Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 21

Proposal for a new group of functionaries
I am considering proposing the creation of a new group of 5 elected WP:Functionaries to deal with concerns regarding undisclosed paid editing. These five individuals will be elected by the editing community at large, will be required to disclose their real life identity to the WMF, and will be given the ability to use WP:Check user to help with verifying issues.

This new group of functionaries will provide a much needed mechanism of enforcement of our WP:Terms of use while balancing our principle of WP:PRIVACY. They will be able to accept off Wikipedia evidence to make judgements regarding concerning practices. They will also be provided legal protection by the WMF. Wondering what people think of this proposal? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All current functionaries (that is, checkusers and oversighters) work pretty much exclusively in the area of enforcing terms of use, and the suggestion that they aren't is unhelpful when you are advocating that new tasks be taken on. A bit of a reality check might be helpful here: over the years that I was involved in recruiting and appointing functionaries, there were very few individuals who applied for the flags and were appropriately qualified for access to non-public information who did not get appointed. It's a relatively small pool and it has become increasingly difficult to find suitable candidates as the years have gone on. What you're proposing here is a new method by which individuals can be appointed as checkusers. Once they have the bit, the only way it will be removed is via Arbcom (unless you manage to change the entire Enwiki checkuser policy), and that will usually require inappropriate use of the tools and/or conduct unbecoming. Perhaps you might benefit from reading the case that was most recently closed by the Arbitration Committee to see what happens when someone goes too far in making allegations of COI when "checkusering" and blocking accounts.  Risker (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Risker Arbcom has specifically stated that enforcement of the TOU is not in their mandate here. They are also already sufficiently busy. Thus this proposal. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Why aren't CU privileges revoked when someone finishes their term? In the real world people turn in their keys (or other access credentials) when their position changes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup if you lose re election you lose CU in this proposal. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * SBHB, you know the answer to that. There is no election for CU/OS and no reappointment process currently. One could argue that position for arbitrators, but in fairness a significant number of steadily active CU and OS are former arbitrators. Risker (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My working assumption was that CU/OS was granted upon appointment as an arb. Yes, that's formally incorrect, though more or less correct in a practical sense. Thus when a person's term ends they would lose their CU/OS privileges. The arbs would be complemented by a (presumably smaller than now) crew of folks who were specifically appointed as CU/OS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Excluding arbitrators who already held the tools prior to joining Arbcom, the majority of arbitrators do turn in the CU/OS tools once they're finished their terms; after that point, they are subject to the same activity standards as any other checkuser/oversighter. That is, if they aren't actively using the tools, the tools can be removed. Looking just at CU, right now we have 13 community-selected CUs, 9 former arbitrators (of whom one was a community-selected CU before becoming an arb), 15 arbitrators with CU (of whom 6 were community-selected CUs) and 3 AUSC members (one of whom is a community selected CU). Arbitrators are not expected to participate in regular CU activities, although some choose to do so as their non-arbcom volunteer participation. This sounds like a very large contingent, but the reality is that Enwiki checkusers (including those who don't regularly use the tools as Arbcom or AUSC members) perform more checks in a month than checkusers from almost all of the other Wikimedia projects put together. The only other group that comes close to rivalling enwiki CUs are the stewards who work across hundreds of projects specializing in identification and management of spam. Risker (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about Arbcom, I was talking about functionaries (CU and OS). Until such time as the English Wikipedia community decides to shoulder the responsibility for recruitment and overseeing of functionaries, by whatever means, those tasks reside with Arbcom. I'm the first to agree that Arbcom is busy enough as it is. So, for that matter, are most functionaries. It is my understanding that every single candidate who took the time to complete the paperwork for the last round of CU and OS appointments was appointed to one role or the other - yes, all of them. We can't even get decently qualified people to run for adminship anymore. Perhaps that should be your first step, because administrators are the appropriate pool of talent for what you're after (they have to be able to block in order to be effective). Our pool of active administrators has been dwindling for years, to the point that several administrator tasks are falling ever-further behind and serious backlogs exist in multiple areas. You need to build the capacity from the ground up. Risker (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure so you want to see appropriate candidates for the position before considering it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, of course. But just as importantly, I don't want to rob Peter to pay Paul. Consider that this is *your* personal priority for administrator action on English Wikipedia. It probably isn't (a) the priority of the project as a whole or (b) the priority of the people who are already in a position to do something about it, i.e., the administrator corps. Seasoned administrators who routinely participate in administrator activities are a surprisingly rare commodity, with fewer admins actively using tools today than there were in 2008. As a project, we also need them blocking vandals, deleting dreck, protecting pages, closing RFCs, moving pages, granting lower level permissions, and otherwise keeping the place running, too. There are administrators who also watch the COI noticeboards and probably do just as good a job from there as anyone else is likely to do.  Risker (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I know a few good candidates and will see what I can do. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * support This is a great idea. It will help us deal with sockpuppeting elancers/fivvers much more effectively. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose this is a terrible idea, all we need is another special group of admins who have nothing to do with content creation. GregJackP   Boomer!   06:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support There needs to be an acceptable mechanism to submit off-wiki evidence of obvious COI editing, or else this place will continue to pretend not to notice it. This is not a linear progression: the more vanity articles there are, the greater the demand for vanity articles there will be. Unless something is done, then this project will continue its evolution toward a more rarefied form of LinkedIn. Who here wants to volunteer to administer that kind of site? Geogene (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - this looks fine to me. Some enforcement method is needed. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting: This would require a change in the Arbitration policy which specifies that Arbcom has the sole responsibility for granting and removing the CU/OS tools on English Wikipedia. The amendment terms are as follows:  "Amendments to this policy require an identical ratification process. Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing."  Risker (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Here it says "Functionary access must be authorised by the Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation". Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: We've been down this road before, it didn't end well. Versa  geek  03:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There are two issues here - an elected group to enforce the conflict of interest policy, and giving more people checkuser privilege. As for the latter, I've never found it a problem  at WP:COI to ask for a checkuser when a situation looked like sockpuppeting.  As for the former, my general impression from working tasks from the WP:COI board is that it doesn't even take admin authority. Most of the time, it's someone routinely promoting their business/band/product/self.  Once they've been asked to stop doing that, they usually do.  When they don't, referring the matter to AN/I usually deals with it.  The serious problems end up at WP:AN/I anyway. Remember Banc de Binary, the COI problem from hell, the one that made the Wall Street Journal and forced a change in the Wikimedia terms of use?  This new proposal would not have helped.  John Nagle (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with John Nagle. However, I think this idea is interesting and is worth exploring further. I think a better idea, in conjunction with this, is to require all current checkusers to be re-ratified by the community. Any who have conflicts of interest of their own, or who have disregarded the guideline in the past, are not suitable for that tool and should not have it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment There really is a need to differentiate between third parties paid to edit wikipedia content on behalf of others on the one hand and editors with a COI due to BLP or other issues on the other hand.  Lumping them all together is not helpful.  In respect of the former case I think this is a good idea, the latter needs some new thinking  Snowded  TALK 14:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes this is specifically to address people who are paid to edit Wikipedia via sites like Elance / Odesk / Fiverr. We know there are many accounts on these sites using armies of socks to edit Wikipedia. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 09:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The vague proposal for five privileged "functionaries" does not convince me, esp when taking 's and John Nagle's comments in mind. the problem of coi enforcement cannot be farmed out or sequestered to a mini pentagon. i see wikipedians with apparent COI on boards, wikipedians with COI as functionaries, what's next ? --Wuerzele (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputes
This continues a discussion begun on my Talk page User_talk:Jytdog.

There have been several instances in my COIN related work where a Wikipedia editor has had a dispute with a person or organization outside of Wikipedia, and have carried that into their editing here. This sort of thing is discussed in WP:COI and WP:BLP a bit, but perhaps not clearly enough.
 * Litigation (a formalized dispute), is covered here in Conflict_of_interest
 * Any kind of significant real world (or on-Wiki) dispute between an editor and a living person is broadly covered under WP:BLPCOI - that is policy so is stronger than anything we can do here, given that this is a guideline
 * What is lacking here, is language about "significant disputes" between an editor and an organization in the real world.

The discussion above was about an editor who was significantly harmed by a hospital. In my view and that of, that editor has a COI with respect to the hospital. in good faith asked where that is grounded in the guideline, and it really isn't. It perhaps should be. I acknowledge that this is tricky, as "dispute" is a bit fuzzy, and we move very close to the realm of WP:ADVOCACY here which is not actually COI. For example, in topics I edit, I deal with people all the time who who hate Monsanto but have no actual dispute with them, but come here grinding axes. The intention is not to cover situations like that (which are addressable only under WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV) but rather, situations like the editor harmed by a hospital. So following WP:BLPCOI closely, I suggest the following addition to the guideline, perhaps changing the "Legal" subsection header and adding the following, so that the whole subsection would read as follows. Jytdog (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes
(New) Wikipedia articles concerning organizations may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved. Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties involved in disputes to continue their hostilities. If you are involved in a significant off-Wikipedia controversy or dispute with an organization, or are affiliated with an avowed rival of that organization, you should not edit that organization's article or other articles about that organization, given the potential conflict of interest.

(New) An editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-Wikipedia – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, per the policy WP:BLPCOI.

{Existing) If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case. (strike - see SlimVirgin proposal below Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC))

(Existing language for comparison with SV proposal) If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case. (reposted by GregJackP, see summary and below comments). GregJackP  Boomer!   02:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The idea sounds reasonable, but it is a slippery slope, a gray area, a can of worms, and whats not. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, even after changed of wording I oppose the idea of restricting any opponents of anything in principle. Introducing this kind of rules is a slippery slope, a camel's nose, etc. Why singling out litigants? Next thing and you forbid Palestinians write about Israel, Republicans about Democrats, poor bros from projects about multibil corporations, etc. We have rules about NPOV & WP:CITE & WPNOTHERE, to keep content in check. If somebody blatantly abuses them, a topical ban may be imposed, etc. IMHO the whole WP:COI is outdated, with an exception of paid editing, which is aimed against organized, large-scale abuse of wikipedia and its spirit, akin to RICO, which is difficult to handle by existing rules. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The second issue is how are you going to enforce it without WP:OUTING? This would put an extra burden on already overstretched arbcom and whoever has oversight tools. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * COI is a guideline, and helping people comply with it, is most often a matter of asking questions and having discussions. This can be no "enforcement" regime around this, with the way that feelings are so strongly divided.  One simply asks, in a civil manner.  Sometimes people just volunteer their dispute in the course of discussions.  Then it becomes a matter of persuading them that it is good for no one to carry disputes into WP.  If that feels, we come to COIN and have the community attempt to persuade them.  This is often effective.   Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * - I know, I know, but I cannot recall a case when WP:COMMON ever beat a guideline. I guess, I have to participate in discussions more frequently :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The existing wording is sufficient.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification: my oppose was to the now struck-out version by User Jytdog, who complained that i undeleted the existing version, which i referred to, although for transparency the proper procedure would have been to close the discussion and start a new discussion.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I could support something like: "Disputes and litigation: If you are involved, outside Wikipedia, in a significant dispute with a person or organization, you should not edit articles about that person or organization. If you are involved in a court case or are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with it." And link at the top of the section to the relevant part of BLP, to make clear that the "person" part is policy. Sarah (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose, not only is the existing rule sufficient, but there are too many cases where editors tend to use the rules to run roughshod over others. This just gives them more incentive to travel down the slope. GregJackP   Boomer!   04:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I would note that the original proposal has changed in the middle of the !vote, therefore any consensus is going to be suspect. You cannot just strike part of a proposal and then refer to a later proposal while the discussion is still going on, unless you make it clear that you are abandoning the original proposal, close the discussion, and start a new one. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is obvious where the proposal changed, and only two comments were affected -Wuerzele is clearly aware of the change, and to be double sure knows, I just pinged him.  Proposals change all the time in things like this - it is how we reach consensus. Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Disputes
This continues a discussion begun on my Talk page User_talk:Jytdog.

There have been several instances in my COIN related work where a Wikipedia editor has had a dispute with a person or organization outside of Wikipedia, and have carried that into their editing here. This sort of thing is discussed in WP:COI and WP:BLP a bit, but perhaps not clearly enough.
 * Litigation (a formalized dispute), is covered here in Conflict_of_interest
 * Any kind of significant real world (or on-Wiki) dispute between an editor and a living person is broadly covered under WP:BLPCOI - that is policy so is stronger than anything we can do here, given that this is a guideline
 * What is lacking here, is language about "significant disputes" between an editor and an organization in the real world.

The discussion above was about an editor who was significantly harmed by a hospital. In my view and that of, that editor has a COI with respect to the hospital. in good faith asked where that is grounded in the guideline, and it really isn't. It perhaps should be. I acknowledge that this is tricky, as "dispute" is a bit fuzzy, and we move very close to the realm of WP:ADVOCACY here which is not actually COI. For example, in topics I edit, I deal with people all the time who who hate Monsanto but have no actual dispute with them, but come here grinding axes. The intention is not to cover situations like that (which are addressable only under WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV) but rather, situations like the editor harmed by a hospital. So following WP:BLPCOI closely, I suggest the following addition to the guideline, perhaps changing the "Legal" subsection header and adding the following, so that the whole subsection would read as follows. Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to continue disputes
Disputes and litigation: If you are involved, outside Wikipedia, in a significant dispute with a person or organization, you should not edit articles about that person or organization. If you are involved in a court case or are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with it.

Discussion
Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the current language (If you are involved in a court case, or you are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case, or about a party or law firm associated with the case.) is fine. There is no need to change it. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I could support something like this, but I'd want to see language making clear what kind of dispute we mean, and I can't think how to word it. The patient who felt he had been seriously harmed by the hospital, then turned up to add criticism of it, had a COI. But we don't want to exclude people by calling political views a dispute. Someone who goes on March against Monsanto (using this example only because you're familiar with it, Jytdog) would not have a COI in relation to the Monsanto article. The organizers of the march would have a COI in relation to the march, and arguably a borderline COI in relation to Monsanto. A non-borderline dispute-triggered COI in relation to Monsanto would be suing them or being sued by them; being prosecuted for vandalizing their crops; stalking their COI, etc. I don't know how to boil those distinctions down to a few words. Sarah (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that is hard. I have no desire that this language be used like a cudgel at all - I agree with what you say about MaM.  WP:ADVOCACY is handled under that essay, not under the COI guideline.  I think we both sense the fineness - yet the clarity - of the line between advocacy and COI-caused-by-a-dispute... Would it be helpful to say something about a "dispute causing financial or physical harm" I wonder?  That would make the Patient32 case more clear to be on the "COI" side of the line and place marchers on the "advocacy" side of the line. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe this? "If you are involved, outside Wikipedia, in a significant personal, legal or financial dispute with a person or organization, you should not edit articles about that person or organization. For example, if you are involved in a court case or are close to one of the litigants, you should not write about the case or about a party or law firm associated with it. Sarah (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose While such item is good in WP:BLP, I disagree with an extra tool in the arms of corporations and lawyers to quash any criticism by a little man. On the other hand, I would agree with a modified language, conditional on the editing to become noticeably obnoxious and disruptive. The dilemma here is that people in close contact with the subject are best knowledgeable of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I would also accept the wording which significantly narrows the scope: "If you are involved .... in a ... dispute... should not directly edit information about the dispute in wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I still prefer the current language, but Staszek Lem's proposal is a close second. The others are pretty much non-starters for me. GregJackP   Boomer!   02:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Handling proposed COIs
I offered to write an article about a living person, and contacted the family via email for photos. After a brief, cordial discussion, the family decided that they did not want me to write the article but would have their children (all now adults) write the article instead. In my reply, I noted the conflict of interest, pointing to this project page, as well as pages on our policies and guidelines. I will watch the article for edits, but if they try to write it anonymously, how would we handle this COI? I understand that I can't out them and I can only ask if there is a conflict of interest... which they can refuse to answer or deny. Hopefully my email and this page will discourage their plans, but if not, how should I proceed if I notice COI edits to the article? – Maky  « talk » 02:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What article? GregJackP   Boomer!   02:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is a new one that's a stub for now: Elwyn L. Simons. – Maky  « talk » 03:15, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * we had a discussion about drafting articles with a COI, and the rough consensus was that this is actually, in practice, commonly done and is OK - but the conflicted editors should a) disclose their COI (although many new article creators don't even know to do that); b) put it through WP:AFC instead of creating it directly so that it can be peer reviewed....  See Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_83.  If you would advise the family to do those two things, that would be great.  Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion. –  Maky  « talk » 04:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The people at AFC are great if you let them know that there is a COI. They'll double check it against refs and make sure that NPOV is maintained, that notability is met, etc. The one COI article I did went through AFC that way. It takes a little longer but it is worth it. GregJackP   Boomer!   05:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Should v. Must
At Conflict_of_interest it says that "You should provide full disclosure of your connection." My understanding from the point immediately below is that this really isn't a should anymore, it's a must. Am I misunderstanding, or do folks think we can change that? agt x 15:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should probably be must. Sarah (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It must be must (per TOU). I'll make the change.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Distinction between "paid advocacy" and "paid editing"
has been editing the guideline, and these changes called my attention to the distinction in the guideline between "paid editing" and "paid advocacy". I don't understand the distinction with regard to the actual relationship between the paid editor and their client, nor do I understand how actual edits of a "paid editor" would look different from those of a "paid advocate". I don't currently make any distinction in my dealings with editors who have or may have a COI. I am not sure the distinction is meaningful, and am interested in others' thoughts on this, and whether we should maintain the distinction in the guideline.... Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the only reason for the distinction is the GLAM situation, and I suppose others we can imagine that would be completely benign. But most paid editing is paid advocacy. I agree that the distinction is meaningless most of the time, and it causes problems because paid advocates will often claim to be merely paid editors. But it's a distinction that emerged a few years ago when editors wanted to argue that not all paid editing is a problem, so I do think we need to keep it. Sarah (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors at the reward board, for example, are being compensated for editing, but not for advocating a particular point of view. Some people such as historians or university professors are paid for public outreach, which could include editing Wikipedia to further the spread of knowledge, without advocacy. It can be a tricky thing for a third party to evaluate, though. isaacl (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. So, we could frame it that GLAM and GLAM-like editors (including reward-boarders) are "paid editors" who are required to disclose per the ToU, but they are not subject to the strong advice to not edit directly. Paid advocates are paid editors who are required to disclose per the ToU and who are subject to the strong advice to not edit directly.  That is a meaningful distinction.  thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I forget offhand what "GLAM" means, but re the reward board, I would hesitate to allow a blanket exemption. It can be used as an outlet for paid advocacy editing. On the issue of terminology, I agree with Sarah that most paid editing is "paid advocacy editing" and would suggest that the distinction, in the discussions I've seen on Wikipedia, is mainly utilized as a smokescreen to muddy the waters and make it hard to fight paid editing. Whenever I raise the issue of how companies paying people to edit is undesirable, immediately the apologists come out in force, waving their red herrings and claiming that I'm against Wikipedians in residence and other honest Johns. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec)The existence of the reward board has always been very tenuous. I just checked and it looks like there have been 4 or 5 rewards offered this year. One was for a barnstar, others have not been taken up. I'm not trying to close down the reward board per se, but it has always struck me that many folks who bring it up are more interested in the exception to our rules, rather that the reward board itself. (I'm not referring to Isaac here) I'd like to extend Sarah's statement "most paid editing is paid advocacy" to include "and most paid editing is advertising or PR which is prohibited by WP:NOT".

Folks like to make fine distinctions on Wikipedia, but sometimes these fine distinctions are made up out of thin air. Some folks seem to think that "advertising" means that it includes puffery, jargon, endorsements, or the text has to sound like a Super Bowl commercial. Actually "advertising" is just publicity created by a business or organization. Any paid editor who works for a business is inserting advertisements according to this standard definition. The famous Mail Pouch advertisement is 9 simple words painted on the side of a barn. We should use WP:NOTADVERTISING to stop this type - the usual type - of paid editing. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I hear you all. I am most concerned about what to do on the ground - editors with a COI tend to write promotional, badly-sourced or unsourced content, and that is what we care about... I mostly wanted to be sure I haven't been tripping on some distinction I didn't understand.  A paid GLAM editor (say a librarian) generally doesn't have a COI as their interest is aligned with WP's - they don't edit like paid advocates, who do have a COI and edit promotionally.  That is meaningful. It would be useful if we could capture that simply and clearly in the guideline. I know it is hard. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In very general terms, I think the distinction between paid non-advocacy editing and paid advocacy editing is primarily an issue when the definition of paid editor is broadened to cover anyone paid by someone else, regardless of whether or not they are paid to edit Wikipedia. With a more narrowly-focused definition, there is less need to distinguish between the two variations. isaacl (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Smallbones, please [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest&diff=673523368&oldid=673521137 don't indent my response], as I was not responding to Sarah, but to Jytdog. isaacl (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected - it had been two indents of the same magnitude which was confusing. Sorry. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
Per 's question above - how to deal with this as a practical matter.

I propose that we include the following as the second paragraph under the paid editing section.


 * "Many, but not all, paid editors are also advocates - which is prohibited by WP:NPOV - or insert advertising - which is prohibited by WP:NOTADVERTISING. All paid editors should be prepared to explain why their edits are not advocacy or advertising."

The following sentence "There are exceptions to the general advice that editors with a financial COI refrain from editing affected articles," would then become redundant, so might as well be removed. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's a good idea. I would make the wording a bit differently though, as the above can be construed as saying that it is OK for COI editors to edit if they can convince people that they're editing properly. The purpose of this guideline should be to discourage COI editing, so I would phrase it as something like. "With a few common-sense exceptions, such as Wikipedians in Residence and Visiting Scholars, as a rule paid editors act as advocates for their organization, or edit Wikipedia with the primary purpose of advancing their employer's cause. Advocacy does not necessarily mean outright puffery, and can include ostensibly neutral edits that have the effect of advancing the cause of the editor's employer." I would omit the references to NPOV and Advertising as that gives paid editors an excuse. "Oh my edits are neutral!" The target here is conflicts of interest. We already have content policies. Coretheapple (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

COI vs content experts
It appears that WP:FCOI is suggesting that everyone who is remunerated in some way, has a COI in their field of activity, even though WP:EXTERNALREL welcomes most subject experts.

I suspect every editor has a potential COI, but we must make it clear where there is an actual COI, eg.

--Iantresman (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do paid scientists, train drivers, beauty therapists, and homeopaths, have a COI writing about science, trains, beauty treatments and homeopathy?
 * Do paid book authors on science, trains, beauty treatments, and homeopathy, have a COI on their subjects?
 * Does someone who sells books on science, trains, cosmetics, and homeopathy have a COI?
 * Do members of organisations/societies on science, trains, cosmetic industry, and homeopathy, have a COI on their subject?
 * Yes.
 * Individuals and organizations whose professional goals and ethics parallel those of Wikipedia are highly welcome, but need to be careful to follow WP:COI. At the other extreme, those without professional ethics whose goals contradict those of Wikipedia will have great difficulty contributing to Wikipedia where their coi applies, beyond making suggestions on talk pages and non-controversial edits. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be very careful in attributing a COI to some employees. Train drivers would be one, they receive a salary for driving a train, but what financial benefit is there to write about trains? Another example would be an auto mechanic writing about cars. A salaried employee could have a COI, as in the case of a salaried salesman who also receives a bonus on things sold. But just because they work for a company, they may have no financial benefit in how a company performs. AlbinoFerret 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the distinction matters. They all have very strong interests to put their pov first. --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This comes up regularly, and most editors do draw a distinction between subject matter expertise and COI, and that is reflected in the guideline itself. This RfC recently explored this topic. Herbxue (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * COI is about roles and relationships, not about POV or expertise. A train driver doesn't have a COI with regard to trains just because he knows about them. He does have a COI if he owns a train company and writes about it. There are grey areas in the middle where it can be hard to determine whether problematic editing is caused by COI or expertise/bias, but for the most part it's easy enough to tell the two apart. Sarah (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An example of grey area Sarah is talking about: a train driver may lose his job if the company folds because wikipedia gave it bad fame, so it is his immediate interest to keep its article shiny positive. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that there would be a COI when writing about your employer. Say if the train driver worked for the Foo railroad, the COI would be articles about or that mention the Foo railroad, but in the general topic of say trains that do not mention the employer there would be no COI. AlbinoFerret  23:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is your interpretation of WP:FCOI, which, intentionally or not, avoids the broad phrasing "if you are an employer". That's why it is a grey area, and I would hate to take part in the trainwreck discussion of this poor train driver. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didnt think that "if you are an employer" was applicable in the case of a train driver, which would be an employee. AlbinoFerret  01:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to write "if you are an employee". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that if anybody wants to confuse themselves on this they certainly can, and there's nothing we can do about it. However we can break down the question in two parts, and most of it becomes crystal clear.

The first part is the terms of use, which is official Wikipedia policy, and even stronger than policy (if you don't agree to follow it you can't edit here at all). It says that if you are being paid to edit then you must declare your paid status, which is a conflict of interest in the terms of this guideline. What is "paid to edit"? The ToU doesn't break this down, although it gives a few examples in the FAQs. It presumes that the concept is clear and editors all understand plain English. It's not worthwhile to dissect a straight forward concept like this: somebody pays you to edit, and you edit, you are a paid editor. It does say that experts such as university professors may edit in their fields of expertise - universities don't pay their faculty members to edit Wikipedia, they pay them to do research and teach. But if the prof goes outside his field of expertise and writes what a great university he works for - well that is not quite as straightforward, that's a matter where a conflict of interest guideline can come into play. (But I'd say if he is pushing students to come to the university, and his salary depends on it - then it's pretty close to paid editing)

The second part is about less clear situations. WP:EXTERNALREL is subject to WP:FCOI, so there is no contradiction between them. WP:FCOI is very close to the ToU, but mentions specific relationships, owners, etc. It also seem to be a bit broader than the ToU - no use trying to nibble around the edges on this. Given this, if you are an expert, and you have no financial COI, then you may edit. The "specific case" of the train driver above, actually wasn't very specific. If the train driver is one of a thousand drivers for the company and gets a straight salary that's not affected by the year-to-year fluctuations of the company's business, then I really wouldn't see it as a COI situation. On the other hand, if the train driver is one of 4 employees of the company, which is going to go out of business soon unless somebody drums up some business, then I'd say he would have a conflict of interest.

The obvious cases are sorted out by the ToU, the cases where some judgement is needed are subject to this guideline. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Smallbones, you make it seem so simple, and yet editors were unable to reach consensus with regard to this exact issue and how it relates to healthcare professionals . I suspect that Iantresman's question relates more to these difficult areas, as opposed to the straightforward cases that are clearly identified by applying ToU. 108.181.201.237 (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Some important points have been made, notably that (1) Many editors have some kind of relationship with their subject, and consequently (2) a potential COI. The question arises, (a) how do we make it clear when these same editors are editing acceptably, and can do so without fear of other editors harassing them, and using WP:EXTERNALREL improperly against them, and (b) how we word it so that it is relationship-independent? --Iantresman (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In my view, a member of company X that makes specific product Y or offers specific service Y who comes to WP to edit, has a COI with regard to X and Y (and their competitors); they should declare that COI (disclosure) and should submit their edits on those topics to peer review (in other words, they should not directly edit content in existing articles where they have a conflict, but rather should offer content proposals on the article Talk page using ; and if they create a new article related to their COI, they should submit it through AfC instead of creating it directly)  This is the standard way that COI is managed in publishing.    Going through peer review is not a bar to editing -  the mentions above that editors with a COI are somehow barred from editing is just kooky and wrong.  Editors with a COI who follow our policies and guidelines can surely be productive members of the WP community - many editors can and do make valuable contributions this way.

Someone like a doctor or lawyer who offers a general professional service Y does not have a COI with regard to Y. The question that arose in the RfC I started that Herbxue mentions above, was whether an alt-med practitioner like  an acupuncturist, who offers a specific service (acupuncture), should be considered to have a COI. The community reached no consensus on that question. In the absence of a consensus that they do have a COI, in my view they should not be considered to have one. (but i acknowledge that this remains a controversial topic.)

On the subject matter experts thing. Expertise doesn't create a COI. But an expert writing about his or her company or products has one. The bigger and more difficult COI-ish issue with experts arises if they come here to use Wikipedia as a platform to advocate for their views on issues in their field. That is of course a violation of the policies, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV. The COI guideline discusses this in WP:SELFCITE where it says: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." (emphasis added)  Conflicts of interest (medicine) also deals with this well, where it says: "'Being an expert', including being a licensed healthcare professional, has never been considered a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia community.  However, in the past experts have tried to use Wikipedia to promote their own theories beyond their prominence within the scientific community, and that is always inappropriate." (emphasis added)   The essay, WP:EXPERT also deals with this, in point 6 of the advice section. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC) (add a bit, with REDACT Jytdog (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC))

I think "COI" is less of a problem with people who work in an area editing articles on that area than the fact that an awful lot of such editors are only editing Wikipedia because they work in that area and they think that because they work in the area they must be right even if they refuse to cite reliable sources, and sometimes get extremely defensive when asked to cite reliable sources. Joe Traindriver removing sourced information (positive or negative) from articles on the railroad, and replacing it with his own OR (again, positive or negative), being asked to provide sources and accusing other users of arrogantly dismissing his expertise in the field is, in my experience, a far bigger problem on the far larger number of Wikipedia articles than COI is. Calling these users "content experts" at the expense of our core content policies does not help the problem. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Experts can be such valuable members of the community but if they don't get on board with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, they can be some of the most disruptive editors we have.  The WP:EXPERT essay is super helpful, as are other essays linked from there.  Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So, do (a) paid scientists, train drivers, beauty therapists, and homeopaths, have a COI writing about science, trains, beauty treatments and homeopathy, or (b) Are we just saying that editors should adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, irrespective of whether there is a perceived or actual COI? How do we make this clear? --Iantresman (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * a) the question as you ask it is not answerable - there is a difference between editing on a topic generally and editing about a specific company or service/product. b) no we are not saying that. c) the COI guideline is already clear on this. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See false dilemma. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a physicist editing articles on physics, and a beauty therapists editing articles on any number of beauty treatments, are both general or specific? I am still unclear how the guidelines apply. --Iantresman (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, see false dilemma. You are representing a nuanced problem as a stark dichotomy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but disagree. I may describe the issue poorly, but that doesn't invalidate the point I'm trying to make. --Iantresman (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you are pushing on this so hard, and it has been so clearly answered, i checked your history. You have a significant block log and it appears to stem from disruptive editing on WP:PSCI topics.   I don't know what you mean by "paid scientists" - are you contrasting them with unemployed scientists?  This seems like some very strange way to try to disqualify scientists from upholding mainstream positions in articles related to WP:PSCI.  Please read WP:Lunatic charlatans and know that WP:PSCI is policy.  Scientists writing about science do not have a COI.  A scientist writing about his or her employer or invention would have a standard WP:COI with an outside financial interest; a scientist citing him or herself and writing about their own ideas would run afoul of WP:SELFCITE and probably WP:UNDUE.  But a scientist writing about science topics outside of those narrow situations has no COI.  Time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Jytdog (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you find it necessary to "check my history" and attempt to use it against me, it's not my idea of collaborative editing. If you don't know what I mean by "paid scientists", all you have to do is ask. Suggesting I am trying to "disqualify scientists" is speculative claptrap. As someone with two science degrees, and several university certificates, I value expertise as much as anyone. But, and this is the issue, we don't seem have a level playing field across professions. A paid scientist is someone who is employed primarily for their scientific background, eg. physics professor, medical researcher, biology lecturer, science teacher, etc. Does a homeopath have a COI writing about homeopathy? To me, the issue is not COI, but possible WP:RS. Likewise, if it not a COI for a scientist to be a member of professional science society, is it a COI for a homeopath to be a member of their professional society. --Iantresman (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

For me, the elephant in the room in this discussion, is that Alt-Med is medical fraud with practitioners conning their victims. Whether this is deliberate, or just based on true belief or the desire to justify this execrable behaviour to maintain income stream isn't ever clear. It is a fantastic con though. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 09:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not only are you wrong and poorly informed, this does not add anything relevant to the discussion.Herbxue (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Roxy the dog. You are over-generalising, and this has nothing to do with COI issues. If there are medical frauds (alt-med or general med), lets describe them on the proper way, and not pretend it's because there are also COI issues, or editors with block log histories. --Iantresman (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is obviously going, and will go, nowhere. Suggest closure. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

COI template discussion
Here: Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace --Neil N  talk to me 14:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP Content as free PR - where to draw the line
Real example: Bi-cameral legislative body. A politician heads one of the two bodies. His wife is a paid PR consultant in the other body. She edits his account to embellish it, from work (IP is verifiable, so is her account). Besides the IP, what else would be needed to prove a conflict of interest? A positive, non-NPOV tone in the article? 199.64.6.149 (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 199.64.6.149 if I understand you right, what you describe is a case of COI, and you should bring it to the COI noticeboard. I recommend to register an account with WP rather than post with your IP address. BTW when you wrote "account" you meant "story", not WP account I assume. --Wuerzele (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Non-controversial edits
Regarding this phrase from the section Conflict_of_interest: "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit." Shouldn't that be amended or qualified with "an editor in good standing" or a "good faith editor"? An obnoxious anon or vandal could object and a valid edit could be portrayed as a controversial edit. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fuzheado I think that would be driving the section ad absurdum, with a subclause to a qualification. I suggest to cut "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit." - uncontroversial is uncontroversial. It s NOT where the problems of COI lie.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - I think you hit on the better solution, which is to cut it out altogether. Thanks. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiki conflict of interest issues by Close friend and person of hire or relationship
Hi I m trying to understand and Clear Up the COI issues wiki has ...

1 Why is a stranger more likely than a close contact, relative, friend not more worthy of an entry than someone who only wrote a book on a person or subject? It seems common sense the closer someone is to a true fact would be someone who knew or has a connection to the subject or person....I wonder if i am the first to write about this...probably not.

2. How do you know that one of your editors is not sabotaging the subject or persons file because of their own C O I.

3. The person i am writing a subject page for asked me to help since they have no clue on how to edit in the Wiki format, how can we make this happen? what are the choice the friend or person has to get their information posted here on wiki?

4. What if a living person only has months to live and there is no one that can help write their article but the person himself/herself?

Please advise thank you SkyPhoenix6 UserSky 07:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)Skyphoenix6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyphoenix6 (talk • contribs)
 * In response to 1): Not a clue what you are saying/asking there, sorry.
 * In response to 2): You can't know exactly, though there are signs that the editor in question may have a CoI or they may be an WP:Advocate. If the editor in question is displaying such signs or there is possible evidence, then the user may be taken to the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard where the issue will likely be decided upon, an WP:Admin may topic ban the user to avoid the issue, or perhaps WP:ArbCom if the editor has faced previous reprimands for such problems.
 * In response to 3): See WP:Notability, WP:BLP and perhaps also WP:BOLD.
 * In response to 4): I hate sounding cold-hearted but if they are not notable, Wiki editors will abide by WP:Notable and will likely remove any such article unless it can be proven otherwise. This issue was also faced by users on Talk:Irom_Chanu_Sharmila where the IP alleged to be Ms. Sharmila's partner and was making unproductive edits to the article page.
 * I hope this helps somewhat, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitions of employer, client, and affiliation for freelancers and others

 * continued from Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure


 * Discussion has been moved back to the above. Sarah (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gender neutrality of Conflict_of_interest
I have recently edited this section, at 15:05, 7 September 2015 and at 10:51, 8 September 2015, to change gender pronouns (he/she, him/her) to be gender neutral by replacing such pronouns with "they". however feels that "swapping he and she throughout" is far more acceptable, according to their edit summary. I am asking for the community's opinion on this since this is a policy guideline and should try to be as neutral as possible, including with the use of gender pronouns. So, should the page:
 * A) Be gender neutral, or
 * B) Change between he and she in examples?

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC); edited 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr Crazy 102, regarding this, "he or she" or "his or her" is also gender-neutral language, as noted in the Gender-neutral language article. Such wording is more standard than singular they; as noted in the Singular they article, a lot of scholars dislike singular they. Furthermore, the vast majority of people are not genderqueer. And even a lot of genderqueer people alternate between identifying as a he or as a she. All of this is why I never see a problem with stating "he or she" or "his or her" in Wikipedia articles. This is why I've occasionally reverted someone just to note that "he or she" or "his or her" is also gender-neutral language, like I did in a case at the WP:Citation overkill essay in response to Louieoddie before reverting myself. Furthermore, the WP:Neutral policy does not apply to WP:Policies and guidelines; it applies to Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content. And as you can see at the WP:Neutral policy, neutrality on Wikipedia does not mean what neutrality means in common discourse. Flyer22 (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You also altered quotes with your changes to this guideline (it's not a policy); this should not be done without good reason; see MOS:QUOTE. Though this is not a Wikipedia article, MOS:QUOTE is something we should consider when it comes to quotes in our policies and guidelines. Flyer22 (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, in one of the two quote changes, you were fixing a typo, which is fine (well, usually fine; see MOS:QUOTE about fixing typos in quotes). I don't know if that typo is the fault of the person who made the quote, or the person who added it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As to my August 16, 2015 edit of WP:Citation overkill, where I changed two instances of "his or her" and one instance of "his/her" to "their", I did say in the edit summary, "some of us would prefer she/he so let's compromise". It's not a matter of genderqueer, I was referring to the fact that always putting male pronouns first, as in "he/she" or "him/her", can be offensive. However, the reverse, "she/he", might eventually become equally offensive if over used. I have seen "s/he" which is more neutral but doesn't work to replace "her/him" or "him/her". That is why I prefer to use the singular they whenever possible. Louieoddie (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Louieoddie, thanks for clarifying. I don't feel that always putting male pronouns first, as in "he/she" or "him/her", is offensive. In fact, I had a dispute about this at the Gender talk page years ago (it included a WP:RfC). Because of that dispute, I know that people can consider always putting male pronouns first offensive, but, as seen in that discussion, editors were generally in agreement that it's simply standard language and that using "she or he" or "her or him" can be jarring for readers because it's a format that is less commonly used.


 * Using a WP:Dummy edit, I'll note in the edit history of the WP:Citation overkill essay that you clarified your stance here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * , I have edited the quotes. I checked the Wayne Norman quotes, and the unedited text from page 447 is:
 * "'A person is judged to have a conflict of interest on the basis of being in a conflicted situation, whether or not that person thinks he or she is capable of resisting the temptation or corrupting influence of the interest that could interfere with her judgment.'"
 * So Wayne and Co. seem to forget the potential male judge after the initial mention. I have since added square parentheses to the quote around my edit of "his or".
 * As for the second quote from Wayne and Co., that was a typo caused by editor transcription not the text hence no need for the [sic].
 * I am not opposed to changing  to , I am opposed to simply stating a single gender since that is definitely not neutral in any way, and while WP:NPOV is concerned with articles, it is a fundamental pillar of Wiki and is about the spirit of Wiki being neutral in all aspects. I myself prefer using the singular "they" since it seems more concise and professional than constant "x or y" statements in this case "he or she" and "his or hers" but I am happy to compromise to a "he or she" instead. Thanks, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 11:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Dr Crazy, it's common in academia to swap the generic he for generic she, or to alternate: he for one example; she for the next. It leads to clearer writing than singular they or he/she and him/her; the latter has the additional disadvantage of the male preceding the female. The sources for this guideline mostly use the alternating he/she style, and so do I for the same reason. It's particularly important not to change quotations. Sarah (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above by Flyer, this is not an article and hence not meant to be academic. This is meant to be Wiki's version of laws and rules, which are typically made to be cover-alls, i.e. not making singular examples, e.g. a legal statute wouldn't say "the judge may not realise her judgment is biased" but would say "the judge may not realise his or her judgment is biased". Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Drcrazy102, I understand your point about the generic he; that the generic he is very much considered outdated these days was made clear in the aforementioned discussion by Darkfrog24. I personally don't like the generic he or the generic she. But as for neutrality on Wikipedia, I reiterate that it doesn't mean the same thing as what being neutral means in everyday life. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Flyer, I am not arguing this because of Genderqueer-equality, nor because of "outdated" terms. I am arguing this based on the fact that using a singular gender when referring to examples, especially saying that a female judge would be biased by CoI, is not neutral. In the words of the WP:NPOV "nutshell": Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it. NPOV refers to not just content but also to how it is said. The presentation of this reads as biased, not much but still biased. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Have a look at WP:Gender-neutral language/WP:GNL, where the introduction and first point are my main points of contention. Also, the Pronouns section (under Solutions) discusses what is the reasoning behind my edits. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was already aware of what MOS:GNL states; and I linked to it below, after Darkfrog24 indirectly pointed to it. But MOS:GNL is a guideline, not a policy, and it is clear that gender-neutral language cannot always be followed. My point when it comes to your argument is that you are citing WP:NPOV when WP:NPOV doesn't apply in this case and when, per WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia means giving the majority viewpoint the most weight; this is made clear by its WP:Due weight section and the subsections for that section. It doesn't mean we should present sides equally. If this were a Wikipedia article, you'd have a stronger point as far as generic he goes, per what Darkfrog24 stated below. Flyer22 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not MOS:GNL that I am directing to, it is WP:GNL. Not MOS, an essay about GNL. My understanding of NPOV is that it is not just about the content but about how content is presented as well, which is my point of contention but I can WP:Drop the stick on that argument if it seems so contentious. The presentation is at least slightly biased, and can be avoided by using gender neutral language whether it is "they" or "he or she" instead of a singular gender for the examples which is what is also talking about. You also seem to have missed my other comments where I have actually conceded that perhaps using "he or she" instead of "they" would be more preferred by the community and would still be gender-neutral. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I was already aware of WP:GNL as well; I've commented at that page's talk page before: Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language/Archive 1. But Wikipedia essays have no power. Well, with the exception of a few such as WP:BRD (which people have tried to get elevated to guideline or policy status because it's so often cited as though it is a guideline or policy), and in the case of inexperienced editors who make the mistake of thinking that a Wikipedia essay is a WP:Policy or guideline. That's why I pointed to MOS:GNL, which states that we should use gender-neutral language, except for in certain cases. I haven't missed anything you've stated in this section; I'm simply being clear that WP:NPOV doesn't apply in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * So then, since you aware of WP:GNL and you "haven't missed anything [I've] stated", you should be aware that I am not using WP:GNL as a policy nor as a guideline. I am using WP:GNL to illustrate my point and I would also like to point out that even MOS:GNL suggests using WP:GNL, not as a policy or guideline obviously but to illustrate examples, which I am sure I have done above, but I'm sure my edits on the guideline page have at least shown what I would change.
 * I have already stated that I am conceding the WP:NPOV argument, but apparently that has been missed.
 * Can I have it clarified for me then why we aren't using "they" or "he or she" instead of alternating between "he" and "she" examples, since you also seem to be saying that we should be using gender-neutral wording in your second-to-last sentence? Clearly making a hypothetical only a single generic gender would by non-gender-neutral, which is why I originally went and made a good-faith edit. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The exact way to handle gender-neutral language is not policy driven, but preference driven. Where there are differences in preferences - and especially when you want to change something that is pretty long standing, and even more especially when it is about style, being demanding gets you nowhere. (see the principles of this expressed in WP:ERA and WP:ENGVAR for example).  You have to persuade.  There is no "winning" on issues like this.  Jytdog (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I support gender-neutral language like "when a judge assists, he or she must be impartial" or "when judges assist, they must be impartial." This strikes me as more natural and better-flowing than "when a judge assists, she must be impartial ... when a police officer responds, he must be prompt," or "when a judge assists, they must be impartial," if that's what's being suggested.
 * Since the generic he has been mentioned, here's some info that might help: Our last debate on the generic he can be found here. Sources cited included Oxford Dictionaries, the American Heritage Dictionary , Purdue , Dictionary.com , the National Council of Teachers of English , Chicago Manual of Style . They all described the generic he as sexist, advised against using it, or both (OED was also consulted and is silent on the matter).  As for whether to say "she and he," I don't think we ought. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, those first two examples are what I am suggesting, though I used "they" in my edits. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw the MOS:GNL debate about generic he, since that guideline is on my WP:Watchlist. That is another reason I WP:Pinged you to this discussion. We could WP:Ping those who feel differently about the generic he, but a WP:Consensus was already formed on that matter. But again, WP:Conflict of interest is not a Wikipedia article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Editors usually insist on gender-neutral language when they see she being used in place of he. Calling a judge she jars for some people. That means they notice it, and a request for the singular they follows. That's what happened here. It's a good thing that it jars a little, because it makes people think. So I would like to leave it as alternating he and she; it also makes for smoother sentences. Sarah (talk) 00:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the handling of gender is fine as it was before DrCrazy's edits. DrCrazy, please relax on this.  Gender neutral writing can be hard for some people to get used to but this is fine, really.Jytdog (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet, there is a very easy word change that conveys the same meaning but in more gender neutral terms. See WP:GNL. As far as I am aware, singling out a single gender for a hypothetical is, at best, sexist and at worst can be taken completely out of context. I am trying to keep it in context, and yes I admit that perhaps the quote-edit was ill-advised, but the rest of the article is open for editing and to being more neutral in presentation. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire to improve the wording of this guideline but you are trying to impose your understanding of gender neutral language in way others don't agree with. That is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Meta complaint
I'm an irregular editor. After attempting to draw attention to what seemed a serious problem -- an editor apparently who had been systematically editing articles related to an individual to sweep clear from Wikipedia references to prior publicly reported scandals, discovered after yet another public scandal had hit the news -- senior editor (administrator?)  KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined   repeatedly pointed to the COI (and another) page for more information about how to raise a COI request.

This page seems grossly unclear for explaining to an irregular editor (such as myself) that seeks to induce examination by the more active how best to proceed to draw attention of the more active to such a problem. This appears qualitatively worse than the original problem... but still one I do not have time to invest in solving. Abb3w (talk) 15:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll also add -- the exact phrasing of the wording here is also unclear as to whether such case of an individual doing so autobiographically as actionable. Abb3w (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as the specific complaint. is a long-time editor but doesn't appear to be an admin.  If you've have more details and want to be specific about what rules you think he is breaking, you may take it to WP:COIN, the appropriate noticeboard.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been out of town for a while.  I think  is referring to the  notes   I left on his page.  He/She has been speculating the the identity of a user, and has done this on AN and on the the suspected individual's wikpedia article.   I've had two references rev'del'd already (not by me tho ! ).  I understand his concerns, he believes the article is being whitewashed by the subject of the article.  The article is  this one .    As I don't want to out anyone myself, I'll just suggest that Abb3w's rev'deled  contributions be looked at, starting from September 2, 2015.   KoshVorlon  We are all Koshundefined  11:25, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC FYI
Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Downplaying of Plain and Simple Conflict of Interest Guide
I'm a bit concerned that PSCOI has been largely hidden in a litany of See Also's. Although technically an 'essay', it's the most comprehensive, practical, instructive, and highly-used guide that we have. Before it was bolded in the hatnote, and this move to the busy footer makes it extremely less discoverable. I'd like to discuss that SlimVirgin and explore some alternatives. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Ocaasi, the problem is that there are several COI essays, and it would be a lot of work to keep them in sync. Could the key points from PSCOI be incorporated into a new section here? PSCOI has been viewed 178 times in September; 1,990 in the last 30 days. COI has been viewed 4,377 times in September; 15,618 in the last 30 days. Sarah (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Plain and simple conflict of interest guide for all dummies like myself who dont know how to find this thing.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ocaasi agree, it is totally hidden in the "see also " section, when was it moved? --Wuerzele (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Slim, I think there's decent historical support for higlighting to WP:PSCOI and WP:FAQO as particularly helpful. Having a guideline that tells you what not to do and doesn't help you find what you can do and should do and how to do it seems unwise to me.  Can you think of a place on WP:COI where we could promote those two pages?  I'm open to suggestions.  Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the basis behind the See Also is essentially a "Further Information" but what about a similar section titled "Other helpful CoI guides"? Just a suggestion. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is "The Most Plainest and Simplest COI for Dummiest Dummies of All": ''DO NOT EDIT ARTICLES IN TOPICS WHERE YOU HAVE VESTED INTEREST. PERIOD. If you are a Bad Guy, you will be caught (maybe). If you are a Good Guy, you may WP:IAR and nobody will care as long as you will be neutral. IF YOU WANT RULES HOW TO AVOID COI, WE DON'T WANT YOUR EDITING, because you are a SNEAKY BAD GUY (but not very smart, since you exposed yourself, GOTCHA!)'' Staszek Lem (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about the WP:GOODFAITH editors who may have an unrecognised CoI? Or even professionals in the industry? This is not for people who are seeking to Game the system, but for those that are acting in good-faith but have a unrecognised CoI. But thank you for your opinion on the matter, it will be duly noted your humorous take on the various guides and essays, it is appreciated . Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC); edited 02:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As for WP:GOODFAITH, we never have anything against good faith editors. AFAIK a huge number of us who are not teenagers are "professionals in the industry". People have COI all the time. They have hobbies, political affiliations, whats not. We cannot write rules for them all. The primary purpose of the policy as I see it, is to deter shameless puffery and paid editing. And the "Plain and Simple" essay IMO is even more confusing than the policy. (Hence my joke, BTW.) And if there are single-purpose PR suits who want to promote their company in wikipedia, let them follow the policy and stay away from direct editing, no matter how much GOODFAITH we can hace towards them.  Staszek Lem (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised that was a joke, so I was probably overly harsh in my response, sorry. I suppose when I was saying "professionals" I was meaning the people making the research and then editing on Wiki as well. I definitely agree with no amount of Good Faith will absolve "PR suits" from CoI, (certainly not from any "shameless puffery and paid editing,") unless they stay completely neutral. Sorry for the misunderstanding and undue harshness, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a ha-ha only serious joke. Please notice that WP:COI is a 'guideline', i.e., not a book of law, and you would strongly object elevating it in importance or harassing random people with it. Only if someone is repeatedly caught redhanded in violating our core policies, the person can be reprimanded and punished. I have serious problems with the essay in question, and IMO it is a good idea that it is "hidden in a litany of See Also's". It in neither a policy, nor guideline, nor a commonly accepted or scrutinized by community advice. Period.  BTW I meant "professionals" in the same way as you. IMO it is a paparazzi and wikiwitchwatch urban myth that Wikipedia hates experts and vice versa, that wikipedians are all while male teenager geeks with no real life. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Factual updates
Isn't there a need to allow companies to update factual information? They will be the first to know about updates and it may take other editors a long time to spot that updates are needed. As an example, I've just reverted a COI deletion at Public_transport_in_New_Zealand - Queenstown.Johnragla (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot but repeat my opinion that WP:COI is a guideline, and we should not harass well-meaning contributors with COI in minor detail. Only if someone violates our core policies of NPOV, CITE, etc., must be strongly reprimanded. Also if an article is a persistent COI headache, then one may first shoot and ask later. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Connected contributor
Please see discussion at WT:COIN about whether it's appropriate to use Template:Connected contributor on an article talk page in a specific situation. Link to discussion. --Middle 8 (contribs • COI)

"The Hunting Ground" prompts COI discussion on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
The Washington Examiner and several other outlets reported The Hunting Ground crew caught editing Wikipedia to make facts conform to film. In response, User:Jimbo Wales started a conversation on his Talk Page, saying "I have long advocated that we should deal much more quickly and much more severely with COI [ Conflict of Interest ] editors. The usual objections (from some quarters - I think most people agree with me) have to do with it being hard to detect them, but in this case, the COI was called out, warnings were issued, and nothing was done." Come join the party! - LeoRomero (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion about this page should take place here. Why are you not redirecting the discussion here instead of to a single user's talk page? I have reverted your direction. Please bear in mind that Jimbo's talk page is not in any way an official Wikipedia discussion place (it's heavily watched, yes, but it's the community who has made policy on Wikipedia for the last 10+ years), and discussion on his talk page is archived very quickly. Any 'results' of that discussion would still have to be discussed here before inclusion into the policy. Risker (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My flag did redirect here, you can look at it again if you like. Although one of my motives was to give all Wikimedians a chance to go deep with Jimmy on a crucial policy, I see your point and revised the flag. My plan was to recap here the conversation that Jimmy started there. And I will. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Independence
I added this recently, and Staszek Lem removed it:

"When readers come to Wikipedia, they expect to find articles that have been written independently of the article subject."

This strikes me as self-evident, as does "When readers go to The New York Times, they expect to find articles that have been written independently of the article subject."

Should this be restored in some form? Sarah (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I doubt a random Joe would even think about writing independence. In some cases article subjects write these articles themselves, and there is nothing wrong with this. Scientists routinely write about their research, politicans rant about their deeds. This is our stance, not readers' expectation. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe I have already provided an alternative "some form" : Its  goal is to provide reliable, nonpartisan information. 'Independence' is but one of the means to ensure this goal. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You write that there's nothing wrong with article subjects writing their own articles, but the whole thrust of the guideline is that this ought not to happen. Sarah (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not refuting my argument. Moreover, your statement basically repeats part of what I said in my edit summary: " readers don't expect this. This is our internal policy, not reader's wishes. Readers want reliable info". On the other hand, I am refuting your example of The NYT, i.e., it is non consequitur in our context. Various places have various internal policies, and user are not to "expect" any of them. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Lem, you're completely missing the point "and there is nothing wrong with this." Yes, there is. I've replaced the text. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 05:24, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the removal of a statement of Wikipedia's goal, which is a strong statement to make in a section describing Wikipedia's purpose. The current wording is passive as it implies that Wikipedia's purpose is to meet the expectations of its readers. I prefer a more active wording. Perhaps something like the following: As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's goal is to provide reliable, nonpartisan information. Readers expect neutrally-written information, not a corporate or personal website, nor a forum for advertising or self-promotion. isaacl (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any feedback on the proposed change? isaacl (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that line mentioned at the top of this section definitely belongs in the guideline. And the wording in green directly above. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In other words, the passage should read as follows: When readers come to Wikipedia, they expect to find articles that have been written independently of the article subject.As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's goal is to provide reliable, nonpartisan information. Readers expect neutrally-written information, not a corporate or personal website, nor a forum for advertising or self-promotion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned I prefer active wording to passive wording. How about the following: As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's goal is to provide reliable, nonpartisan information. Readers expect neutral articles written independently of the article's subject, not a corporate or personal website, nor a forum for advertising or self-promotion. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh that works fine. By the way, if you have any opinion on the section below I'd love to hear it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I support the last version as well. I like that the text explicitly starts from the position of Wikipedia, which we know, rather that from random user's expectations, which we know not. Since there is no other objectors, please update. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Why allow Conflict of Interest edits and Paid edits at all?

 * 1) there are cases, like subject of BLP subject removing false edits about herself
 * 2) there is a spectrum of acceptable to unacceptable COI editing, and because COI can be hard to define
 * 3) it is impossible to prevent COI editing, we have to be pragmatic
 * 4) we'd rather know it's happening, than drive it underground where it becomes sneaky and flies under the radar
 * 5) it's nice to know when we're dealing with a subject expert

Updated LeoRomero (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed WP:COI
Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships.

COI editing is prohibited. It undermines the public's confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted.

Do not any edit any article involving a Conflict of Interest. You may propose changes via the article Talk page by using the template. You may also suggest changes on the conflict-of-interest noticeboard.

Wikipedia volunteers and bots constantly monitor the site for suspicious COI activity. If you are suspected of COI activity, Wikipedians with authority to block and ban will give you one warning. Should you ignore that warning, you will be permanently banned. - Updated by LeoRomero (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Proposed by LeoRomero
 * 2) For background, see the Section Above. Key question: Why allow COI edits at all?
 * 3) Compare: current version of WP:COI to Proposed version

Discussion

 * I see quite a few problems with such a binary (black/white) approach. The object of the COI guideline is to prevent "improper" editing (so there must also be "proper" editing!) by persons with a COI, which begs the question "Why single them out?" We have to single them out because a COI increases the natural human tendency to be blind to one's own biases and to protect them.


 * "Improper" editing:


 * 1) Censorship, whitewashing, and deleting properly sourced negative information. That's a serious violation of NPOV and BLP. Criticism and negative controversial information and opinions, if properly sourced, must be included.
 * 2) Shifting the due weight balance of information to portray the subject in a more favorable light.
 * 3) This all tends to create a hagiography or sales brochure by covering only the positive aspects of a subject. This too is a violation of NPOV.


 * "Proper" editing:


 * 1) COI editors are often subject experts, and we need their input. If they are not directly violating policies, they are allowed to edit. If their editing is controversial for proven (with diffs) violation of policies (not just because they have a COI), then they should stick to using the talk page. If absolutely necessary, a topic ban may be used to force them to do that. Their input on the talk page may still be useful.
 * 2) A couple warnings should be sufficient. As newbies, one warning may not be enough, since they don't understand our culture. If that doesn't work, then a topic ban, and if the edits are egregious, then use a block. Banning should be reserved for real jerks.


 * Why we should be cautious and patient:


 * 1) They are often newbies, and we must not bite the newcomers.
 * 2) They often do not understand our policies, so we should be patient and educate them, not hit them over the head with blocks and bans.
 * 3) Protecting Wikipedia doesn't have to involve punitive punishments.


 * The current phrasing of the guideline makes it a cautionary message, and warns of potentially strong consequences for violations.


 * The more serious types of COI editing are the secretive and deceptive, especially when there are strong political and financial motives. Hidden and sneaky COI editing can cause great damage before discovery. An example is when the Koch brothers paid the conservative PR firm New Media Strategies to professionally whitewash many articles about them and their political activities. That was much more serious than openly declared COI editors like Edwardpatrickalva, who made few edits and cooperated with other editors, yet the Koch brothers/NMS team got away with it, without much happening. Their SPI resulted in very short blocks and then nothing! Their meatpuppets still guard right wing articles, and it's impossible to make them even close to NPOV.


 * So, we need to distinguish between openly declared COI editors who cooperate and try to do well, and secretive whitewashers who try to misuse Wikipedia. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)\
 * Thanks for the details, very interesting, will get back to them later. Just popped in to let you know though that they don't address the key question: Why allow COI edits at all? - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

, the community won't accept that all COI editing, or even paid editing, should be prohibited. gave the example above of a distressed BLP subject removing false and damaging material from the article about herself. Very few Wikipedians would oppose that kind of COI editing. This sentence from the guideline is perhaps worth pointing out:

"Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia."

SarahSV (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi - Yah never did tell me how that consensus was reached. May I see a summary of discussions please? If they do not exist, then just please let me know, so I can stop asking. I'd like to push that consensus a little harder on this huge problem. I understand Risker's point, which lends weight to my point that we'd be better able to handle exceptional problems like that, if we weren't so distracted by the overwhelming volume of inconsequential stuff. Also, neither you nor Risker have answered the question Why allow COI edits at all? Wanna give it shot? Let's see if we can get to fundamentals. Make a good case for why we should allow COI and paid edits in the first place, and I'll leave this alone. I may be a radical, but I'm a reasonable radical. I think. - Thanks again! LeoRomero (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Leo, consensus has emerged over a long period of time as a result of discussion in multiple places, and has an inconsistent feel to it for that reason.


 * Regarding why allow it at all, it's because there is a spectrum of acceptable to unacceptable COI editing, and because COI can be hard to define. SarahSV (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think SarahSV and Risker have answered well. There are many ways of answering "why we allow COI editing", so here are some other thoughts. Since it is impossible to prevent COI editing, we have to be pragmatic. We'd rather know it's happening, than drive it underground where it becomes sneaky and flies under the radar. It's nice to know when we're dealing with a subject expert, even though it does not give them special rights here. COI editors must be approached with good faith and not bitten, and treating them like criminals, when they have done nothing wrong, is really bad form and leaves a bad impression in their minds. Some of these individuals have a huge influence. Only an insider will notice certain forms of BLP violations, and it's logical for them to try to fix it. We want that. So let's AGF and teach them how to use their COI knowledge in a constructive manner.


 * Dealing with deceptive COI editing is another matter. When dark money pays professional whitewashers to violate NPOV, we have a serious problem, and we should deal rather quickly and harshly with them. New Media Strategies, a conservative PR company, was hired to very strategically use a team of sockpuppets to whitewash Koch brothers articles here. They should not have been allowed to get away with their actions, and the editors who are currently named in the press, and who act as their meatpuppets, should be dealt with. They should be topic banned and at least one admin should be desysopped. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

- Thanks you guys! I copy/pasted your Why's below - edit, add at your leisure. LeoRomero (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal - paid editing without being logged in is prohibited

 * Rationale: There's already a requirement that paid editors disclose their affilation. See WP:PAYDISCLOSE, which says "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
 * a statement on your user page,
 * a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
 * a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
 * I suggest those rules be strengthened slightly by requiring the disclosure on the user page. IP users don't have a user page of their own, so paid editors would have to have an account and log in.  This makes it easier to monitor paid editors, communicate with them, and block them if necessary. Right now, there are two issues on WP:AN/I involving paid editing from IP addresses, with disclosure in the edit comments. This is not strictly prohibited right now, but is gaming the system.  It makes it much harder to track the paid editing behavior. John Nagle (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest those rules be strengthened slightly by requiring the disclosure on the user page. IP users don't have a user page of their own, so paid editors would have to have an account and log in.  This makes it easier to monitor paid editors, communicate with them, and block them if necessary. Right now, there are two issues on WP:AN/I involving paid editing from IP addresses, with disclosure in the edit comments. This is not strictly prohibited right now, but is gaming the system.  It makes it much harder to track the paid editing behavior. John Nagle (talk) 06:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I wish all that would work, but as long as we allow IP editing at all, it's hopeless. We cannot naively assume that editors will be honest, whether they are IPs or registered. We have to judge them by their edits, so the standard is the same for everyone, and that's a good thing.
 * I've been here since about 2003 and have repeatedly asked why we don't require registration. I have received many answers, and none of them have yet made sense. Not a single admin or Arbcom member has provided a sensible answer in all those years! There are no downsides to requiring registration, but plenty of them from allowing IP editing. It allows multiple ways to game the system.
 * Proposals to require registration are always met with the outcry "but everyone should be allowed to edit!" Hello people, registration does not prevent anyone from editing.
 * Although not necessary, I'd allow a short "trial run" period of IP editing (maybe ten edits), and then require registration, but even that is not necessary, since everyone can register, and everyone can edit. Still, there is a consensus to allow IP editing, even though registration provides more privacy, more rights, and more tools. SMH. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In addition to the IP editing BullRangifer discusses, what I've noticed in some years of dealing with COIs is that the community is content with COI, and that some editors find it not troubling at all. Some find COI desirable. Some find the absence of COI to be troubling. I'm dealing with such a situation now, and the embrace of COI editing, the open contempt for the guideline and the concept of COI, is interesting. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem that the community is content with COI editing, given the constant complaints about it on WP:COIN and WP:AN/I. Tolerance for paid editing has decreased substantially in the last year, after some big flaps. John Nagle (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that the Wikimedia Foundation, at present, is against blocking editing from non-registered users. See the note at the top of Autoconfirmed article creation trial, and the referenced link, where the WMF refused to implement a trial restricting who is allowed to create articles. The longer answer is that I don't think the community supports blocking all IP editors from editing, either. But the short answer makes further discussion of an all-encompassing block academic. There might be some uptake, however, on the idea of requiring paid editors to be registered. isaacl (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Perhaps I should have qualified my statement. In my experience, day-to-day, routine COI seems to draw varying degrees of reaction from editors, depending upon the perpetrator. SPAs and IPs have a hard time pushing their COI edits. Open season on them. But if an editor is established, especially if they have advanced permissions, and has a COI issue "on the side" so to speak, their friends come rallying around and the guideline is treated as an annoyance that can be safely ignored. I'm seeing that happen right now. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed WP:COI
Conflict of interest, in the context of creating or editing Wikipedia articles, is a situation in which an editor's personal interests or concerns are inconsistent with the best interests of Wikipedia's readers.

COI editing is prohibited. It undermines the public's confidence in Wikipedia, and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals being promoted.

Do not any create or edit any article involving a Conflict of Interest until you have thoroughly read and understood all of Wikipedia's official policies, particularly as they pertain to Content.

Wikipedia volunteers and bots constantly monitor the site for suspicious COI activity. If you are suspected of COI activity, Wikipedians who have authority to block and ban will give you one warning. Should you ignore that warning, you will blocked or banned. - -
 * Proposed LeoRomero (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Compare: current version of WP:COI to Proposed version

Discussion
Heya - I read all your remarks in response to prompts above, including 's, and propose this minimalist solution to the giganormous problem: redefine terms; focus on who and what are important; keep it simple. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A central problem with this is the person with the conflict is not the person who is in a position to say the conflict makes no difference. Thus, the importance of disclosure. Moreover, that a reader is reading the writing of the subject (eg., the article on Company X is written by Company X) in a supposed encyclopedia article is something they should be able to find out -- that fact itself, is encyclopedic information about the subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly object. Confusing and naïve text, wrong in many respects, Just as your first proposal Staszek Lem (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with Staszek. Coretheapple (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid-contribution disclosure
There is an ongoing discussion regarding instructions for editors with conflicts of interest editing PaG's about managing and disclosing paid conflicts of interest [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Primary_source_of_instructions_for_disclosure_procedure here]. Additional input would be appreciated. J bh Talk  21:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility problems with COI page?
Hi Sarah - Re your revert - Reason I tested without blockquotes: they take half the screen on Android, iOS, Wikipedia Mobile Beta (which I was testing at the time), and the Wikipedia Mobile View Sidebar. On my gadgets, anyway. Yours? Smartphones rule esp in developing economies. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * LeoRomero, I agree. I wish we deprecated use of block quotes, and especially pull quotes (ugh!), in most articles. I say most, because most usually include multiple POV and we shouldn't promote one more than another.
 * If an article is about one person, I see no problem with highlighting a famous quote. Some people are known for their wisdom, and profiling such a quote can enhance the article. But for other articles, we should keep it simple. Since NPOV only applies to the encyclopedia proper (articles), other types of pages can use whatever works.
 * We should just use a colon (or asterisk) to indent and then ordinary quotation marks. Keep it simple. Use of more elaborate formats draw unnecessarily more attention to the quotes and can thus violate NPOV. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

BullRangifer, Thanks a bunch for waking me up, and for forcing me (without coffee) to learn all I didn't want to learn about deprecate (I was aware of its use only in the compound self-deprecate), as well as block quotes and pull quotes (thank you kindly for providing links to those, at least). Now, thanks to you, I know the technical problems with using block quotes and pull quotes, when really, all I care about, as always, is me. As an Entitled-Person-of-Practical-Blindness-Esp-In-Mobile-Devices, I object to anything that annoys me, and demand that they stop. But good on ya mate for looking out for "The Community". - Thanks, kinda; LeoRomero (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

PS: Also annoying to EPOPBEIMDs:
 * endless
 * threaded
 * "discussions"
 * among people
 * who talk
 * but don't listen
 * too much.

PPS: Something new I learned from my new BFF, on blockquote's only useful use: in Preserving Poetry Also annoying to EPOPBEIMDs: endless threaded "discussions" among people who talk but don't listen too much. CC-BY-SA 3.0 License: BullRangifer, LeoRomero, 2015-12 LeoRomero (talk)
 * LMAO! Thanks. That makes the day nicer. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thoroughly enjoy using block quotes in other areas. They can be very useful. I'm using them quite a bit in the latest essay I'm working on. You're welcome to use the talk page there. I'd like to hear your opinions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It is always a problem trying to juggle desktop and mobile views. It's not just blockquotes, but any formatting, including the box at the top saying that it's a guideline. But given that most people will read this on desktop, that's what I focus on, while checking mobile too to make sure it's legible (and it is). SarahSV (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, and sorry BullRangifer for this tardy reply (this page is just one of too-too many on my Watchlist (did I mention that I have both ADHD and OCD?) so unless you ping me, I prolly dunno wattup). My extra-wiki life pulls me away (sigh) but I'll be back to read your essay. Thanks for the RfC. - Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've swapped the blockquotes for quote boxes, and they look better on mobile. SarahSV (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SO much better, thanks Sarah! The peacock broke up the paragraph on mobile, after "As an". Tried to fix it, made it worse, then fixed it for real, I think. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw that you'd fixed the peacock; thanks for doing that. I've fixed some of the other images and boxes that had the same problem. SarahSV (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

"How to handle COI" section
Hi, I've removed that tag again. Rather than adding a template asking that the section be expanded, could you say what you feel is missing? Perhaps it's somewhere else in the guideline and could be repeated in that section. SarahSV (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, Sarah.
 * 1) Re could you say what you feel is missing, I thought I did so here: . In what way did I not?  seemed to be fine with it (or at least he didn't revert my revision). And in what way does the flag do so much harm that it's been deleted thrice by two respected editors (you and Risker)?
 * 2) Re Perhaps it's somewhere else in the guideline and could be repeated in that section: that is such a good point, I just had to confirm my answer. The "Download as PDF" link produced 11 pages. That in itself is di.ri.cu.lous [(c)LeoRomero]: ELEVEN pages for ONE policy, not including the 41 links in See Also and the 16 "shortcuts" (WP:DISCLOSECOI) etc. That's longer than the Constitution of the United States, including all amendments, and possibly all SCOTUS decisions (I hope you're laughing along with me now, cause that really is kinda funny, no?)
 * "But wait, there's more." Close your eyes for a second and imagine those 11 tightly-spaced pages, then guess how many of those are dedicated to how our Community should proceed when investigating and resolving suspected COI problems. The answer: less than 1/2. So that's why I thought it ought to be expanded.

I changed my mind about that though, so I have no strong objections to your having removed the flag again. I will respect your second revert. Having read through maybe just a tenth of those pages and links so that I could help bring a timely resolution to the Hunting Ground controversy by drafting this Case Summary at ANI, I have come to this conclusion: the way to get rid of the COI problem is to get rid of COI. That's what I recommended in response to Jimmy's call for discussion. I will expand upon my suggestion on this Talk page, eventually, but if you and Risker disagree with that suggestion, I'd really like to know what you think: here, at Jimmy's, or both.

Thanks again for making me think, Sarah - Leo

LeoRomero (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Could you please ping me, should you respond? I don't want to miss it. I'm cleaning out my Watchlist, but there's still too much stuff in it


 * Hi, it's actually six pages; the rest is taken up with see also, references, and the contributor list. But yes, it's already too long and could use some tightening. If you can think of anything that needs to be added to that section, or moved/copied into it from elsewhere, by all means suggest it. SarahSV (talk) 01:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Just now read your UP, and woah, I'm happy to be talking to an actual experienced expert! Thank you so much for your service, Sarah. Ya know, I read through all of COI, and I cannot find an explanation for why we even allow COI at all. I did a word search for "why". Not found. I'd like to read prior discussions around the question: Why allow COI at all? I don't want to start a conversation that's already been done to deaf. Is there a summary somewhere? LeoRomero (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, the community is divided as to whether to allow it, and even how to define it, which is why this is a guideline and not a policy, and why we use language such as "strongly discouraged." It's also why parts of the guideline are oddly written; any changes have to reflect the broad consensus, which is that COI editing is allowed to some extent. It's the same with paid editing: it's frowned upon (when it's of the PR variety), and increasingly so, but it happens quite a lot nevertheless. SarahSV (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello . I think SarahSV has summarized the situation very well. Changes to this guideline often take extensive discussion in order to achieve consensus, because there are some "shades of grey" situations (e.g., a distressed article subject trying to correct a BLP violation about herself) that are not really suitable for hardline, black-and-white rules. That doesn't mean conflict of interest is taken lightly; I myself led an investigation that shut down a significant paid editing ring earlier this year, and Sarah and many other individuals on this page have been in the trenches working on this issue for many years, much to their credit. In fact, COI is taken seriously enough that accusing an editor of COI is considered a very serious matter; there have been occasions when such accusations have even been erroneously applied to subject matter experts, some of whom have left the project - meaning that the project has lost their expertise in addition to their editing talents. These sorts of situations are part of the reason for using terms like "strongly discouraged" - because sometimes there are exceptions, and sometimes one person's perception of COI is another person's highly expert editor. I've long held out that one of the simplest ways to dramatically reduce paid editing is to create and enforce more stringent notability standards, both for individuals and for organizations, but I don't seem to be getting very far with that.  Best, Risker (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, , that does explain a lot, thanks. Esp the Cognitive dissonance (is there anything Wikipedia doesn't know?) caused by reading the docs. It's got to be sooo much worse for you guys. You have to protect us from the guilty, and protect the innocent from us. You're like cops. Without the benefits.

And thanks for bringing paid editing up, Sarah (I was gonna do one thing at a time, but yes they're so connected). Why do we allow paid editing? I'd really like to dig into The Whys.

Why did we get into such dissonant positions? What were we thinking at the time? I would have agreed with you Risker: focus on a very few basics. Seems to me we have too many rules. With each rule, another rule to break. Another dissonant policy document. Another group of interpreters. Another group of cops. Some of them bad cops, who push away the people who could have made us better. Distracting us from the basics.

And how did we build consensus allowing COI? Do we have proceedings and summaries? I really don't want to waste even more of your energy when I should be doing my own homework. I just can't find what I need through normal search. If Wikipedia doesn't have institutional memory in easily accessible form, that would be the funniest irony ever. Please let it be true.

I'd also like to understand the economics. For example: those volunteers who've spent time in Arbitration - experts like you and freeloaders like me - how much time do we spend there and in other coliseums, vs time spent building content and community?

My hypothesis is this: as a Community, we are failing ourselves. We are misusing, even abusing, our volunteers. We are wasting power that ought to be put to better use. Maybe even towards our principal purpose? To bring people together, from around the world, to work as one, for a common goal: to help each other gather knowledge, and keep it free, for everyone. I'd betcha we're wasting too much energy not doing that, and worse, making it harder to get that job done.

Do COI and paid editors contribute to our reason for living, net of the costs that they cost us? I'm betting not, and I'd like to do the math. But the fundamental question is this: Why do we have to deal with this at all?

Good to talk to you guys. Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've come here to (kindly) complain about this section and saw it's already under discussion. What is missing is how to handle COI when editor has not admitted it. You only have "If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe they might have a COI, consider whether the issue may be simple advocacy instead. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI." Well, what if it's not advocacy, sockpuppetry or sources? What if it's just an editor writing a hagiography for their spouse or someone in their family? I really feel the "how to handle it" needs to be expanded, and there needs to be instructions on what to do when it's basically outing (ie, hagiography about scientist was written entirely by his son), I'm pinging  because I'm not sure if she's still following this thread. Thanks.  —Мандичка YO 😜 21:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't know how to write such a section, Wikimandia. The governing policy is Harassment, and the relevant section, WP:OUTING, is very unclear. SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe if it is an outing situation, you could suggest to the editor (without saying why) that there is a suspected COI? Is there a warning template for that? And if they deny it, is it appropriate to send to the functionaries mailing list? —Мандичка YO 😜 02:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can send things to admins or functionaries. The outing policy says:


 * "Nothing in this policy prohibits the emailing of personal information about editors to individual administrators, functionaries, or arbitrators, or to the Wikimedia Foundation, when doing so is necessary to report violations of confidentiality-sensitive policies (such as conflict-of-interest or paid editing, harassment, or violations of the child-protection policy)."


 * SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)