Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 3

Proposed template change
I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox.  MBisanz  talk 13:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Fathom SEO's Career Education Corporation spam
Hi. This one should probably have started out here, but it went to Talk:Wikiproject Spam first, probably because it first looked like link-spamming. There may be some link-spamming but it turns out this is really more about an SEO firm adding articles about their clients, burnishing their spin and then search-optimizing these articles with lots of internal wiki-linking. The internal wiki-linking makes a lot of sense and by itself is not necessarily a problem for us since we're supposed to be doing this for all our articles (see "Build the web"). The potential problem, though: when someone searches for "elite+small+college+new+england", a search engine will return our "Acme Polytechnic University & For-profit Diploma Mill" article high in search engine rankings (and above other Wikipedia articles). When the searcher then clicks on the search result link, they go to a POV article speaks of Acme PU&FDM in glowing terms.

Collectively, this firm's accounts have received planty of warnings and requests to stop.

Anyway, there's a lot already written on this at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (permanent link)

There was also a WP:ANI report, now "resolved", at:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (permanent link)

I think we should probably centralize all of our information in one place. I propose to keep working on this on the WikiProject Spam page since there's already a lot of data there, but if others think otherwise, let me know.

-- A. B. (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally have confidence in the WikiProject Spam editors, and I'm sure they will have our sympathy as they deal with this issue! Articles on private trade schools that don't have any reliable sources commenting on their significance might be candidates for deletion. Our article on Career Education Corporation seems to contain a good bit of well-documented criticism. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Why doesn't Miszabot archive sections with the resolved tag sooner than 10 days after last edit?  MBisanz  talk 08:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The archiving timeout was originally set to 14 days, but it now is 10 days. MiszaBot takes away each complete thread as soon as the timestamp on the last edit is 10 days old. There is a proposal for the bot to take away resolved items quicker, and it's on Misza's to-do list. WP:AN and WP:ANI could use this feature as well. If you see an especially verbose thread that is resolved but still hanging around, you can always archive it manually. My suggestion is to wait 3 days after it was marked 'resolved' in case anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Ideasintoaction
(Moved to Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard) --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This report really should go on the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard page, I'll move it tonight unless someone else beats me to it.  MBisanz  talk 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes and thanks. I'm really far to busy to be trying to patch together reports like this between real life stuff.  I'm glad I can rely on editors like you to help. --Ronz (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

A bot that notices possible COI edits
This edit shows an example of PseudoBot reverting the addition of a red-linked article name to the March 13 date article. The person whose article didn't exist was Robert Povey, a British heavyweight boxer. (I know nothing about Povey, but his article has never been created). Sounds like a helpful activity! The bot is operated by User:Pseudomonas, and the bot already shows two barnstars on its user page. It appears to devote its efforts to cleaning up the date pages. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a great tool Ed, but boy - the day we start give awards and medals to robots, I cringe to think about it! Tiggerjay (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to cringe times. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Glad you like the bot though. Pseudomonas(talk) 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Closed comment
I removed the closing of a discussion that did not seem to have any closure, other than unsourced dismissals from editors who may know what's going on with this incident. I still have serious questions and concerns about the activities of this admin that I occasionally come across in editing articles, and I seriously don't want to have them. It doesn't really matter about the who, what or why when the questions could be directly addressed or policies about admin privacy be directly addressed. Flowanda | Talk 04:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Borderline COI question
This is a bit of a messy situation, and I thought I'd bring the subject up here rather than waste time filing a possibly unnecessary report, but I have a concern over a user with a COI. The article is Tucker Max, the user is User:Theserialcomma.

The background is that Tucker Max is in a feud with the Gawker blog, and Theserialcomma is a commenter at Gawker (search for Tucker Max on Gawker for proof, they have some dozen articles about him, all negative). Theserialcomma has admitted his affiliation with Gawker and used Gawker posts to try and gain an advantage in talk page debates. Most problematic however, is his behavior on the Tucker Max article. He wanted the addition of a section devoted to criticism that wasn't only declared a BLP violation, but got the article semi-protected to prevent anonymous vandalism, and he wanted it so badly he filed two different RfC's trying to get it included. He makes it very clear that his POV is that Tucker Max is a bad person and ought to be represented as such.

Since the failure of the second RfC, he has been splitting hairs and (in my own opinion) wikilawyering over the inclusion of sources in the article. He also outed another editor involved in editing the article.

Part of the reason I'm posting this here is because the guidelines do say that COI reports shouldn't be used to gain advantage in a content dispute and I am in a content dispute with Theserialcomma, but I do think there is a COI issue here. Considering my antagonistic relationship with Theserialcomma, though, I'd want to have someone not involved in the article give me the go-ahead to file a COI.

I don't feel like digging through diffs, but I can provide them if they're needed. McJeff (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * BLP and WP:RS come into play before COI. The material was sourced from the subject's blog, and an apparent facsimile of a document hosted there. That's waaaaay short of the standards, and I've removed it. If real independent sources can't be found, then the material is not for wikipedia.--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

advice please...
Advice please, on what to do when there is circumstantial evidence that a contributor is in a conflict of interest, but when asked, he or she denies it?

This particular contributor made edits that included information that is not in the public domain -- but would have been known by the subject of the article, or someone associated with them.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you engaged the user who left that information on the appropriate talk page? Depending on the nature of what was posted, there may be issues of original research and verifiability of facts that make that material inappropriate, before we even get to conflict of interest. And as you mentioned "known by the subject", that implies that we're talking about a biography which has even more specific issues with what may or may not be added. The first step I would recommend is opening a dialog with the user, preferably on the article talk page (leaving a note on the user's talk if they don't notice the discussion), and tagging the disputed material with . Arakunem Talk  13:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Important Policy update
I have added the following paragraph to WP:COI to reflect the actual state of matters. Please familiarize yourself with this, and feel free to discuss if you think this does not reflect actual practice.


 * When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over this guideline. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themselves discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing.  In case the editor does not identity themselves or their affiliation, reference to the neutral point of view policy may help counteract biased editing.

Thank you for you help, and thank you to User:FayssalF for reviewing this edit. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see it spelled out like that. Sometimes users' COI hunts can get a little too deep if the relationship is not immediately admitted by the other party. Arakunem Talk 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OUTING vs. WP:COI & WP:NOR
While WP:OUTING addresses the serious issue of stalking, as currently written, it renders WP:COI and aspects of WP:NOR (specifically WP:COS) unenforceable. Any good-faith attempt to identify a user as having a COI usually necessitates some degree of real-life identification. Typically, the user name is a give-away, but otherwise only an intentional or inadvertent admission by a registered or anonymous user is usable evidence – and the problems are mostly with editors who do not want to have their COI edits exposed as such or are unfamiliar with WP:COI in the first place. I feel that the community needs to discuss whether WP:Outing trumps WP:COI and WP:COS or else needs to accommodate legitimate, good-faith enforcement of these policies and guidelines. While the issues have been raised before, there has been no resolution, and that lack of resolution is hampering the work of enforcing WP:COI. If you have an interest in helping resolve this problem, please comment at WP:OUTING vs. WP:COI & WP:NOR. Thank you, Askari Mark (Talk) 15:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to bring this issue up before. Editors are outed on this page all the time, and it appears that the community finds this acceptable.  I would recommend that language be added to WP:OUTING stating that outing is acceptable when establishing COI, but should be handled with care, such as by only naming the editor's real life identity on this page. Cla68 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it needs interpreting with respect to intent. In comparison, for instance, listing an editor's bad edits would be a form of attack normally, but acceptable within a user RFC. Likewise, "outing" an editor is plain harassment if they're doing nothing wrong, but acceptable within limits during COI discussions (i.e. to the extent required to demonstrate the COI). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of a situation right now where the editor was adding his own website without identifying himself. And is now trying to change an article about a topic in which he is heavily involved. If I felt it necessary to bring it to COI, I'd have to out him, right? I agree, we need to change the wording of WP:OUTING. Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We should not publicize information that might help identify somebody (who doesn't wish to be identified) unless it's in a context where it is necessary for protecting the encyclopedia. Certainly WP:COIN is the most frequent place where protecting the encyclopedia may require putting two and two together regarding someone's identity. That may happen also at any of the admin noticeboards,  in some WP:AFD discussions and in WP:SSP reports. While these places may call for some reasoning about a person's identity, or at least, reasoning about their affiliation, it is perfectly in order to suggest to another editor that they have revealed too much about a third party and ask them to redact it. (Even at WP:COIN, it sometimes happens that a disclosure goes beyond what is strictly needed, and redaction may be appropriate).  Changing WP:OUTING to allow just the appropriate inquiries is a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are the problems as I see them, having some small experience at COIN.
 * 1.All too often, people in an edit-battle (it's often not a war yet) will use COIN as an attempt to remove the opposition in the edit battle. The user in question of course feels that they are protecting the wiki by removing a (sometimes not there) conflict of interest. By the time they post to COIN, they've often already done some off-wiki research.
 * 2.Off-wiki research is completely un-regulated, so there's no applying limits to what an angry editor can do. If they stop at an IP lookup or a google search, and bring the info to COIN, it's innocuous enough. If they find "better" info and decide to convince the other party to stop editing, that's bad.
 * 3.If there's a Wiki policy that says "You may try to establish an editors identity under certain circumstances", and someone does go too far, as in #2 above, this could be construed as having been done with Foundation approval. A policy that says "Don't do it. Period." is black-and-white enough, but a "usually no, but sometimes yes" policy is just asking for trouble.
 * Right now, one of the most restricted, and thoroughly vetted permissions you can get is that of Checkuser, and this is just to establish whether 2 accounts are the same person, without even identifying the user in the real world. Any account allowed to establish a real world identity would have to be even more restricted, and not something that should be ambiguously defined. My $0.02. Arakunem Talk 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing WP:OUTING would be a disaster. People's real life physical security is at stake here and absolutely nothing justifies releasing anything that could be used to figure out a real life identity. Does anyone here really want to be responsible for facilitating real life physical threats and attacks against editors? Not to mention any legal consequences for doing so. WP:OUTING clearly trumps all the other policies and guidelines mentioned and is the ethical and moral position to take. — Becksguy (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Becksguy's priority would require abolishing the Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. WP:OVERSIGHT is designed to get rid of things like street addresses and phone numbers. The suggestion that User:Bigco might be editing the Bigco article in a promotional manner, based on a coincidence of names, is not intended to cause real-world harm to that editor, and is hardly an improper exposure. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Obviously no one here would intentionally do something to place an editor in harms way, but there have been credible physical threats made against editors, with various police departments and security staff notified of those threats. The issue is not Bigco editing the article on Bigco to make it look better, or some guy spamming for his products, as that's unlikely to result in physical threats against anyone (legal threats is another story). It's editors editing articles that are extremely contentious and dangerous and that inflame people to do stupid things. Such as articles questioning religion, human rights violations, dictatorships, war crimes, terrorism, alternative sexuality, the current election, fringe beliefs and so on. Those editors are the one's needing protection. Not some guy trying to sell his version of Truck nuts. I'm not advocating abolishing COIN at all. I'm just saying that in people's eagerness to prevent COI, they may not be aware of the very real and serious real world dangers of identifying some editors. Even if physical threats are not in the picture, there are still serious consequences that can arise from outing an editor: Problems with employment, family, reputation, being outed as a member of a denigrated group, and so on. — Becksguy (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * These horror story scenarios need tempering with common sense. As you say, WP:OUTING is justly there to protect vulnerable people. But COI is rarely about this. Nobody is endangered by proof that, say, promotional edits to XCCorpSoft Inc Pty come from an IP address corresponding to someone in the press office of XCorpSoft Inc Pty. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We've been over this before. There is a general tension between COI and OUTING issues. In general, if someone edits from an IP address there clearly isn't an issue. Similarly, if someone uses a username like COMPANY X to edit the COMPANY X article then there isn't any real issue with saying that there is generally a problem. This tension will exist inevitably and attempting to remove that tension in the way Cla68 suggests could be a very bad thing. In general we can handle almost any situation beyond that simply by dealing with the POV issues themselves. Even without knowing about COIs detection of serious POV issues is rarely difficult. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as several above have said, that the OUTING concern is not about a member of a company editing the article on their company, usually to make it look better. Clearly that is a COI issue and is not a OUTING issue in terms of protecting an editor from harm. Also clearly, an anon IP editor is not an OUTING issue normally. My major concern is that any lowering of the OUTING protection bar to facilitate dealing with COI issues will also lower the bar for protecting those editors OUTING is there to protect. Arakunem's points are well taken. A policy to protect, such as OUTING, needs to be unambiguous. And that's why I oppose changing OUTING, unless it's to strengthen it. OUTING should be like CHECKUSER, very carefully guarded. — Becksguy (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thacher Proffitt self-promotion
, which is a law firm, has been inserting external links into articles like Troubled Assets Relief Program and Structured finance, leading to reasonably good white papers on their site. I took the link out of Troubled Assets Relief Program, but left the one in Structured finance. The self-promotion is bothersome, but they're something of an authority on the subject; they were "instrumental in the creation of the mortgage-based securities market", so they helped create the problem. --John Nagle (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have posted this to the main project page for comment. This talk page seems not to be the right location. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Current guideline status
Can I have some clarification about the current status of Conflict of interest? I've been working on the assumption that a major conflict of interest is a disqualification from directly editing an article without extreme caution
 * if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:
 * 1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with

Is this still the case? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been taking the approach with COI editors, that the guideline does not prohibit them from editing, but it does require them to be very careful to maintain NPOV (accompanied by a description of the NPOV and V policies in a nutshell), and also that they should expect extra scrutiny on their edits. So yes, extreme caution is still "required" by the COI guideline, but I've been making a point to not use the term "disqualification" or similar prohibitions, as I've been finding that editors with a COI also have some of the best info on the topics, and in most cases so far, they are more than happy to stay within the policies once they are described. With most COI cases I've seen, if the editor does not want to play nice with the COI guideline, they are usually soon breaching NPOV, RS, and V, which then put the teeth behind the more friendly suggestions of the COI guideline. Just my experiences so far, others please chime in as well. Arakunem Talk 02:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thx. OK, "disqualification" is too strong, but I'm getting a bit tired about the laxness over people - artists in particular - getting pushy (on grounds that editing isn't explicitly forbidden) and being allowed to take a major role in writing and editing their own articles. It always used to be the case that editors with a close connection were expected to help via the Talk page only.
 * Being the main editor of an article is not "careful" - I'm thinking currently of and that editor's central role in editing the COI articles Actual Art, Terry Fugate-Wilcox and Fulcrum Gallery. I don't believe anyone is capable of writing neutrally about themselves, and an agenda to expand an autobiographical article could be viewed as self-promotional per se. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Pre-listing quesiton to avoid crossing the line of outing
I'm on the verge of putting a listing on here because of a suspicion I've just had confirmed about an editor's COI, however before I do I want to make sure that I won't be violating WP:OUTING. Here's how I came to my evidence: Please let me know if my arrival at this information violates WP:OUTING, in which case I won't list a case here. Thanks! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Several edits came from an IP address, which geolocates to the town the subject hails from, and when visited via http resolves to a web server the subject uses for commercial activities.
 * The subject's biography contained references to the subjects blog, where the subject posts under a pseudonym which corresponds exactly to a wikipedia user who has been editing articles surrounding the subject.
 * 1) Is there any abuse, or unbalanced editing, from this user?
 * 2) Have you tried contacting him to explain our COI rules? Sounds like you already have enough to justify giving a uw-coi warning without having to directly query him on who he may be. EdJohnston (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response Ed- to answer your questions/suggestions, yes I've informed both the username and the IP address of our COI policies via the uw-coi template. Most recently it's been the IP address editing. One concern I had was that it was overturning a redirect that was decided at an AfD while adding little or no substantial content to the page, and calling the redirect vandalism. Additionally, it had been restoring a great deal of indiscriminate info-type text to another article it's connected to, claiming the removal thereof was also vandalism. I've also been accused of having ulterior motives in my edits to those pages. While I attest those claims are untrue, I'd regardless like to list on here to gain outside assistance, provided it doesn't violate WP:OUTING to do so. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * sigh I'm starting to think this might be more of a case for WP:ANI since I'm still getting reverted. I've left a more detailed notice on the IP's talk and if I get reverted again without discussion I'm going to go over there. Thanks! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I protected a redirect which was created as the result of the AfD. I personally don't think you would violate WP:OUTING by naming the editor and the articles here. Promotional editing is against the rules regardless of the affiliation of the person who is doing the promotion. Admins can sanction for behavior without needing to inquire who the person really is. EdJohnston (talk) 04:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily semiprotected two of the affected articles. It is hoped this will produce discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ed. I really appreciate the help on your part! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And I've made a report on COIN... since I'm sure at this point that if discussion does occur, the IP won't be doing it with me since it's convinced I have a personal agenda. Thanks again! &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 19:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a COI?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Yggdra_Union:_We.27ll_Never_Fight_Alone - not a COI, as it was archived without comment? Or did I report it wrong?Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Global Security.Org
Hi, I read that this website was, er, "flagged" here, does anyone know what archive I can find the discussion in plz :) Ryan 4314   (talk) 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't find any COI complaint about Global Security. If you look at this Featured Article nomination from May 2008, you'll see some editors discussing the reliability of globalsecurity.org as a link. To see some articles where it is currently being used as a link, check out this Linksearch. The wide usage of the link suggests that a number of people consider it a respectable source. We *do* have an article on GlobalSecurity.org. EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 28
I notice several non-closed/resolved reports were archived. Maybe some Admins can have a look. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The archiver takes away the old reports on a schedule whether the reports are investigated or not. Most of the work of checking into a COI complaint can be done by anyone, not just admins. If you have the time to investigate an old report, feel free to open a new item at COIN, present your findings, and link to the old archived report. EdJohnston (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

COI report when not promoting oneself?
This report was closed because the editor was not promoting himself. However, WP:COI says that it's "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups". The important bit is that you are advancing "outside interests" while editing, it doesn't mind that they are your own interests or someone else's. The report complains that an editor is advancing acupunter's interests, so it's inside the scope of WP:COI, and gives an example of such advancement.

I find that the closure reason was not correct. I would like this report to be re-opened, examined just like any other report, and closed for proper reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very broad COI complaints, 'person X can't edit because he is a Y,' are usually not taken very seriously here, especially when Y is a large group of people. Do you have something more specific? (Being an acupuncturist is not a COI in the same league as being the actual subject of an article, the brother of the subject, the business partner of the subject etc.). If you find that a person who is a member of a large group is editing non-neutrally it would be more logical to raise the issue at WP:NPOV/N or open an RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are my edits biased? That's also a necessary criterion for COI.  According to feedback from most who interact with me, I edit neutrally.  Therefore, my affiliations don't matter (in fact, WP ought to be thanking editors with expertise in particular areas, not sliming them with these lame accusations).  --Jim Butler (t) 02:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The line between "subject matter expert" and "conflict of interest" is often quite fine. The COI guidelines are intended to give an editor guidance about situations in which he or she might find it difficult to edit in line with the policies. They are not a stick with which to beat anyone who happens to be associated with a group, organization, or individual. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Gaming the rules should be discouraged. This board is not a club to wield against content opponents.  The report against Jim Butler was nothing more than a personal attack. No evidence was presented to substantiate the claim. Enric, don't follow the bad example of SA.  If there is biased editing, gather diffs and report it as a violation of WP:NPOV or file an WP:RFC. Absent evidence of abuse, we should welcome topic experts, not tar them with personal attacks. Jehochman Talk 03:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your level-headed and AGF comments, Jehochman. I'd add that if anyone finds evidence that my editing is biased, the best first step, per WP:DR, would be to talk to me about it and see if we can't work out a mutually-agreeable improvement.  cheers, Jim Butler (t) 11:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At first I thought Jim's response was sarcastic. Level headed AGF comments? His post starts with the words: "Gaming the system should be discouraged." How does that statement assume good faith? Let's focus on the issue of whether COI reporting can be used more broadly and whether financial interests and professional or personal conflicts of interest should be addressed in some way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi ChildofMidnight -- just to clarify, I am one of many editors who believe that ScienceApologist is well beyond uncritical AGF. He was gaming the system, and carrying out a bizarre threat:  "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned. That's my full and final goal. Like it?"  Need I say more?  --Jim Butler (t) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep this board for the relatively straightforward cases of self-promotion or writing for tangible direct pecuniary interest (PR agencies and the like). Editorial bias, especially openly-declared editorial bias, is a matter for the usual channels of dispute resolution; RfC or mediation or in extremis arbitration. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have openly-declared bias, Guy. I have openly-declared affilation.  Wherever I lean in my own views, my goal is to edit neutrally, and a glance at talk pages (where, if all parties are reasonable, WP:DR begins and ends) will show that the large majority of editors are cool with my approach. --Jim Butler (t) 01:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Less seriously, who is going to report Enric to this board for editing articles related to Catalonia and Aragon? --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @Hans. I can't but give you the same reply given to me by EdJohnston and Jehochman: you need to provide diffs showing biased edits :D


 * I suggest you start with "Naval is attempting to impose a bias, misquotings and lies", from the same user that had previously complained that "a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access [to a certain talk page] " (I still don't know if he was referring to me, lol).


 * I know a couple editors from spanish and catalan wiki that will be happy to provide megabytes of "proof" that I'm an evil aragonese nationalist intent on destroying the great ancient history of Catalonia by insisting on using *gasp* reliable secondary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, it seems that the report was actually closed because SA didn't provide enough evidence of biased edits(*). I take good note that WP:NPOV/N or a WP:RFC/U would be better avenues for that sort of report, but I'll leave it to SA. I'm happy with the explanations given, thank you very much for your reasoned replies.


 * (*) SA only provided one diff, and Jim is right in that it's undue weight unless it has a source explaining that it's a notable concern. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that if an acupuncturist is unable to edit on acupuncture due to a COI, then one could reason that a doctor cannot edit on medicine, a scientist cannot edit on science, a money-manager cannot edit on asset management, a regulator cannot edit on regulation ... you get the picture. People are likely to be biased in favor of their own field or profession. That's not a COI. II  | (t - c) 07:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed guideline on Advocacy
I have created Advocacy as a tool for informing editors about a particular type of WP:NPOV violation. Edits and comments are welcome. We often see editors conflating WP:COI and WP:NPOV. The recent case of an acupuncturist reported here for editing acupuncture would be a good example of such confusion and the need for a guideline. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline sounds good in principle. How would apparent violations of this guideline be handled? WP:RFC/U? EdJohnston (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree; it's an extremely nice statement of a common problem. But I have doubts about it having teeth, considering the general existing difficulty in getting anything done about tendentious editing and POV pushing unless a user starts majorly breaking conduct policies. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Please give the advice
Hello, I try totake care of the Korean geography and the community article, but maybe I canot i can do good job yet. I found the Isewell is put his photoblog the Gyeongju, Daegu, Andong. Maybe I mistake to rm. Isewell photo, sorry to Isewell. But Isewell put the message my talkpage and he is the owner of the photoblog. He revert my revert but isn't he case the WP:COI's case? Isewell put the his photoblog in the article, its COI.

Here is Isewell photoblog. [Photo gallery of Gyeongju]. Please advise. Thank you.Regard,Nxo (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the photos he has uploaded to Commons are fine to add to articles but I agree with you that he should not be adding links to his own travel website to articles. With all those google adverts plastered over every page of his site he also has a financial conflict of interest and really ought not be doing it. The Advertising and conflicts of interest section of the external links guideline says: "in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent — even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines." This seems to apply in a pretty straightforward manner in this case. If the editor wants his links used he should suggest them on the articles talk pages and then leave it up to other independent editors to decide if they think the links are helpful or not. If he is continuing to restore his links you should make a report to the actual noticeboard (not this talk page) so that other editors can help you deal with this situation. Sarah 06:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Sarah your reply is very helpful to me.Nxo (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about corrections of material, editing, Conflict of Interest
I work for a company that has an entry on Wikipedia. My company did not create it. There are a lot of factual errors and inaccuracies about the company as well as a lot of loaded language and unsourced or unverified statements.

I respect Wikipedia's rules and I support its standards. I also value fairness and accuracy.

So I am looking for guidance about what to do regarding content that is just plain incorrect and, additionally, inflammatory accusations/allegations that are unverified or not footnoted. I'll list my questions so if anybody can provide advice, they can do so in reference to the numbers.

1) If I add information about the company I work for, from 3rd party sources, like credible newspaper articles (i.e. AP or Reuters), am I violating the Conflict of Interest guidelines for Wikipedia because I am an employee of the company?

2) If I flag unverified information added by others, am I in violation the Conflict of Interest guidelines for Wikipedia, as an employee of the company?

3) If my addition of verified information or flagging of unverified information is a Conflict of Interest, what do I do? Just post my concerns or content on the talk page and wait for someone to intervene?

4) What happens if no one intervenes?

5) If no one intervenes, does the Conflict of Interest still stand so long as the information involved is incorrect or unsubstantiated?

6) In general, conflict of interest notwithstanding, how much time should pass before material is deleted on the basis that it has been flagged and no third party has intervened?

7) Are company reports, like an Annual Report, audited by external auditors and filed with the SEC (therefore carrying significant penalties for filing false information) acceptable Wikipedia as sources?

8) Am I right or wrong in this interpretation: the Conflict of Interest guidelines preclude a company authorizing changes to its entry or an employee of that company from making changes to the entry about the company, but anybody else is free to edit the entry. If the company find fault supported by Wikipedia policy with regard to content, its only recourse, short of violating the Conflict of Interest guidelines, is to post objections, corrections, alternative sources, etc. in the Discussion/Talk section of the entry and then wait/hope an interested party at some point will act on the information.

I know in the past there have been controversies about companies paying people to write 'nice' things about them or adding material that is more about marketing than about verifiable encyclopedia content. Personally, I have no desire to do that. I do have a real desire, within the guidelines of Wikipedia, to correct the incorrect and eliminate the unsubstantiated and the biased. I just don't quite know how to do it right. I would never want to get into one of those situations where accusations of 'corporate fixing' are leveled at my company. I am confused by the Conflict of Interest statement, as I interpret it, ruling out 'editing your own entry.' Who is more likely to care about inaccurate content? Why, if it can be verified through 3rd party sources, is it considered inappropriate for action to be taken?

I accept Wikipedia doesn't want to be hosed by corporate types with bad judgment and support it. Wikipedia is meant to be an online resource of verifiable material, not a press release. On the flip side, I do not think it is in the spirit of Wikipedia's objectives, nor is it fair to the employees, their families, stockholders, and anyone to form in whole or in part an opinion, to allow inaccurate information to remain in a Wikipedia entry.

Any guidance or advice you can give me would be much appreciated. I could have just set about editing my company's entry but I really do respect that Wikipedia is trying to build a credible and so invested a fair amount of time reading the rules over the last few nights on my own time at home. But, I am left with some questions remaining and an entry that is very flawed.

Thanks very much. Sorry for going so long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.41.158 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving timeout
When bot archiving was first started here, the archive timeout was set to 14 days. (Items would be removed 14 days *after* the last comment). Later it was reduced to 10 days since 14 seemed to be more than needed. Currently the size of the noticeboard is up to 218K bytes, as compared to an ideal size (in my opinion) of around 100K. Does anyone object to reducing the timeout to 7 days? EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just thinking about the same thing yesterday - sifting through for open issues is getting unmanageable. Be bold. -- samj in out 12:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 8 would be better: it would keep things alive for people that only edit on a particular day of the week.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Support. -- samj in out 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 12 days would be even better, and not so far removed from the current archive timeout of 14 days.---PJHaseldine (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, your having a long running open issue on the notice board as we speak suggests that this would be better for you rather than for the COI patrollers who are currently having problems working amongs the resolved and stale issues. -- samj in out 02:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that 8 days from the last comment is sufficient. If someone thinks something needs to sit around longer then they can make a comment saying so and get another 8 days. Drawn Some (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article and Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites
I have reported what I think is a conflict of interest on the project page. An editor multiple linked their own book without revealing they were the author of said book which is a commercial book which was just published, and I suspect it is non notable. That is the basic report. Since then 3 editors that are involved in a team (the fourth wrote the book) that edits together have rallied for a user that I think inappropriately used their book in articles listed above in the heading... particularly the second. I have responded on the report page... which now I think may have been a mistake, because the whole thing beyond the initial report is now dragged out and longer... and may have become more problematic. Should I trim back my comments on the report page? Also I have been attacked for reporting what I consider a c.o.i. on the project page. skip sievert (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Removing the conflict of interest mark on page i've created
i have seen that the page i have created has a conflict of interest tag on it. i would really like to have it removed as the page i have made regarding Kenneth Cobonpue is purely encyclopedic and for the use of the general public's knowledge. If there is anything i can do please do instruct me on how i can get this tag removed. Thank you and good day.

Kenneth Cobonpue (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The macro is there because you a both a major contributor and the subject of the article. Also problematic is that all of the references are print and not easily checkable online publications. The the article has evolved and most of the work is not your own, the macro may get removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As Stuart has pointed out the COI message is there because the page seems to be an autobiography. Autobiographies are inappropriate for wikipedia. See WP:AUTO. If you can provide inline citations for the claims made then the COI may be removed. At the moment the article reads far too much like a CV/resume and is like an advert. Please feel free to ask if you would like any help improving it. Smartse (talk) 10:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Further to to my comments above, if you're looking for a good example of how to avoid the COI, I recommend looking at Jimmy Wales. Just about every claim has a footnote citing a source and most sources are online source. I suggest that you lift formatting and macros for how to do this straight from that page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've copied this to WP:COIN, which is the usual venue for discussing specific articles. Could you continue the discussion there at COIN? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 *  [See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 32. — Athaenara ✉  09:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)]