their choice of usernames). If you're concerned that I'm not sympathetic to your concerns, or don't know what you're talking about, I think I've got a long history on Wikipedia that says otherwise. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog: It just makes no sense to have closers for an unknown RfC; and No, Users who propose the RfC do not close them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, Alan. It's the job of the closer(s) at the end of this RfC to give you our impressions of what people were talking about and what remains for the next RfC. I wouldn't be involved in that future RfC ... I wouldn't write it, close it, or interfere in any way. - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. (Now I get it Alan, you thought I was going to close the RfC I was proposing, I didn't pick up on that till now.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite. (Jytdog thought you were proposing an RfC.) I thought you were "pushing"  for someone/anyone to have an RfC, any RfC, and that just does not jibe for me with closer duty. I think you have good intentions but it seems too activ(ist) for closer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can live with that ... I think it helps the quality of the discussion if you reassure voters that their concerns will (someday) be dealt with, and I hope people will say that, but I'll use the language from my last RfC (on PC2): "This RfC neither encourages nor prevents an immediate follow-up RfC to continue working out consensus ...". Does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's only one COI-related RfC on the cards, asking whether we want an alternative disclosure requirement for paid editors. Whoever opens it can't close it (because it's such a contentious issue). Whoever closes it can't have expressed a view on paid-editing issues in the past. So far, there doesn't seem to be any great enthusiasm to open one, so perhaps there's no need. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting to see if anyone else thinks I'm an unfit closer for this. Since you filed the RfC you're talking about, SV, I respect that you've got strong feelings about this, but I understand what "neutral" means. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just want to add that I didn't mean any offense, SV. Up to now, what I've been trying to do with these big RfCs is to say a few things beforehand, enough to try to increase people's optimism that their effort will be rewarded because the closer(s) is/are actually listening to them ... but you're right, SV ... even though this approach has worked in the past, it's too controversial, and it risks someone questioning the closing statement on the grounds of non-neutrality. I actually am neutral on this issue, and I hope that's apparent, but if my position generates drama, I'll drop it (which would be a shame, given my time investment in trying to understand everyone's positions on this since I became an admin in 2008, the lack of offers from experienced closers to close this and previous RfCs, and the importance of the issue). - Dank (push to talk) 04:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually ... it's entirely possible others will see it the same way as SV, even if they don't weigh in here. I need to ask about this over at WP:AN. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that someone else should close any RfC on this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * would you please say why? Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC) (striking answered elsewhere Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC))
 * It's okay, Jytdog, I'll probably withdraw per the discussion at AN. - Dank (push to talk) 17:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand, i just think in general folks should provide reasoning. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and is see that Core provided reasoning there. Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is enthusiasm for making changes to this policy which require an RFC. Some would rather make the changes w/o wider community input.  The problem with the RFC is that !A could = B or C.  So asking !A || A doesn't really achieve the same result when B and C are drastically different.  There is also opposition to asking A, B, or C.  I'm personally opposed to asking A or C when B hasn't been considered.  So - it's not a matter of if we need to ask but how to ask it.--v/r - TP 23:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your finger is on the problem, TP. It might be cast as competing editing desires. Some want tighter editing restrictions than "fuzzy line" "strongly encouraged", and some want looser disclosure rules than the TOU. I think both these desires are not gaining consensus or near-majority status and so we have some grasping after the leftovers of what was otherwise a pretty constructive harmonizing of TOU and COI. The solution might be, not ask by RFC (although I think something like RFC will arise eventually), but instead continue to hash out both sides on talk. COI editors should volunteer more restrictions on themselves, and their "benevolent watchers" should volunteer to accept some TOU disclosures that also satisfy desires for privacy. Both of these might happen here and at WP:CO-OP. I have now expanded on my disclosure (even if I continue to be viewed as a test case). I think that it's enough to say I am potentially connected as opposed to necessarily connected because I can then be deemed connected just the same, and it preserves my right to edit topics where I am not connected and submit myself to the same scrutiny as if I was (which keeps me from disclosing the actual connections). I also think that the FAQ indicates that Self or Username is a valid disclosure if accompanied by "affiliation", meaning potential connection topic(s). At the same time, I believe in holding myself to higher standards than others hold me to, so I am still here talking out useful and useless restrictions with others. Frieda Beamy (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Australia Card
We have a company called The Australia Card, www.theaustraliacard.com.au and, there is also a listing on Wikipedia about The Australia Card which once was a proposal for a national identity card in Australia but never eventuated.

I would appreciate if we could have our The Australia Card also listed under "See Also" with a reference to our card as otherwise many visitors may just continue looking for other alternatives and we miss out.

With best regards, Hans Sander The Australia Card — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.31.76 (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is Australia Card (about a proposal abandoned in 1987). From http://theaustraliacard.com.au/ it appears the company operates a discount card. A web search shows the Wikipedia article at #1 and the company website at #2; I did not notice any other mention of the company in the first 20 or so hits, so it seems that no article can be written on the company as WP:CORP would not be satisfied. The "see also" and "external links" sections in an article are for topics specifically related to the article, so I do not think any mention of the company should be made. I removed your contact details for spam reasons and because we communicate on the wiki. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing and the perception of promotion
Wikimedia's Terms of Use were updated on 16 June 2014 and included, in Section 14, a prohibition on paid contributions without disclosure. The opening section of the FAQ page notes: "Some contributors do receive payment for their edits. These contributors improve the overall quality of the projects when they edit with a neutral point of view ... On the other hand, paid advocacy editing - i.e. paid editing of articles to promote companies, products, and services - is strongly discouraged or banned on most, if not all, the projects."

An ANI complaint has been started over a series of edits I carried out at A2 milk—an article that was a low-quality stub. I was paid a fee to edit the article to improve it, and have posted a disclosure notice at my user page. The intention was not to promote the product and at that ANI I have described the context in which I began. I am now accused by several editors of trying to inject a promotional tone, although the editor who lodged the ANI, User:Stalwart111, has since agreed the article is not now promotional — an achievement reached fairly rapidly through the normal collaboration process and mainly due to the intervention of User:WhatamIdoing. (Once he left it all turned to shit).

So here's my difficulty: I have honestly attempted to work within the rules on paid editing. Though I don't attempt to promote A2 milk, other editors have seen this as an issue of Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing. The ANI has now produced a proposal for a topic ban on A2 milk. Given the long-standing antipathy towards paid editing, it strikes me that any kind of paid editing, however well intended and though within the Terms of Use, could be interpreted as paid advocacy, PR and marketing. Those taking the high moral ground will always assert that someone in my position is driven by a requirement or agenda to promote, which in a discussion board where the hounds are baying for blood, is a position rather hard to fight.

In short, the rules may allow paid editing, but the community may not. If that's the case, why have the rule? Is there in fact a need for a better forum than ANI in which to examine claims of paid advocacy? I'd appreciate some thoughts. BlackCab ( TALK ) 05:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Friends don't let friends edit with a COI.
 * In the New York Times' handbook for their employees, "Ethical Journalism", they say: "34. Staff members may not accept employment or compensation of any sort from individuals or organizations who figure or are likely to figure in coverage they provide, edit, package or supervise." Pretty much all respectable publishers have a policy like this.  And for good reason:  Such conflicts of interest destroy the trust of readers.  Some people who are tempted to make some amount of money in such a way rationalize their behaviour with the thought that they are not promoting, that they are just hired to write neutrally about the topic, and that that is all they will do.  This is of course rejected by the experts who have studied the effects of conflicts of interest: No one is immune, even when one is not consciously aware of being affected by their conflict of interest (Moore & Loewenstein 2004 )
 * This seems to be exactly what has happened in this case. One person does not understand why everyone else who has looked at the edits has judged them to be paid advocacy. To quote Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
 * My advice would be to follow the recommendation of this guideline, which says that we should not make such edits. We shouldn't make such edits: It's wrong because it hurts this encyclopedia. It's not a bad faith action which makes it wrong, it's just well-documented human psychology as Moore & Loewenstein note. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * BlackCab, you've conveniently paraphrased that section from the FAQ. It reads:


 * You don't work for a museum or art gallery - you work for a public relations and media management firm for whom the company in question is a major client. Your employer is not some benevolent institution seeking to expand Wikipedia for the good of humankind. It's a multinational corporation with a commercial agenda. And that's fine - you're still not prevented from contributing using the same requested edit templates as every other COI editor (my talk page archives are littered with requests from COI editors with whom I have a good working relationship). But no matter how many times that is explained to you, you continue to think of yourself as being part of some special third category where you can do what you want and everyone else is wrong. Then you started edit-warring. So I asked for you to be topic-banned.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 08:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My thoughts (see talk header) are that we do have a better forum, WP:COIN; COI editing is never to be punishable in itself but only as an aggravating factor of other punishable behavior; the transparency of the disclosure should be considered to determine how aggravating the factor is. The theory is that the community will not prevent paid editing when the disclosed editor pursues the highest standards of editing (almost the bright line), but the practice is somewhat lacking and needs time to be worked out. Frieda Beamy (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

As Stalwart111 correctly pointed out at ANI, your edits were in fact promotional. Paid editing is really superfluous to this discussion. You used Wikipedia for promotional purposes. Coming here and making your supposedly "neutral" edits a paid editing issue is disingenuous. If you hadn't disclosed, editors would still rightly assume in their own minds (even if they could not say so outright) that your sudden passion for this brand of milk was not based upon chugging it down, but compensation. Yes, we must assume good faith, but we are not stupid. If anything, there would be a greater feeling for a topic ban, as people would feel, in their heart of hearts, that you were not coming clean. That would be the case whether or not the TOU required disclosure. No, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, one cannot and should not persecute or hound people who are paid editors. But when editors act as advocates, whether they admit that they are paid or not, they are going to be topic-banned. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? On first offense, as judged by advocacy watchers only, after nearly 10,000 edits, and while trying to make reparations? A topic ban would shut down discussion of a content issue where there is not consensus and would not stop any paid editing in any other area. The new paradigm is that WP works with COI editors, including working with them if they fail the highest standards. But little of this discussion relates to this page. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Advocacy watchers"? No, the correct description is "editors with no connection to the subject." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Figureofnine, how much time did you spend looking at the diffs yourself? It's never safe to assume that any participant in a dispute that's reached ANI is giving you the complete picture.  Even if they're acting in perfectly good faith, they're only going to tell you about what they think is "relevant", which is never what the other person did right.  Speaking only for myself, I have a hard time understanding how a catalog of one company after another getting into legal trouble or going bankrupt is "promotional":  it sounds like most business partners of BlackCab's employer's client are cursed.
 * I haven't got the time to follow that dispute; it's unfortunately just one of many on my watchlist. I'm more concerned with the behavior, i.e., wholesale reversions of well-sourced changes because one portion of the changes did not meet our most stringent sourcing guideline.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I like the description of "advocacy watchers." It describes the issue perfectly.  Busy bodies who spend too much time trying to find problems based on a false believe that paid editing equates to paid advocacy.  That might be the first line of a new upcoming essay.--v/r - TP 00:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That was an obvious reference to me because I happen to have also taken an active role in an AFD about a promotional article Frieda Beamy wrote; the suggestion being that I lurk somewhere under a wiki-bridge waiting for a tasty COI goat to innocently wander past. Um no - I participate in a couple of AFDs a day (often more) and I found my way to A2 milk via WP:FTN. Besides which, I didn't revert those initial edits - an editor with a history at that article did. Much of what was being included had been discussed on the talk page previously. Like WhatamIdoing, I don't have an issue with the addition of corporate background and the details of bankruptcies. But it's disingenuous to suggest that's all the edit aimed to do. In restoring the "uncontroversial" material, WhatamIdoing added back only 17k of a 53k byte promotional edit. 35k bytes of disputed promotional nonsense wasn't restored - about 2/3 of what BC originally tried to insert into the article. I have no issue with paid editing, in fact I have a track record of helping COI editors make requested edits to corporate and non-corporate articles. Guidelines have been established to allow COI editors to contribute effectively and 99% of openly declared conflicted editors comply. BC believes they are not required to do so.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Lest my "decision" not to restore more than that gets misinterpreted as a lack of support for all of the remaining material, I should add that I restored the 30% of the material that could be determined to be fine with less than 10 minutes' time available. That I could so quickly determine that a third of the material was fine should be a minor source of shame for the people performing wholesale reversions before that point.
 * My guess at the time was that the rest was split fairly evenly between material that could be salvaged with minor efforts at copyediting, things that needed serious work, and claims that were doomed (almost all health-related). As I haven't had time to go back to look at any of it, I have no idea whether my initial guess was accurate.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Which part of the ToU is BC not complying with? And BC may have made it in reference to you, but I had others in mind.  I've never known you to be a busy body, Stalwart.--v/r - TP 01:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Frieda Beamy made the reference, but anyway. It's not a matter of compliance with the declaration portion of the ToU. The ToU FAQ states - "paid editing of articles to promote companies, products, and services - is strongly discouraged or banned on most, if not all, the projects." It makes it clear that the question of compliance or not is a matter for the projects. In this case, EN:WP; in this case, WP:NOPAY. The ToU requires only declaration. EN:WP goes further. It's not enough just to have a valid license from Massachusetts - you still need to comply with the speed limit in Pennsylvania if that's where you want to drive.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologized for the phrasing, which came from an old name, and was intended to apply to the three editors who had supported the topic ban, although I probably should not have generalized from Stalwart's two cases to "watching" and had no such fairy tale in mind.
 * I don't think paid editing is limited to just paid advocacy here, and GLAM and Reward Board there. The idea of ethical paid editing is that you don't edit as a representative but as an independent Wikipedian who is taking up some interesting subject on the prompting of an outside party; that's the goal anyway, though many fall short, especially the first time. So I'm having trouble connecting the dots between "paid advocates may edit talk" and Stalwart's idea that topic ban improves things or that NOPAY is stronger than the TOU. I am interested to see whether I am misunderstanding NOPAY. Frieda Beamy (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it's "stronger" - it's another step further. The ToU simply requires declaration; WP:NOPAY also suggests declaration and additionally specifies "you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral" but that such editors "may use the article talk page". I have, from the start, only asked that BC comply with those guidelines.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pardon my obtusity, but in the boxquote above the TOU FAQ says the same thing as NOPAY about "strongly discouraged" ("very" adds nothing), so NOPAY should be regarded as no stronger. Also NOPAY does not forbid direct editing, the bright line would do that, but it's not the guideline here. (Now, Stalwart, if you're simply a WP:BRIGHTLINE advocate and you didn't realize that it wasn't policy, I apologize, but I don't think that's what happened with your reading of NOPAY.) BlackCab may have made some simple errors and backed down from them, and for your part this is exactly the right page for getting clarifications about what COI means, so I am very hopeful for a good outcome here. Frieda Beamy (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I said "guidelines" - we all know what they are. BC believes they do not apply to them. Others disagree.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Stalwart and I are having decent camaraderie for people who disagree, but I am still asking my question. Stalwart seems to read NOPAY as saying that someone who has thoughtlessly edited promotionally has become automatically subject to the bright line, because the many requests that User:BlackCab "abide" by NOPAY because it "applies" seem to treat it as having a bright line in this case. That may lead to the idea that force (topic ban from milk?) must be used to ensure the bright line is obeyed by this editor. I pointed out that NOPAY allows talkpage editing by admittedly promotional editors. So the question here is about how to read it. (The question of how to deal with editors who have stopped promotional activity is handling elsewhere, and also the question of whether a topic ban from an editor's first paid topic is effective for preventing promotion in the second.) Frieda Beamy (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that you've missed the bit where the two are completely unrelated. The proposed topic ban has nothing to do with promotional editing or paid editing. It is related to a lack of a neutral point of view, argument and edit-warring. The topic ban is not designed to prevent promotion - I offered options for dealing with the COI (in line with WP:COI, which were rejected) long before proposing the topic ban.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I unarchived because the bot was reading 5 days instead of 18 days. I'm still looking for other comments on the meaning of NOPAY. Frieda Beamy (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC) To answer a question, the comment immediately above was the only comment I added while I unarchived and changed the bot details. Frieda Beamy (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your question was 'Why have the rule?' (WP:NOPAY). Building on the answers given, an important reason is to make clear the difference between the way English Wikipedia treats someone paid by a museum to edit an article about an object in the museum collection, and the way it treats someone paid by an organization to write about that organization. The response of the community is borne out by history: the guideline summarizes that history and proposes ways a paid editor (or anyone else with a financial conflict of interest) can, with patience on all sides, hope to work within that.
 * You also asked about forums to resolve disputes, but I don't have anything to add on that score.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ulf! Those are BC's questions. I'll be more specific about my questions because maybe neither I nor Stalwart have been direct. This page describes paid advocacy, and it describes GLAM and REWARD, but remains ambiguous about the existence of other types of paid editing. By saying what paid editing is and by explaining what is wrong with combining paid editing with various violations, in my view this page implies that paid editing can exist if the editor works to avoid violations and follow best practices. It also acknowledges the existence of "Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly". All I'm asking is to confirm that view. Stalwart may agree, or may instead believe that paid editing is always paid advocacy, but Stalwart's potential ambiguity on that point is not important. It just seems that this page has always recognized that anonymity will always permit paid editing and it should be managed and regulated rather than forbidden. This view may lead to proposed changes to the page that might get sufficient consensus, but we can wait on that. Frieda Beamy (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding . I am afraid I didn't notice that though you unarchived the thread, Blackcab asked the original question. Perhaps you could start a new thread to ask your question, because I don't think I understand "All I'm asking is to confirm that view" at all. My only comments would be that, thanks to the compromises involved in writing this page, it says rather clumsily that paid editing is usually allowed, as long as it sticks to the talk pages, or in situations where there is no conflict of interest (in situations where one won't be tempted to phrase an edit favourably to one's customer or employer.) It is not enough for paid editors, whether pseudonymous or not, to follow all the other guidelines and policies: they should follow this one too. However, as far as I can tell, history shows that a paid editor may be blocked or banned without explanation for any reason (which is much the same restriction that most websites put on all users.) I doubt my comments help at all. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

With respect to WP:OUTING
, when does COI override WP:OUTING? I suspect that an editor is pushing a real-life writer because they are them, but how can this be addressed without outing them? Misanthropia (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It never overrides outing. If you have private information concerning an editor's COI, the appropriate thing to do is to email it to Arbcom.  They handle private matters.  That way, the COI issue still gets addressed but there is no outing.--v/r - TP 21:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Userboxes regarding Paid Editing?
Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."

Are there any user boxes or other templates to A) facilitate such disclosure or B) facilitate disclosure of the lack of a need for such disclosure? I think there should be, as well as use instructions here. (I'm also thinking of adding something to my sig, so it would look something like this: --( PE ) &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous
Ridiculous as administrators can do here (and in other wiki projects) whatever they want without any consequences, Wild West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.188.94.86 (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see
There's a discussion at Village pump (policy) that probably should have been noted here. The basic question is, if you (an editor) learn about a blatant policy violation from a non-editor with a COI (e.g., you receive e-mail from a BLP subject whose article does not comply with WP:BLP), then do you personally have a conflict of interest for that article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Experts their degree of COI?
Can we comment on whether "experts" have a degree of conflict of interest, and when and if, it may become an issue. eg.

--Iantresman (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) A member of a professional organisation, eg. American Physical Society, The Parapsychological Association?
 * 2) A director of a professional organisation, eg. American Physical Society, The Parapsychological Association?
 * 3) A popular book author (writing about physics, or parapsychology)
 * 4) An academic author (writing about physics, or parapsychology)
 * Impossible to answer without knowing the context. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding 3 and 4, editors are not in a COI with the topics they are experts on. However, if they are adding sources that are books they have published, they have a COI with the source and it could be considered advertising.  This should be evaluated on a case by case basis with regard to the degree and likelihood that the expert is promoting themselves or not.  If Stephen Hawking showed up on Black Hole and added a book he wrote as a source, any editor/administrator would be an asshat to revert it.--v/r - TP 21:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * editors are not in a COI with the topics they are experts on I don't think this is entirely correct. Employees (or other affiliations) of any organization (whether expert or not) must disclose their affiliation if they edit on topics related to the organization.  Thus an expert on steelhead if in the employ of The Steelhead Society of British Columbia would have to disclose their COI when editing any article related to the advocacy mission of the society.  @TParis, wouldn't you agree? --Mike Cline (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That puts them in a conflict of interest because of their organization or the topic they are editing. But an expert isn't in a COI because they are an expert.  And they arn't in a COI because they edit about a topic they are an expert about.  Now, if they work for steelhead and they edit related to their mission to promote their business, then the COI would come from being part of the organization and editing with the organization in mind.  In my head, those are separate issues.--v/r - TP 17:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But an expert isn't in a COI because they are an expert. That's a true statement, but I don't think it is sufficient or even relevant to answering a COI question. It is the organizational affiliation and topics edited as you say that creates the COI, whether the editor is expert or not.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactamundo.--v/r - TP 22:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

COI issues in the financial area
After dealing with some paid editing issues involving, I realized that there's an issue that needs to be covered by policy. Paid editing in the financial area is advertising, under the Securities and Exchange Commission's Advertising Rule. . There are some very specific rules. In particular, any mention of investment performance triggers a requirement that a long list of disclosures have to be made. I just took the language "both of which (funds) have demonstrated strong performance in absolute terms and relative to market performance" out of Tristan Capital Partners for that reason. Things like mentioning the results for a good year without mentioning bad years are, reasonably enough, considered deceptive by the SEC. Wikipedia is US-based, so even for non-US businesses, this applies.

Since we can't tell who's a paid editor, Wikipedia should probably not include happy talk about investment results in investment-related articles. John Nagle (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The SEC rule applies to the business, not us. We are under no obligation to follow it.  We are not in the financial business.  We also are not the enforcers of US law.  The SEC can enforce law.  So I'm not seeing what the concern is here.  Are you saying that we should violate WP:NPOV and WP:V to enforce some law that no one is asking us to enforce?  WP:NPOV is the appropriate policy here.  Cover what the sources cover.  If it's positive, it's positive, if it's negative it's negative and everything in between.  What your saying amounts to assuming bad faith of anyone who edits an investment related article.  It goes against core WMF policies.--v/r - TP 19:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've reverted, per TP's persuasive reasoning. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True. That obligation does fall on a COI editor editing an investment-related article, but that's the COI editor's problem. We should, though, watch for edits to investment articles which make the  investment look better than it is, as a WP:NPOV issue. John Nagle (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm not sure what Andy reverted, though, heh.--v/r - TP 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Approaching editors on their talk pages
I'd like to change this sentence, in the "How to handle conflicts of interest" section:

It was added on 11 July. It used to say:

That amounts to the same thing, but it allows an editor to discuss the COI issue on whatever page it has been raised, including article talk. Forcing an editor to go to someone's talk page personalizes the issue. We've been talking recently about how certain behavioral policies and guidelines may make women editors feel uncomfortable. This is one of those issues. Women may be even more reluctant than men to start a one-to-one confrontation, especially with an anonymous editor.

There was a discussion on AN/I recently where an editor was told she could not open a discussion about COI elsewhere until she had discussed it with the editor on his talk page, and this part of the guideline was cited to require her to do that.

I'd like to change it to something like:

Are there any objections? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good change. I guess a tweak I would make would be to broaden it a little. Let's say someone is engaged in a deletion discussion or policy discussion in which there is a possible COI issue. Then there should be latitude to allow the editor to approach the person on the project talk page or project page, wherever the person will see it. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Perhaps this:




 * SlimVirgin (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The word "suspect" is unduly creepy. How about:
 * I removed "her" because it was easy, but that's just a suggestion—my point is that there is no need for "suspect". Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi John, that's fine with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi John, that's fine with me. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, Core and John. I'll go ahead and make the change. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed "policy or guideline" to "project page," so the edit was:




 * SlimVirgin (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. The rationale that discussing whether or not an editor has a conflict of interest somewhere other than the user's talk page would avoid "personalizing" the issue is possibly the most absurd notion I've seen on Wikipedia in years. Such a discussion is always personal to the editor targeted by the discussion. It should be on the talk page of the editor who is alleged to have the conflict of interest and absolutely should not be initiated on other talk pages.  Risker (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow, SlimVirgin, you changed that paragraph from one addressing known conflicts of interest (i.e., where the editor has already identified that they have a COI) to one where anyone might possibly suspect a COI. Your addition gives carte blanche to ignore the next paragraph of the guideline, which gives instructions on addressing possible or perceived conflicts of interest.  In other words, your edit changes the entire thrust of that section. Further, it encourages the use of accusations of COI to deflect attention from valid content disputes and discussions to character assassination of the participants. If you perceive that there may be a conflict of interest, you already know that the right thing to do is to challenge the content or the proposed sources using the existing processes.  Risker (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Women editors say this will make women editors more comfortable here.  So let's do it.  Risker: I'm not seeing any constructive criticism here.  Are you willing to suggest an alternative edit that would address the expressed concerns of women editors?-- &#123;&#123;U&#124;Elvey&#125;&#125; (t•c) 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anywhere that women editors feel more comfortable in being trashed on much more public pages instead of their talk page. It's shocking that anyone would think that women would prefer to be accused of having a conflict of interest on the talk page of an article (a far more public page, and one that is much more likely to be viewed by members of the general/reading public) than more privately on their talk page. I can't think of a much more likely way to drive women (and others) away from an article - and frankly, I believe that is the intention of the proposed section, to give people a way to get rid of opponents, whether or not the opponents have a conflict of interest. No, take it to the COI noticeboard or the talk page of the editor involved. It shouldn't ever be on the article or project page. Allegations of COI are very serious, and need to be reviewed by independent third parties, not just the folks who are involved in a particular dispute or discussion. Risker (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree - an editor's potential COI has nothing to do with a given article's content or sourcing, and that is what an article's Talk page is for, per WP:TPG. User talk pages are for discussing matters having to do with editors -- like their potential COI.   COI is personal to the editor - and the editor addressing it is taking the initiative to address it.   The other reason I oppose bringing these issues up on article Talk pages is that far too often, editors having disagreements over sourcing or content slop over into making accusations of COI, which is not appropriate.   This should be handled just like any other personal issue (like the guidance provided in the policy, No personal attacks, where people who receive what they feels is PA are instructed to first ignore it, but... "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters.").  Gender has nothing to do with this, that I can see.  Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential Terms of Use violation template?
Hi, we have templates for COI Template:Uw-coi (for warning editors who may have a conflict of interest) and Template:COI and automated categories that list pages tagged that way. Would it be a good thing to have similar templates and automated categories for potential ToU violations, and for editors who have made declarations per the ToU? I realize this might cause some heat, but wanted to ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any good reason to make a template and automated category for editors who have made declarations per the ToU. That would be unnecessary profiling. They are also likely to know what they are doing. As for users who violate the ToU: If there is evidence of violation, other users should first inform the user about our policies (see Please do not bite the newcomers). This is done best by following the instructions in Conflict_of_interest and using the COI templates you have linked to. The user may be blocked if he/she continues to violate Wikipedia policies and/or the ToU (see Blocking policy). --Dodi 8238 (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC) edited comment 19:27 (UTC)
 * I'm with Dodi 8238. A template might be handy to have available for those who actually violate the ToS.  But editors who have made declarations, they are aware of the ToU.  WP:DTTR comes to mind.  You've identified yourself as a Wikipedia user, would I warn you not to vandalize Wikipedia?--v/r - TP 20:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * When you suggest a template "for editors who have made declarations per the ToU", how and where would you envisage it be used? And how would you define a "potential TOU violation"? BlackCab  ( TALK ) 21:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

addition of "not prohibited"
made the following amendment in these two difs in the "Paid advocacy, public relations, and marketing" section:

"then you are very strongly discouraged but not prohibited,' from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. If you You have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as if you are an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly."

With regard to the first sentence, it is true that editing is not prohibited. However, I don't think it is useful to explicitly say that, as - to be frank - I think it gives more of a green light than we want to give. With regard to the new second sentence, in my view we should just delete that, as it re-defines what has already been stated above. Discussion? Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * In fact, editing directly is prohibited when not disclosed in accordance with the Terms of Use. I notice that an editor was recently summarily banned from all Wikimedia projects by the WMF for violation of the TOU, so this is not to be taken lightly. Be that as it may, I agree that there is no reason to change the longstanding wording of this guideline so as to weaken it. Indeed, it can be strengthened further too. The language can be toughened considerably beyond what is there now and still fall within the current policy. Shall we do that? Coretheapple (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * is there a dif for that banning, Core? I am very interested in WMR enforcement of the ToU. thx Jytdog (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Look at the user page of User:Demiurge1000, a longstanding user who happened to be on my watchlist. I've made inquiries at the talk page of the WMF person who inserted this notice and made the ban, and received no explanation of which part of the TOU was at issue. Odd, huh? I've read somewhere that another user was banned at the same time. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Dot Com Disclosures link
The Dot Com Disclosures link is dead and outdated. The old, 2011 document is here; though the 2013 document, constructed after a request for comment, is here. To which should we link? Seattle (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of RfC
There is an RfC related to paid editing, which was just amended. See Wikipedia_talk:Harassment Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

New section
added the content below today in this dif which has already been tweaked here - putting here for discussion if anybody wants to.

;Signs of conflicted editing There are some behaviors that are typical of editors who have a COI. No single behavior (outside a statement by an editor of their relationship to the subject they are editing) is definitive, and not every conflicted editor will do all of them. Judgement needs to used before asking an editor if they have a COI based on behaviors like this.

Overall activity
 * Brand new account, but editor is very familiar with editing (article springs out of no where fully formed with references, etc, with no evidence of exploring how to edit. In these cases the editor may be a sockpuppet of a paid editor)
 * WP:SPA focused only on one subject, which is generally a specific person, company, or product

Edits to article content
 * Addition of content with a clear POV (for example, adds puffery and other positive content and no negative content, or vice versa, to an article which is neutral before their arrival)
 * Use of unreliable sources, or even fake sources (rare)
 * Unsourced content
 * Copying content about that subject into several articles, often with UNDUE|undue weight
 * Adds excessive external links, such as links to social media sites promoting the subject

Talk activity and edit notes
 * Doesn't use Talk, or uses it rarely (not interested in interacting with the community - WP:NOTHERE)
 * Doesn't sign and indent comments on talk pages
 * Reacts aggressively to changes to content, and to nomination of article being deleted.
 * Doesn't respond directly to questions asked about COI

The above are typical signs of accounts editing under a conflict of interest. There are more rare cases, where long term Wikipedians have an undisclosed conflict of interest, such as the Wifione case that was resolved by the Arbitration Committee in February 2015. In those cases, only a long term pattern of edits that violate NPOV - which can be adding positive content and removing negative content about the subject of the conflict, and doing the opposite to articles about opponents of the subject or competitors of the subject - are useful in addressing the issues, which are indistinguishable from advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 11:52, April 15, 2015‎

shortcut|WP:COISIGNS There are some behaviors that are typical of editors who come to Wikipedia on behalf of a person or organization. Some of these behaviors are also typical of editors who are here to advocate for something and have no financial conflict, and some behaviors are typical of many new editors. No single behavior (outside a statement by an editor of their relationship to the subject they are editing) is definitive, and not every conflicted editor will do all of them. Judgement needs to used before asking an editor if they have a COI based on behaviors like these. It should also be taken into account that good faith new editors without COI may edit in a similar manner, either inadvertently, or because they have seen so much COI editing here that they think the manner is acceptable.

Overall activity
 * Brand new account, but editor is very familiar with editing (article springs out of no where fully formed with references, etc, with no evidence of exploring how to edit. In these cases the editor may be a sockpuppet of a paid editor)
 * WP:SPA focused only on one subject, which is generally a living person or an existing product or company. (Depending on the article, take into account that they might be fans or supporters without a monetary COI)

Edits to article content
 * Adding content with a clear POV (for example, adds puffery and other positive content and no negative content, or vice versa, to an article which is neutral before their arrival)
 * Using unreliable sources, or even fake sources (rare)
 * Copying content about that subject into several articles, often with undue weight
 * Adding excessive external links, such as links to social media sites promoting the subject

Talk activity and edit notes
 * Doesn't use Talk, or uses it rarely (a possible sign of their being not interested in interacting with the community)
 * Doesn't respond directly to questions asked about COI

The above are typical signs of accounts editing under a conflict of interest. There are more rare cases, where long term Wikipedians have an undisclosed conflict of interest, such as the Wifione case that was resolved by the Arbitration Committee in February 2015. In those cases, only a long term pattern of edits that violate NPOV - which can be adding positive content and removing negative content about the subject of the conflict, and doing the opposite to articles about opponents of the subject or competitors of the subject - are useful in addressing the issues, which are indistinguishable from advocacy. (content at time it was removed Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)) (withdrawn per note away below. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)}}


 * I would specify that COI edits are much more likely to be about living people and extant companies/products rather than deceased people or former companies. I would also remove the 'Doesn't sign and indent comments on talk pages' - it is a fairly weak clue, a practice somewhat common with new editors and non-fluent English speakers, and doesn't suggest much either way unless it is found alongside a number of other indicators.Dialectric (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * did both. thanks. and thanks for signing for me above. Jytdog (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added an observation that they (brand new, page-creating SPAs) may seem completely indifferent to a delete nomination. Or they might thank you or blank the page (something that implies both a familiarity with procedure and a businesslike attitude toward Wikipedia). I've seen that a few times. Geogene (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes based on (this is my personal opinion, not intended as a staetment of policy.
 * I removed "Adding of unsourced content" About half the new editors of any nature do this.
 * I also added a comment that it should be made clear in asking an editor about coi that it should be done in such a way that they know they do not have to answer, to avoid it looking like outing. I'm therefore very unsure wether the line about "not answering belongs in the list.
 * I'm also unsure if responding angrily to deletion  requests is indicative of COI--many new good faith editors do that, andI find that perfectly understandable.  DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks those changes were very helpful. will take out the angry thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't support this at all. I apologize given Jytdog 's work on this. However, none of these behaviours point to COI specifically but point to questionable editing practices and or are not objective enough to determine whether the editor has a COI or another editor thinks the editing points to a COI. This change will breed witch hunts. I will revert once per BOLD and suggest wider community input on a change this extensive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC))
 * agree with your comment 100%. thanks for reverting.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (i think you meant "objective" not "subjective" right?) also, this grew out of the discussions above and elsewhere about helping the community identify and manage conflicted editors (which include an essay that was launched into article space, and deleted, and is now in userspace - User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery).  I am 100% behind the no-witching thing.  And am happy to discuss this and whatever else.  above, I copied the content of the section as it stood at your removal, just to have that as an anchor for concrete discussion. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * With the possible exception of how the editor responds to questions on conflicts of interest, I think the described behaviours are characteristic of biased editing, editorial commentary, and advocacy of a particular point of view. However this can occur without a conflict of interest relating to a financial or other material benefit for the editor. Perhaps this information can be included somewhere else, such as under a description of advocacy editing? isaacl (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * replying to - that is a great point - COI is just a subset of advocacy.  the key "signs" of financial COI are the SPA for "a living person or an existing product or company" along with POV editing - and even that is not definitive and cannot be.  Cannot be.  When I work at COIN I always keep in mind the possibility that somebody is just a fan of X and may very well not be financially connected to X.  In my view individual editors should never make definitive claims of COI outside of a declaration by the conflicted editor; doing so is in my view a personal attack. But i also want to add that paid editing happens a ton here (nobody knows how much, but it is a lot. i don't know what your experience is at AfC or AfD but the first two bullet points - a brand new user who knows how to edit, and a SPA for a given subject, and an article straining for NOTABILITY with poor sourcing, for living people and companies/products. This is the M.O. of paid editors and it happens a lot. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really see that it matters whether the conflict is financial or other. Indeed, we have seen lots of political, nationalistic, and religious advocacy, and there's no reason those need to be financially motivated. The method by which POV is injected is also the best evidence of POV: selection of one-sided sources, misrepresentation of balanced sources, or simply failing to cite verifiable, accessible sources. None of these take knowledge of the editor to detect, nor do they provide any excuse for outing. LeadSongDog come howl!  03:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * agreed with all that - but nobody said anything was an excuse for OUTING.... unclear where the comment is coming from. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood. Is there some other way to "make definitive claims of COI outside of a declaration by the conflicted editor" without outing? LeadSongDog come howl!  05:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The key difference between having a conflict of interest and problematic advocacy is that the latter is only an issue if editors engage in advocacy in their edits, whereas the former is considered to be a problem regardless of the quality of the edits being made. If conflict of interest scenarios were expanded to include cases without material benefits being realized, then pretty much all editors will have conflicts of interest in most topics, since we generally have personal opinions on everything. Thus I believe it is better to keep the procedures for managing advocacy separate from those for managing conflicts of interest of a material nature. isaacl (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that distinction between COI editing and advocacy of a position. COI editing usually involves promotion of a band/DJ/business/product, or resume inflation for an individual. Usually, the article subject isn't one that draws broad attention or has many editors.  Most of the routine work at WP:COIN involves such cases, for which the guidelines above are helpful.  They're slanted toward inept promotion, though. Higher-quality COI editing may not raise those red flags.  The tough cases are ones where there's heavy promotion involving links to lots of references which were created by non-Wikipedia PR efforts.
 * There are also cases where someone did something bad, it got solid press coverage, and they want that to disappear from Wikipedia. It's usually clear what's going on there. For an extreme example, see Talk:Banc De Binary, where at one point the company involved offered $10,000 to anyone who could "fix" the article.
 * Position advocacy is a different problem. It's often associated with subjects of broad interest. Those situations are much more difficult to resolve.  Most articles in the Israel/Palestine and abortion spaces fall into that category. Those kinds of problems tend to go to AN/I, and occasionally Arbcom.  Cases which straddle the boundary exist. Landmark Education and Scientology both have strong advocates and opponents.  There, the main problem is restraining the editors who go overboard with their advocacy.  Heavy use of "cite needed" is often necessary, and long arguments over citations on Talk are normal. That's OK; that's the process which makes Wikipedia articles more accurate. When those problems show up at WP:COIN, I'm inclined to pass the buck to AN/I, where they have bigger hammers. John Nagle (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Good to see that someone who works COIN found the "signs" to be in the ballpark.   Do you think it is useful to include them in the guideline?   Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They're useful hints for people dealing with COIN problems, but I can see the guidelines being used for "I'm not doing any of those things so it's not COI" arguments. Those guidelines describe inept COI editing. See, for example, Michael Milken, who has a quite competent paid editor with a declared COI devoted to polishing his image.  John Nagle (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I actually wrote a new essay that covered the points suggested by isaacl and LeadSongDog.  It was a total revamp of the original essay I wrote called COIducks which was deleted.  I fixed the issues according to the criticisms, and created a new focus under a new title which focused primarily on advocacy behavior and the proper steps to take when facing such issues.  The opposition immediately requested Speedy Delete, claiming it was a relaunch of the old essay.  I requested a review of the Speedy Delete which is here: Deletion_review/Log/2015_April_15  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  04:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did tag the second essay for speedy deletion because it was much the same as the first essay.
 * COI and advocacy editing is a problem and an essay describing identifying and dealing with it would be helpful. I think an essay, rather than this or another guideline, is the right place to describe and define this kind of problematic editing. Entrenching these definitions into a guideline could turn then into a more hard-and-fast rule to be followed. It would also be used, as points out, by editors who say that since they're not doing those things, they're not engaging in this problematic editing. However, such an essay must be grounded in good faith, include clear definitions, distinguish between this problematic editing and the application of both consensus and policies and guidelines, and use existing Wikipedia terminology and definitions. Unfortunately, neither version of 's essay did these things (see the MfD discussion) which is why I !voted to delete the first one and tagged the relaunched one for deletion. Ca2james (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

While all of these situations could point to problematic editing none specifically point to COI; that's my concern. I don't see that anything said here in discussion changes that issue. I would suggest an RfC so that this has wide community input. Thanks Jytdog I did mean objective in my first comment.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree with Ca2james because it was not the same. I also believe the way my essay was deleted in the middle of ongoing discussions at the TP of  (who deleted the original essay) deserves a closer review because the reason given was based on misinformation.  I even went to the trouble of creating a table on the essay TP demonstrating the stark differences between the old and new using side by side columns and highlighted changes in yellow.  All but a few sentences were highlighted in yellow.  The title was changed, the focus was changed, the information in each section was changed, the lists were changed, and so on.  I question whether it was even seen.  The images and style along with a few paraphrased sentences from PAG were all that remained in the body of the new essay.  I don't see how any editor who actually saw the comparison table and/or read both essays could possibly conclude they were the same.  But wait, what is going on here now?  Jytdog has taken the lead in creating his version of a COI ducks essay?  Interesting.  Oh, and let's not forget the plagiarized copy of my original essay that appeared right after the original was deleted.  Smells a little fishy to me.  Does anybody have a can of Glade Air Freshener?  Ocean Breeze would be nice.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * this is not an essay. crazy. Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, as for the "fishy" remark, I don't think conspiracy theories are helpful here, they are part of what got the essay deleted in the first place. There was a wildly inappropriate parody of your essay posted, it got no support and was immediately criticized on the Medicine Talk page (by Jytdog among others) and speedily deleted.
 * I appreciate that there are some real concerns here about COI editing, but any essay discussing these issues needs to be POV-neutral, and not read like an attempt to get the upper hand for a certain POV in content disputes. The most recent version of the essay that I saw was much improved and I appreciate your openness to making changes in response to the community's concerns, especially given the confrontational and emotional nature of the discussion. But it still contained references to "pro-industry" edits (anti-industry edits can never be COI motivated? I'd like to show you some examples of some of the crap that I've reverted, especially in articles about drugs that were the subject of ongoing personal injury litigation) and tended to equate consensus with conspiracy.  I know you meant well here but you've aligned yourself with people who have made statements that are strongly opposed to guidelines and policies that are widely accepted here and who have gone so far as to call Wikipedia itself "corrupt" and the admins "bootlickers".  It really might be good to take a short break from this, and if you are still interested in a month or so, try to get input from a wider group of editors to help write an essay that is more likely to gain consensus.  Formerly 98 talk  15:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be near impossible to prove COI with the added section. But if for some reason it is accepted, the line "Copying content about that subject into several articles, often with undue weight" could be used as an attempt to justify removal by a advocate/COI to remove referenced information from multiple sites that deals with a common problem they all have. I dont think its provable as a COI indicator, and if others think it is I would change it to "Copying content or removing similar content about a subject on several articles, often with undue weight or misuse of policy and guidelines to justify the actions." AlbinoFerret 15:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the signs are not meant to "prove" anything - the text explicitly says that the only proof of COI is a declaration by the editor, and explicitly says that the list is not definitive and that not everything applies all the time. it says that dealing with COI means you have to think carefully about OUTING and AGF; if you think someone might have a COI, and you approach them, it needs to be done in a way that not only doesn't violate OUTING and AGF, but actually respects them.  Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Formerly, I hear read your concerns and am now trying to get the deleted essay temporarily restored so I can copy it and the TP to Userfy. If my memory serves, I think the essay did include that issue but it must not have been clear so when it shows up again, I will look to see how we can fix it.  Thanks for your input.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  16:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this new section is especially helpful, and I agree with John Nagle that it is more of a guide to inept COI editing. It might even be counterproductive, in that genuine COI editors (even those with declared COIs) might say "oh, I'm not doing any of those things, so I'm OK." Coretheapple (talk) 18:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Agree. David Tornheim (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In my experience, most conflicted editors come to WP and have no idea how this place works - most are inept and they don't care - they just want to get their articles posted or add their POV content. Serial, socking paid editors write shitty articles because most of the time, the subjects who are paying them are not NOTABLE and the paid editors have to include unsourced or badly sourced content to get some kind of article written. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And so the Big Fish are to go free? The small ones are easy to catch and don't do much damage because they are so easy to catch and correct their work. I can't speak for Atmse and Coretheapple, but I think we are interested in dealing with the Big Fish especially. David Tornheim (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC queues (offshoot of Disclosure of COI at account creation?)

 * Support Not quite like this, though. I would support adding the question "Is this article about a business or product" in the AfC queue and kicking anything with that flag to the second-rate queue. AfC is flooded with this class of submissions and there is not demand in the Wikimedia community of reviewers to prioritize these kinds of submissions along with the others, just because reviewing those is the most emotionally draining and likely to make users a target for arguments with paid staff. It is unfair to volunteers to put them into a pool where they are pressed to engage people who are paid to argue till exhaustion, and only people who know the risks and choose to engage that demographic should have to review this content.
 * Business is a huge sector in AfC and among the least popular article content among readers. Volunteer contributors have the right to choose what they want to review and right now, this highly problematic class of articles is burdening the community of reviewers and bringing down quality of outcomes and motivation of volunteers.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * interesting! thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea to try to let new contributors have a concept of notability and COI before they sink much time into writing an article about themselves. It's no fun to have to tell people they aren't "notable". Geogene (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * what is most needed is very simple: a way of dividing the afc queue by subject. Needless to say, it's been opposed continually by those who set up the procedure.  DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks . how has that been considered?   the simple thing would be to ask that folks at AfC check if Talk pages are created and articles are linked to Projects and that could be used to sort/prioritize ... but i would guess that has been tried. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thesystem for doing this already exists: see WP:. A simplified version into perhaps 5 or 10 groups would be vert easy to implement.  DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, though "10 groups" doesn't exactly sound like a simplified version :) Any wiki-classification can expect to grow by at least 100% as people argue over the edge cases.

I saw this proposal the other day but didn't have time to comment. The original disclose-COI-at-account-creation proposal is in my view a terrible idea. I appreciate the brainstorming on how to handle COI issues, but this would only induce honest contributors to provide more personal information than they would have been comfortable with unprompted, while doing nothing to deter dishonest people from spamming and self-promoting.

Bluerasberry's proposal is fundamentally different in being about the nature of the content rather than the presumed motivations of the contributor, and in that sense is a good step forward. I'm not sure why a person who knows their business article will go to the back of the AfC queue would bother with AfC at all, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)