Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 7

Anneke Lucas
Hi,

created Anneke Lucas and Michael Huggins' articles, who appear to be connected through the Liberation Prison Yoga organization. Of the person's 60 or so edits, all but a few edits for another biography related to those two articles.

On December 2016, someone put a close connection / coi template on the article (rightly so, based upon the content, heavy use of primary sources, and tone of the article). I'm not seeing that Saramgable made any updates since October 2015. (There was also another user that added a photo in 3 edits that may be related, but they didn't change content.)



Based upon the Afd for Lucas with votes to "keep" and the state of the article, I have been editing the article, and making significant changes. With prior edits by others, the article isn't like it was when the user last made edits to the article.

As far as I know, the user never declared that there was a close connection between them and the subject of either article.

The question is: Can we place a Connected contributor tag on the talk page of both articles, with or without the user's name? Then, remove the coi tag on the article page? Something else (e.g., post on WP:COIN first, other)? Thanks so much!— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Based on the length of time and the article rewrite, I went ahead and moved the COI tag from the article. On the talk page, I added the COI editnotice tag, since the user hasn't declared a close connection. I also informed the user of this discussion and that the  COI editnotice tag was added to the article's talk page.— CaroleHenson &thinsp; (talk)  20:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

OTRS volunteers needed
Hi all. A while back, I posted to WP:AN about our need for OTRS volunteers. At the time, I was focusing mostly on the permissions queues. That recruiting attempt was rather successful, so I've decided to post here to talk about our need for info-en agents. Info-en is the queue that holds all general emails we receive related to the English Wikipedia. The Quality subqueue of info-en hosts relatively high-priority tickets from the subjects of BLPs.

When we ask article subjects to avoid editing articles, we need to provide them an alternative to address actual issues. This is that alternative. This is how we want article subjects to be interacting with Wikipedia, but unfortunately, article subjects regularly wait long periods of time before receiving a response. Currently, the oldest unanswered ticket in the Quality subqueue is over four months old. It's hard to expect an article subject to do nothing when faced with a BLP vio on their article, no idea on how to get it removed, and zero response when they try to reach out to us in the proper way. When the Quality subqueue works more efficiently with small wait times, COIN benefits.

If you'd be interested in helping out, please check out OTRS/Volunteering. You can read more in my previous call for volunteers at AN, which is located here. I'd also be happy to answer any questions you may have. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Interesting. I have seen quite a few COI edit requests recently through OTRS. I might be willing to help out. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On a side note though, my preferred method is to ask COI editors to request changes on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's often what winds up happening in the tickets, but sometimes, it isn't viable for article subjects to post to the talk page. For instance, if there's actual BLP violations to the level that they need revision deletion (something an article subject won't know how to request), posting to a talk page and waiting for an editor to come along and fix them isn't sensible. It also might have a Streisand effect. OTRS volunteers aren't there to help article subjects push through their preferred changes, just to help them navigate our policies and guidelines and act when there's a serious issue that needs to be addressed. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Has the WMF committed to providing legal protection for OTRS volunteers? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's never really come up. As an OTRS volunteer, you're acting in a volunteer role subject to community policies and guidelines, not as an employee of the Foundation. As far as I'm aware, there's never been any need to make clear a stance on this issue. You'd have to ask WMF Legal. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure I am willing to help. Do a fair bit of stuff around copyright. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Statement expected from WMF Legal
Posted to wikimedia-l by Jacob Rogers, Legal Counsel, Wikimedia Foundation: "[W]e've been working on a longer statement outlining some of our thoughts about our role in dealing with paid editing concerns and some ways the communities can effectively approach these issues as well. We plan to post this on-wiki soon." Maybe some relief coming? - Brianhe (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Shady Internet domains
Of interest to readers here, an article in Adweek about fake domains, botnets and more scurrilous and possibly illegal activity scamming advertisers: Suspicious Web Domains Cost Online Ad Business $400m per Year. I came across this in the context of an ad exec who works at crowdfundinsider.com, formerly at Bluefin Media of Ohio. Bluefin is one of the actors listed in Adweek. crowdfundinsider.com is heavily cited at Crowdnetic. - Brianhe (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

List of companies / website involved in undisclosed paid editing
Do we have such a list? If not I am beginning to draft one here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

MfD of interest
Please note that Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms has been listed for deletion. The discussion is here. Coretheapple (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Challenges getting responses to COI edit requests
Hi all. As a COI editor who sometimes makes requests on behalf of clients, lately I'm struggling to receive any response to requests in a timely fashion (less time than, say, four weeks). Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement proposes escalating requests to this board as a last resort, but I know that's not really COIN's purpose, and those requests are not always welcome here. The requested edits queue is also inefficient—the backlog isn't sorted chronologically by default, and as far as I can tell, no one is working through it systematically, with a few requests that are nearly a year old.

I understand that the community is busy and these requests can't take special precedence. However, an uncertain response time that spans months or more is a tough sell when I'm advocating to potential clients to work with me through Wikipedia's proper COI disclosure process. So I'd like to start a discussion: What's a better way for COI editors to escalate requests without using COIN? Are there possible improvements to be made to the way the requested edits backlog is handled? How can we ensure that working via Wikipedia's COI disclosure process is an appealing option for brands?

Any thoughts, ideas or feedback is welcome. Thank you all for your help through the years and in the future. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One question is about what requests are necessary. If the info in the article is factually wrong, requesting a change is appropriate. If it's merely that the article doesn't mention the "exciting new product" the company is pushing, it may not be worth the time of volunteer editors to update the article. This isn't PR Newswire. John Nagle (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Understood, and I strive to ensure that my requests meet Wikipedia's standards of notability and to set realistic expectations with clients. I'd say most of my requests fall in the middle of this spectrum—they aren't straightforward factual corrections; they're more like qualitative improvements to the depth of information provided. My goal is to propose only edits that genuinely improve Wikipedia from an encyclopedic perspective, and I provide full formatting and citation to make it easy as possible to implement the suggestions. I like to think there's room on Wikipedia for this sort of work. Do you disagree? Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking at some of the top edit requests automatically listed at User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable,
 * Talk:Louvre Abu Dhabi - COI editor starts by wanting removal of New York Times reference to costs because they are "unofficial", i.e. not from their own PR.
 * Talk:Vern_Poythress - COI editor wants more of article subject's religious tracts linked from the article. They already have a dozen such tracts listed. That list needs trimming, not expansion.
 * Talk:W. R. Grace and Company - COI editor wants better spin on the bankruptcy, and more on post-bankruptcy changes. If they hadn't proposed new text for the asbestos lawsuit, their changes might have gone in.
 * Talk:CANARIE - COI editor wants to insert brochure-like text from organization's own site.
 * Talk:Star Shipping - COI editor wants article changed to reflect business changes since article was written. No non-company sources in English. There are news articles about the company (as of April 2017, they're losing money more slowly than before), but that's not what the company wants to mention.
 * Talk:Centre Point - COI editor wants info about an office block in London being converted to flats updated. The article isn't tracking all the latest developments. The building's notability comes from its history as brutalist architecture, not the current re-purposing.
 * This is typical. The two typical errors of COI editors seen here are 1) trying to sneak in PR-like copy with a reasonable factual update, and 2) citing their own PR. That turns off volunteer editors; they can't just fix some fact. If you want something to go in, stick to the facts, cite all of them to WP:RS reliable sources, and don't write anything that reads like advertising copy. John Nagle (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to be able to "downvote" requests like this and get them off the list. Because of poor-quality, sheer promo stuff like this, I don't even look at it. - Bri (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, John Nagle. As unpaid volunteers, it is entirely reasonable that we don't want to waste our time engaging with paid COI editors who have made little or no effort to read even the most basic Wikipedia policies. Edwardx (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I totally agree re: the example requests cited. Is the proper response to mark them with the "declined" parameter so that these requests get removed from the queue? Or perhaps another solution would be some sort of more selective area where requested edits are only added to a queue after meeting certain quality specifications. That may be more work than it's worth, though; I'm simply speculating. Mary Gaulke (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote edit declines on the first two. With some of the requests, it's necessary to read the references. I just read parts of "Divine Attributes of Arithmetical Truth", in "Redefining Mathematics - God Centered" by Vern Poythress) This is in WP:FRINGE territory for mathematics. (Even for Christian apologetics, it's a bit strange.) The book has some hits in Google, but they're mostly blogs which link to an interview with the author.  Most of the hits echo the jacket blurb.  Didn't find a review. No reliable source seems to have mentioned the book. Checking this stuff is a time sink. But to properly clear an entry from the list, that's what it takes. That's why requests from COI editors aren't being answered in a timely fashion. John Nagle (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. How can we (COI editors) make it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff? I've never been clear on whether COI editors can respond to others' COI edit requests—I'm guessing not? Perhaps we can add more documentation to the request-edit template to clarify what's needed when using it, or perhaps we can add a new response parameter that essentially says, "Please clean up your sources/formatting and resubmit." Mary Gaulke (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Referred the edit requests at Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy and Pterygium (conjunctiva) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Those need medical expertise to resolve - one is about a new form of therapy being promoted, with clinical trial reports, and the other is a surgeon promoting his own new surgical technique. Those need expert scrutiny. John Nagle (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi all! Another COI editor chiming in here. Re: Mary's note above about whether it's appropriate for COI editor to respond to other COI editors: this is something I think a few of us would be happy to do (I would!) as an intermediate response to help reduce the backlog. We could either give them some sort of "check mark" to move forward for volunteer editors to review or respond with a "no" and / or "here's what you need to do" and links to guidelines (perhaps using a new response parameter as Mary suggests). Definitely don't think it would be appropriate to give the thumbs up to any requests, but providing feedback when something isn't within guidelines seems reasonable. Is that something that would be helpful? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 18:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in, ! I agree—I'd be happy to help with reducing the backlog in this way. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Potential process changes
Rounding up a few options discussed above, in the interests of keeping this discussion moving forward: Thoughts? Any other ideas?
 * Empowering COI editors to review others’ requests and issue rejections/feedback where appropriate, reducing the load on NPOV volunteers to wade through numerous requests. (COI editors would still be unable to approve and implement others’ suggestions, but the goal would be to help cut down the queue.)
 * Creating a selective, higher-priority queue of requested edits that are affirmed to be of high quality—perhaps a queue of requested edits only coming from members of CREWE, or requests that have been reviewed and verified as meeting basic technical specifications in terms of formatting, quality of information, and citation.
 * Revising the documentation of the request edit template to more strenuously encourage high-quality edits, and/or adding a response parameter that instructs the submitter to clean up their proposal and resubmit.

Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've done work with (high-risk-of-)COI editors and one observation is what they think is a simple edit is inadvertently requested in a way that is a much bigger source review / learning, editing, content creation, and checking articles for duplicated references job.  If someone roughed out a framework for such requests that said that they should specify exactly which words/ sentences they want removed from exactly where, and which exact content they want inserted exactly where, clarify whether any references are new or already used in the article, and also the rationales for the changes, it would be much less time consuming to do them (like maybe cut down to 1/3) and I'd bet that they would get faster responses.  North8000  (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The request edit template does link to instructions that specify just about everything you mention here. The problem is consistent implementation. A response parameter encouraging submitters to review those instructions and then resubmit may help. Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But it is missing what is probably the most important point with relation to making it time consuming for the person making the edit.   Maybe I'll try to see if I can be of use help there.  North8000  (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting—would that be specifying which sources are new? Want to make sure I'm adhering to best practices in my own requests. :) Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As a COI editor, stick to cold facts. Write as if for the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg. If you try to slip in anything that reads like ad copy, the whole request will probably be rejected. Over at VistaJet, a COI editor had tried to add "VistaJet flights are attended by cabin crew trained by the British Butler Institute and offer catering from Nobu, a hand-picked wine list, a curated library and organic amenity kits, amongst others." They also had some factual updates which could have gone in. But volunteer editors don't have time to sort the wheat from the chaff. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Other no-nos: Don't upload an photo with a logo added, as at File:Joelmyers 0813 SquareLogo.jpg. See WP:WATERMARK policy. Also, trying to add "one of the greatest entrepreneurs in American history" is not going to work. Maybe for Andrew Carnegie or Alfred P. Sloan, but not for some guy who runs a weather channel. I've been trying to work down the backlog, doing two or three articles a day, and the quality of the COI edit requests is very poor. John Nagle (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Great points. I see has already tweaked the template instructions a bit. Is it OK for me to go in and update the instructions further with your points,, or is that in itself a COI? Trying to figure out how to turn this dialogue into action and make myself useful. And as an aside—your work on the backlog is very much appreciated. Mary Gaulke (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just did a little bit of work, putting in what I felt was the top missing item. (basically saying to explicitly specify specify the exact proposed changes). IMO the "see if the references are already used and if so note/format accordingly" still needs to be added.  IMO on the template instructions you are not a (high-risk-of)COI editor and IMHO it would be OK to carefully edit.  Of course you need to be wearing only one hat / have only one loyalty then, which is for the good of Wikipedia. North8000  (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Organizing COI editors to run some process would probably not be good for Wikipedia. You could try proposing that at Village Pump, where new proposals go, and see what people think. While the COI request backlog is a problem, if we can get one or two more volunteer editors to look at the queue, this could be caught up in a month.  John Nagle (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you both! I'll flesh out the instructions a bit more and bring any further discussion to WP:Village Pump. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads up, , and —I've started a discussion of this issue over at Village Pump. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In general, there is such a big fixation on the COI aspects that there is not enough awareness of how they serve it up to the reviewing editor.....whether their method makes it a big or small job for the editor that might put it in. My experience is that even very intelligent editors lack this empathy/understanding, and propose it in a way that would make it a very big job to put it in, thus impairing response to such requests. The best remedy/ forcing statement that I can give briefly is to say to give simple, explicit instructions for the requested edit.  North8000  (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Centralized AfD listing
I've been noticing that it's pretty commonplace for spammy pages to get past CSD and PROD and end up at AfD. I think that a lot of the editors who work at this noticeboard would be interested in participating in such AfDs. The AfDs are often listed on the noticeboard in the midst of discussions, but they can be easy to overlook there. Currently, there is a box at the top of the noticeboard where requested edits are listed. How about creating another space on this noticeboard, in this case where editors can manually list AfDs that have been opened as a result of COIN discussions? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the idea. It would certainly prompt me to participate more in the AfD discussions created by others. Rentier (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Adjusting the meta CU policy wording
RfC on Meta Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

CU appointments
Are open. I would encourage some people here to apply. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Article Wizard simplification proposal
Given the recent positive feedback re: WP:LANDING, there has been a proposal to redesign the article wizard at Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard. Since the current proposal involves walking COI editors and paid editors through the disclosure process, I thought people here might have thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest keeping the Mister Wiki thread open for now
Winged Blades of Godric has just now closed the thread, in good faith, in the view that there's a (not yet accepted) RFAR. However, in my view, there is certainly more community discussion to be had, outside of ArbCom's strict box, and I believe that that thread is a good centralized area (or perhaps it could be moved to a subpage). For instance, I read somewhere that Jytdog was going to interview the owner of the company. Since details on that have community interest even outside of an ARBCOM case's small box (and yes, there is a byte-limit to what one can post in evidence at ArbCom), I believe the details of that, and of other matters that may come up or that people want to discuss, should be able to be discussed, noted, or aired out here. Softlavender (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. This needs community review beyond the scope of ArbCom., could you undo your close? ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with Rob and Softlavender. The committee is reviewing administrative behavior. There are concerns here with other accounts, including WolvesS, that need review by the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * just now asked for policy discussion to be held elsewhere. Is it good to separate face-on policy discussion from the other matters? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unlike some, I don't mind having preliminary discussions about policy changes on places other than the relevant policy talk page. I actually think forming consensus works better that way because it allows people to form thoughts and for local consensus to develop organically and then evolve to the point where changes can be made. If people would want a somewhat informal discussion of this on-wiki but don't want to clog up the noticeboard itself, I think we can have it here on this talk page. If there are people who object to that as well, I don't mind it occurring on my talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think policy discussion can perhaps happen wherever good-faith editors want it to happen. However, it may be the case that the extended philosophizing discussion that is starting to emerge now might be better off happening somewhere separate from that already lengthy and already complicated thread. Maybe even a thread on this talk page might work. Just to keep the tangents from overwhelming the purpose of the noticeboard. Especially since there is such a spectrum of opinions and solutions and also so many details to take into consideration. Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, just chiming in here. FWIW, after this incident, I have spent a lot of time researching more ethical practices for paid editing on Wikipedia and have approached a few different editors to get advice from. They mentioned several paid editors that they respect, which is the reputation that I would like to earn from the community. After listening to the community's thoughts on my website's language, I intend on updating it to be more accurate as well. I encourage any of you to get in touch with any questions or suggestions. I have projects that are pending, and I intend on approaching them to reflect my new understanding of paid editing. I sincerely apologize for my first impression with the community through my paid editing practices and the trust I broke. JacobMW (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Evolving paid policy
Mister Wiki and other recent events might be a teachable moment for the community at large thinking about paid editing. From private discussions with other editors who have considered this, I think there are definitely under 5 people doing successful inside-the-lines paid editing. Yet here we have two cases in a row where we have lost otherwise productive and valuable community members because they were unable to follow the guidelines around paid editing. At some point do we revisit the cost-benefit equation?

The cost/benefit thing is not about ordinary bean counting. Maybe it's better described as a policy decision based on whose interest the current policy serves. Right now the open door for paid editing (admittedly one with some constraints) benefits very few individuals whose interests we care about. We don't care about the interests of the socks, the ToS circumventers, the band/used car lot/psychic medium/dental appliance advocacy editors. We do care about the interests of editors who have something positive to contribute. We definitely don't want to provide incentives for editors to move from the first category to the second. Why sustain a policy that puts so much at risk for the benefit of so few? As  at Signpost on February 7, "Deliberate bad faith editors should not be protected". If any policy's downside is such protection, and its upside is preservation of a way of life for very few, a way of life which we as a community are at best ambivalent about in the first case, then the policy should be revisited. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The teachable moment for me is that it shows how we are failing to manage paid editing, as so few ongoing paid editors are willing to do it openly. The only reason those editors were identified as making problematic paid edits is because they were open about what they were doing and disclosed their status. The bulk of ongoing paid editors are not open, are are making far worse edits, but we don't know that it is happening because they don't disclose.
 * What I'd like to ask is how we make disclosure manage for editors such that they are willing to disclose that they are editing for pay, instead of hiding the fact, and that they understand the community's expectations well enough that they are able to work within them. The current approach is not failing because it is protecting paid editors, but failing because it is protecting so few. How do we make it so that it is able to make disclosed paid editing a more viable option than undisclosed paid editing for more editors? - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We already have the few who comply with the TOU bludgeoning us with that fact as if it makes them exempt from local en.wiki policy. The answer here is not to make our local policy more lax and offer more protections for paid editing. The answer is to enforce the local policies, which even the declared paid editors don't follow the overwhelming majority of the time. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that the policies should be more lax. I'm arguing that the policies should be more manageable. Making them less stringent is one approach. Making expectations clearer and more consistent is another. The solution is likely to be complex, but I don't see actions that reduce the number of disclosed paid editors as a viable way forward. - Bilby (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am so in favor of making it more clear. "Disclosure + prior review (and follow all normal PAGs too)" is not hard and hey it even rhymes. Am trying to amend PAID on its talk page to include the prior review thing. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I support additional clarity on this so paid editors know what is expected and that disclosure is not the only requirement. A point I will be suggesting in the arbcom case (assuming it is accepted) is the principle Editors who receive payment for their edits or actions on the English Wikipedia must comply with both the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and the local policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. Hell, I'd even support adding that as a short sentence to the disclosure page now so it is clear that disclosure is not exemption. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the wrong problem. I don't believe that any disclosed paid editor believes that disclosure exempts them from local policies. - Bilby (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Odd, as every single one I've met does. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a massive over generalization. The problem is not a belief that other policies don't apply. Adding the line would hurt no one, but it would also make no difference. The more common problem is choosing to break policies which they know apply in the hope that no one will notice and they'll get paid, or not understanding how policies and guidelines will be interpreted so choosing the more favorable interpretation only to find that at least some in the community are going to go the other way. - Bilby (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No more so than your generalization that this isn't a problem because no one thinks it. I don't see any real difference between deciding not to follow the policies willfully and saying "I am following your rules, I've disclosed", and saying "I've followed your rules, I've disclosed, so local policy doesn't apply to me." They are the exact same thing. Adding that line to the paid disclosure would clarify this for everyone. Anytime we have issues with declared paid editors "But I've disclosed!" gets raised in some capacity. The disclosure is the bare minimum requirement for the ability to hit the save button, nothing more. Making this clear will hopefully help in both enforcement and in people actually following the rules. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding the line will do no harm. But it is meaningless. Feel free to add it, but don't expect it to address any of the problems we are facing. - Bilby (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding it can't hurt. The hardest thing is teaching paid editors what it means to be a Wikipedia editor -- aiming for the mission of providing the public with articles that summarize accepted knowledge (stuff people can learn from), and what they should do  under the policies and guidelines. What happens usually is that  paid editors don't care about the mission at all, much less the policies and guidelines, and when they do think about PAG it is about what they can do in pursuit of their PR mission. This is where it just takes a lot of time trying to educate people, one by one. Much of which is futile because they don't actually care about Wikipedia per se. But one has to try, authentically, with each one. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It can't hurt. It can't help, but it can't hurt. Fundamentally, if a paid editor doesn't respect Wikipedia enough to follow policies, then they won't follow the disclosure rules. If by some chance they are going to start following the disclosure rules - probably because we've convinced them that they'll be blocked if they don't - then a little message saying "other rules also apply" isn't going to make a difference. However, if they do respect Wikipedia enough to follow the rules, they don't need the obvious pointed out.
 * I'm not really concerned about it being added - why care about something that won't make a difference either way? I am concerned about focusing on the wrong problems when we have a major issue that needs a workable solution. - Bilby (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes enforcement easier, which is what really is the most important thing in my mind. I am not on team ban paid editing entirely, but I also think that probably 90%+ of paid editors will not be both able to comply with our policies and their contracts: they are fundamentally paid to promote and all promotion is excluded from Wikipedia by policy. Our policies on promotionalism, COI, and paid editing already give us the framework to deal with this, but they can be unclear and difficult to enforce through a community process. Adding clarity helps us to enforce them by making it clear to the community what the rules are. Most paid editors don't want to learn, so I don't really care about educating them. I care about making sure that our standards are maintained. For those who want to learn, they are free to learn like any other editor would be expected to and are subjects to the same rules as any other editor. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it doesn't make enforcement easier, because it is not the problem we face. But it is ok. Let's move on and try and work out approaches that will make a difference. - Bilby (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the problem we face, Bilby? Is it too many editors adding POV and badly sourced content? Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If that was the main issue, then the problem isn't paid editors, as it sometimes feels like that is the bulk of the editors on WP. :)
 * The question I'm asking is mostly about why an undisclosed paid editor would choose (or not choose) to disclose. In the cases we have now, if they choose to disclose it is because they are a full time employee or PR representative with a vested interest in the ongoing quality of the company's reputation and coverage on WP; because they do not know enough to look for alternatives; or because they choose to try to put either their standing on WP or their intention to do the best by WP above profits (which isn't to say that they are successful, just that the intentions were originally sound). If they don't disclose, it is generally because they lack understanding of WP's policies (mostly the one-off paid editors who accept a random job, or company representatives who decide to edit WP without understanding the rules); because they've been blocked or banned and can only edit without disclosure; or because they have been convinced that disclosure will overly limit their ability to accept and complete contracts. In regard to the last point, most freelancers do not need the article to survive for long - they just need to make sure it survives (untagged) for long enough to get paid and have a positive review posted. What happens after that is largely irrelevant, as once the review is in place it can't normally be modified, even if the page is deleted, and most don't bother offering a money-back guarantee. (If they do it can still be a numbers game - if you only pay back the money on, say, 30% of your jobs, you still might be turning a reasonable profit, and you still might be getting close to 100% positive reviews so long as deletion and refunds occur later in the piece).
 * To move that around, part of the solution is, as you say, education, as a portion of undisclosed editors are undisclosed because they don't understand the policy. I really like the changes in WP:AFC because it makes the disclosure requirements part of the process. But further education won't hurt - it's just that we'll tend to target the one-offs rather than the ongoing paid editors. (I vastly prefer to see education over rapid blocks, even given how it is so often unsuccessful, as blocking tends to either just drive them away or move them into the second category of being undisclosed because they cant edit openly, and that's not a win). Another step is to make it harder for banned and indef blocked editors to continue to do paid jobs on WP - and there are moves to do that, although personally what I'd like to see is a more proactive use of CU. The sooner we identify a block evading paid editor and delete the article, the more chance that it will be gone before they get that positive review. It might also help to offer a clear way back for blocked editors, so that they can return to open editing instead of relying on socks.
 * To target the last group, what we need to ensure is that it isn't worse to disclose than not to disclose. A disclosed paid editor needs to expect to be treated equally (not better, but the same) as other editors; they need to be able to perform reasonable tasks requested by clients where they meet our requirements, such that they wouldn't have a higher chance of success if they were undisclosed; and they need clear and consistent expectations, so they know what they can and can't reasonably offer to clients and that what one admin would permit another won't block for. Things damaging this are moves to overly limit what paid editors can do openly on WP; hounding; lack of clarity on what counts as a paid editor, what counts as a COI editor, and how the two differ; automatic tagging and rapid nominations of borderline articles to CSD or AfD; slow response rates; and forced outing. Things which help are clarifying expectations in policy; a degree of room to make errors and learn from them; admin processes that follow normal processes instead of skipping steps; respect (equal to what would be given to non-paid editors, not above); NPA; ongoing education; and established standards for admin actions that admins are held to. - Bilby (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni, we already know that the vast majority of the paid editors here are never going to be able to abide by our ToS. Why? Because their non-disclosure agreements, either entered into directly with clients, or imposed by online job boards like Upwork, prevent the full disclosure that we require. With my experience here, finally have concluded – the ~5 white-hat paid editors on ENWP aside – that the whole paid editing thing is not going to work out. Talking about tweaks like easier-to-follow disclosure procedures or whatever, are beside the point and taking no notice of on-the-ground reality. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bri, we are in complete agreement on your points. My position is that we already have the tools we need in local en.wiki policy to deal with this, and we just need to enforce it: NOTSPAM excludes promotion and the COI guideline already makes clear what the best practices are. Not following either is disruptive editing, and results in blocks. Not following the former makes it impossible to meet WP:N, and results in deletion of the article. We simply have to enforce our local policies, and as a community have to make it clear that the paid disclosure is not a shield against them, which it is treated as by some paid editors and by some volunteers as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * (responding to OP) Bri, it is not clear what you are kind of proposing. Are you saying:
 * we should try an RfC to make a different disclosure policy?
 * we should just ignore the disclosure policy and focus on content?
 * we should try to ban paid editing?
 * I am hearing your frustration but it is not clear how you want things to change. Sounds kind of like the banning thing... Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello all, Jacob here from Mister Wiki. Jytdog was nice enough to take some time out of his day yesterday and explain to me everything that went wrong with this situation, and how I was entirely circumventing much of the peer review system that was in place, thus, also disrespecting Wikipedia's hardworking community. As of now, I've halted any direct paid editing and am aiming to understand and begin engaging in a more proper way. I've said this before, but I'm open for any questions as this is something that is obviously needed by many companies but they as well need to be educated, and I'd like to start running my practices this way. JacobMW (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP is not supposed to be Dun & Bradstreet, the Better Business Bureau, WPP plc, or Ogilvy & Mather, etc. The combination of the project's success and anonymity is the open door to COI/paid editing. Being #5 in Google searches doesn't hurt. How could WP not be attractive to commercial interests? All one has to do is review the WP articles about upcoming movies, lists of upcoming concert events, and all the video game releases that provide "free advertising" appeal to the respective industries. To think we can make the very core of promotion appear encyclopedic is subject to one's perspective so when you have multiple COI/paid editors (especially those with the mop) insisting the material is encyclopedic not promotional, how can it possibly not be seen as a form of intellectual dishonesty? It happens with political & religious articles but for some reason, the focus is on "commercial interests" rather than the root cause of the problem throughout WP. In essence, we're treating symptoms, not the disease. When there are enough people pushing the same agenda, we already know the outcome. I have come across several promotional articles with links to sites where our readers can actually purchase tickets or product, such as upcoming concert events, new video game releases, upcoming movies, and so on. We also have food industry articles that are more publicity than encyclopedic knowledge, such as the Whopper, Big Red (drink), Red_Bull, etc. WP is becoming more like an almanac complete with subliminal advertising/promotion, business listings, resumés of top execs, and so on. We are harder on notability requirements for true academics than we are on sports and business leaders. I think it's absurd to think we can actually control COI/paid editing without eliminating anonymity, more aggressively enforcing current PAGs, and possibly even putting tougher requirements on notability for all aspects of commercialism. Atsme 📞📧 17:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire current policy should be scrapped and start over. From start to finish it works against its own objectives and discourages disclosure. Also it fails to make a distinction between real paid editing and "COI" which by the overly broad COI definition encompasses about 1/2 of ALL Wikipedia editing. Re-write it to narrow it to really paid editing and other strong COI's. Emphasize disclosure, and lighten up on people who disclose. The fact that it's a know strong COI would generally take care of things.  North8000  (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, I'm here to answer any questions or potentially provide a different perspective. Thanks to, I was able to seamlessly make a suggestion for one of my clients Arne & Carlos on their talk page and he was able to review / directly edit. Since there is commercial interest in Wikipedia creation & updates, I believe the only way it can thrive is through mega-transparency, and the volunteer community meeting halfway to give a helping hand on these activities. JacobMW (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * . I don't know why JMW would expect that "the volunteer community (should be) meeting halfway to give a helping hand." What have you ever done for Wikipedia? Given us an article on the authors of "55 knitted Christmas balls"? SkyWarrior is free to help you as a volunteer, but if he spends dozens of hours per week "helping you for free", nobody will think he is a volunteer.  So who is going to consistently help you advertise the knitted ball designers of the world?  "Meeting halfway" sometimes means knowing when you are not wanted. Just asking the other editors here "how many of you are willing to personally do JacobMW's work for him on-Wiki?"  My guess is that you'll be lucky to find one.  Time to just bow out gracefully.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * pardon if there was a misunderstanding. I am not "expecting for the volunteer community to meet me halfway", I was just grateful that SkyWarrior took some time out of his day to review and publish my edits, showing that when met halway, disclosied paid editing works out, which, from my understanding, is far better than undisclosed paid editors or sockpuppets stepping in to secretly edit pages for pay. At least this way, WP is able to keep track of how much work is paid for. Also, I'm not expecting for anyone to do my work. I just need peer review. All of the edits and pages will be drafted by my firm. JacobMW (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of my thoughts, clarified by the last few weeks, and based to some extent on paid editors who have asked my advice:
 * (!)There is no real consensus of what constitutes unacceptable promotionalism in an article, as  demonstrated by the variety of AfD decisions on very similar articles. (This also applies to notability , but  the guidelines for notability  are much more developed) Every paid editor will interpret this isn the way most favorable to their work, and no paid editor is properly able to judge.


 * (2)There are paid editors who claim to follow the restrictions, but evade them. I know of two technicques bu*but I am sure there are more)
 * Subject A goes to regular PR firm B who does not do paid editing for WP but refers him to firm C to write an article. Firm C hires a contractor D to write a single article. Usually, contractor D alone declares. In my opinion, this requires explicit declaration of the entire chain including B, C, and D. I am not aware of any of the people doing this who follow that practice.
 * Subject E hires editing firm F who assigns contractor G to write the draft for an article, often including full WP markup,  and F sends it back to the subject (E), who has their regular PR staff member H  insert the article.  Usually, H alone declares.  In my opinion F G and H have to declare.  There is at least one well known firm, which is proud to claim that they follow the rules, and make a living at it, but has very few articles listed to the  credit here. They use a combination of these two  techniques, and claim they follow the rules because they do not insert the article themselves. Once such proprietor told me they would go out of business if they had to declare as I suggested.


 * (3)The only consistent rule is to ban all paid editing except for that done under the supervision of the GLAM project, and for the Foundation to advertise widely that anyone accepting pay for writing an article is doing so against our terms of use, and that any staff member of a company writing an article as part of their job is doing so against our terms of use, and find some way of taking legal action against those who advertise in contradiction to that.


 * (4) I formerly thought that because we cannot actually prevent all paid editing, we need to provide so legitimate way to permit it so we can control it. I no longer do. Working for money producing articles produces advertisements, not articles, and the possibility of making money at it gives an incentive that will always get out of control. Saying we must legalize it because we cannot stop it is essentially the same as reverting to anarchy because we cannot enforce all laws.  DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
I'm putting together a voters' guide to the ArbCom elections based on the candidates positions on paid editing. I've asked them all a detailed question on the above and has asked a more philosophical question on their positions. I do have some experience watching arbcom about paid editing questions, but their positions sometimes are "flexible". If anybody has info on particular candidates that they'd like me to consider, please just send me an e-mail, hopefully within 24 hours. All the recommendations, of course, will be my own. Feel free to put together your own voters' guide as well, the more the merrier. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , I hope this is not the only factor that you will use. It was only one among several questions that I asked, and matters of general integrity and competence are more important than any one issue. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On a related topic, a very very interesting proposal regarding paid editing was made by Opabinia regalis at the election discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK and COI/paid editors

 * 1) If an article was created and/or nominated by paid a COI editor, should that be explicitly disclosed in the nomination?
 * 2) Should articles created and/or nominated by paid COI editors be eligible for DYK?

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

(copied here from WP:VPP --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC))

Relationship between COIN and AfC
I'd like to propose a change in tone at this noticeboard in line with my thinking at User:Bri/Paid editing Chinese wall. Once COI disclosures have been made, then COIN steps out of the loop in most cases, and specifically if the article is at AfC. A cleanup conversation could continue on article talkpages, and of course if no disclosure is made or a bogus/incomplete/non disclosure, then it stays here. I think this would both encourage good-faith disclosure, and to keep regular participants focused on the U part of UPE. It's also in line with the mission statement at the top of the noticeboard: for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. Does this make sense? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've personally not been that impressed with a lot of the quality of AfC reviewing in regards to COI/PROMO: I think most of what they focus on is notability, and their standard is a 50% chance of passing AfD. I do think a four eye review process of most PAID/COI AfC submissions is a good thing, and that this can happen at NPP most of the time, but that sometimes COIN might be appropriate. (Pinging as he's been working on a review of the reviewers type thing at AfC).That being said, I think with most COI issues, the conversation is most likely to happen on the article talk or at AfD anyway, and that even now COIN serves as a way to get more eyes on those discussions when it is a mess in need of cleanup (think sock farms) or when conversation on a talk page has reached a place where more eyes are needed. The BLP noticeboard has a similar stance: it is a way to request more eyes on contentious issues. In terms of how I see this noticeboard, I look at it more like BLPN for the stuff that just needs more eyes, and then for the sock farm cleanup/incomplete disclosure/bogus stuff as having a more active roll in the cleanup and dealing with the accounts and articles. I'm not really sure where AfC fits in this picture, but I see it somewhere between completely separate and must be reviewed. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , when was the standard lowered? When I started reviewing, which I do not do much of and never follow the talk discussions at the meta level, the standard was supposed to be "virtually certain to withstand AfD".  Just curious.  And I agree, if that is the standard, they are still not doing it, even with the improved screening. John from Idegon (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure: is the one who I was told that by, and I typically trust his judgement on AfC things. I think in practice it is something like "likely to pass AfD". Some reviewers use higher standards than others so milage will vary.  also may be able to clarify current practice and consensus at AfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Without going too off-topic, the general standard is that an accepted draft should stand a reasonable chance of passing AFC. However, there's no way to mandate that, and some reviewers will decline anything with a hint of COI/paid/promotional editing while others entrust NPR and the community at large to clean up the promotional issues (i.e. they only care about notability). The overall aggregate means that as a whole it averages out, and while more than 50% of accepted drafts get deleted when sent to AFD, only about 10% of accepted pages are sent to AFD in the first place (meaning about 6% of accepted drafts are deleted at AFD). Primefac (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was not aware it ever was "virtually certain to withstand AfD". But that would be an absurd standard. Given the variation in the way AfD works, nobody could reasonably make that statement. I would never promise that, or give that as advice to any editor. The most I have ever said is that it should stand up, or that it deserved to stand up, and that if it were challenged I''d come and comment.
 * It was to a considerable extent by people trying to make certain the draft would be acceptable that AfC lost its way--too many people were focussing on minor errors--or imagined minor errors--that could be and normally are fixed in main space.  There was (and may be still) at least one reviewer who would not approve anything unlikely to meet the GA criteria. For example, articles were rejected for having the wrong form of citation -- regardless of the actual guideline, which is that any format of citations is acceptable. (to an even mroe considerable extent, there were articles being accepted by people who were nto even checking copyvio, or rejected in total ignorance of what were the relevant AfD criteria)
 * But as I see it the original purposes of AfC were both  to weed out the unlikely without potential, and to   improve the unlikely with potential. In practice, there has been much more need for weeding out the very unlikely, and for serving as an additional barrier against the worst sorts of promotional editing.The standard interpretation of   "likely", is more than  50%.  If we had to give a single number, most AfC reviewers work at somewhere between 60 and 90%, but I consider it to depend on the reason why it might not be accepted. I'd want better than just a 90% chance of passing copyvio, but promotionalism or notability  in some fields can be so hard to judge--as the continual disputes at afd make evident-- that I'd accept 60 or 70%.  DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For me the value of this noticeboard is addressing COI/paid editing across multiple articles. It's easy to miss a COI when you're reviewing a single draft or new article. If we expected everything to be discussed on individual talk pages I'd worry that patterns of problematic editing would be missed and paid editors with the knack of dressing their submissions up so they don't look like overt spam would have an easier time slipping under the radar. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that both DYK and AfC are infested with paid editors (and naive unpaid editors they manipulate) to the point that those projects are becoming ground zeros of the whole problem. The amount of obfuscation and disinclination to address it as a real problem over at Wikipedia talk:Did you know is stunning.  – Athaenara  ✉  19:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We ought at least to reexamine AfC articles that had been approved by bad actors e.g. UPE sock accounts. As far as I know this is not a regular process. Just for instance lawyer/talk-show host/philanthropist James D. Zirin recently accepted by sock User:Lacypaperclip ☆ Bri (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

We lost a good collaborator to wiki-infighting
Jytdog has announced that they are "", as in permanently. Also requested permanent protection of talk and userpages as a non-contributor. I'm at a loss for words – this person has been one of the cornerstones of our little group trying to uphold integrity and honesty, and will be missed. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed that they will be missed: they were one of the most active people working to protect the idea that Wikipedia should be independent of the subjects that it covers. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Bri is right, being at a loss for words sums up my day now. SamHolt6 (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sad...Just more evidence that both the Foundation and the community have to do more to stop this nonsense. John from Idegon (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the drama. Issue resolved where it mattered. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Redlink in top 25 traffic report
Saw a redlink in The Signpost and thought it was a mistake ... nope, one of our most-viewed articles has been deleted. The AfD makes an interesting read. Did Indian PR put the item in the news? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I can see what is going on. It looks like she was not notable on the 19th, when the article got deleted, but then things really kicked off on the 20th. She was at the Indian Supreme Court fighting a ludicrously censorious court case. There is even talk of death threats! This is getting coverage in all the main Indian newspapers and news websites now: 1 2 3 4 and so on.
 * As the deleted article is still in the Google index it is probably getting a ton of hits off that.
 * This may also mean that, without the AfD result being wrong at the time, we may need an article about her, the court case, or something related, after all. In the meantime, I think a redirect to the article about the film (Oru Adaar Love) would give all those people hitting the link something relevant to read. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
How do you add a COI to a profile? I can not figure it out as I have tried in the past. Despite this I no longer have contact with said affliation ( it was a loose affliation to begin with) and am eager add to wiki as I have done on other pages. I understand adding content to political pages seems to be a source of heated debate on wiki. Theboo77 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you mean on your user page or an article you have edited? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

At one time I use to be friends with a person who was a basic party member of a NB political party. Though not a member myself, I followed along all five parties in the province on their social media. Looking through the five parties I noticed that one party in particlur had more negative editing about them than thr others. From following social media, the negative stuff came from hearsay/gossip that only one newspaper (out of many that could have) used in an article and is repeatedly reported. It is a complete disservice to wiki readers to allow unsubstantiated claims to be used. More over, I have tried to add more recent history and have been rejected even though I have added links. A few months back, being upfront and transparent, I made mention that the friend I mentioned above made a suggestion that its too bad negative editing was clouding any visitors who may seek interest from getting basic facts on this page. So I went in and tried to learn how to use wiki to basically lay out neutral facts. At this point a moderator asked me to place a COI in my profile. I spent alot of time trying to figure it out and can not. I respectfully wish to and will do so still if it is requested of me and I know how. Still trying to get used to this platform — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboo77 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Report on conflict resolution
Recommended reading - this Harvard report on conflict resolution in English Wikipedia's ANI board. Especially the part concerning case management starting on page 23. Many lessons-learned that could apply to COIN as well. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

COI - Edit Request Made
Hi all.

I have just made an Edit Request on the GISMA Business School page. I have stated my Conflict of Interest there, on my Talk Page, and now here: I am an employee of Global University Systems - the holding company that represents GISMA.

Please let me know if I have acted in error - I am looking to improve the page with correct and complete information with the help of the Page Watchers and admins.

All help is appreciated - MrAttempt (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, as stated at the top of this page, this page is meant for discussing the operation of the COI noticeboard only, and is not the noticeboard itself. Please post this on the actual noticeboard; click "project page" at the top of the screen. 331dot (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

331dot - Thank you. I'll continue as you've suggested. Thanks again -MrAttempt (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Uw-coi
Template:Uw-coi has been nominated for merging with Template:Coi-stern. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   16:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone may want to follow up on this
A new user,, posted a message on his talk about being solicited to have a biography written about him. See here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Follow-up. wikiprofessionalsinc.com is the website. John from Idegon (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:St Paul's Church, Auckland. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"ACPERM evaders"
Regarding your comment: Usually I find a few socks in these dumps, so keep your eyes peeled for ACPERM evaders. While doing new page patrol or AfC reviews, I occasionally come across ACPERM gaming (i.e. a user first makes a dozen minor edits, then creates an article in main space). I assume that's what you mean by "ACPERM evaders". What would you recommend in this situation? --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be one subset, yes. As for action: quarantine to draft space and/or SPI if the subject matter is prone to covert advertising. MER-C 19:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Assistance required!
Hello There I have created a draft for the company I am currently working with and I have followed the guidelines as per wikipedia policies however I am unsure as this is my first time. I would appreciate If any one can take a look and assist me regarding this. The Company name is NV Gallery and here is the link to the draft. I have already mentioned conflict of interest. Any help will be appreciated.

We are not trying to promote or sell anything on wikipedia. The company is just trying to have the neutral outlook on wikipedia and for the public interest as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArpitDubey09 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While there are two references that I could not read (a French Television video that will not play in the US, and an offline article in an edition of Elle), those that are readable do not have the depth of coverage that would support giving this business an article.... which looks to be much the response that this article got when it was submitted. Two to eight sentence mentions are not likely to cut it. See WP:NCORP for guidelines on corporate notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Flippin, Kentucky
I will address my content contributions and edits to this article. It’s true that I am the author of a “book” that I have used as a source/authority for some of the content. I have attempted diligently to include primary source citations from my book for this content, as well, in addition to other cited content not in my book. My “book” was not published for sale or pecuniary interest. It is a work purely of historical interest, published for libraries and the public interest. The entire content is freely available online (Family Search Library). I do retain copyright for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the research and source accuracy. This entire project for me is a labor of love, guided by a sincere interest in historical scholarship. (I am not a professional scholar.)

I grew up in this community, and know it personally in that way, as well. The story of Pikesville/Flippin presents an interesting example of how eatly American places and place names were established and grew, evolved and then devolved as places. I have attempted to severely curtail statements of value judgment, except to illustrate this fact of the dramatic growth and change in the case of this community. I have also retrenched greatly on the extent and stylistic expression of the article, since previous content appears to have resulted in stylistic edits. I have omitted much, but I am finished. If in the judgment of Wikipedia editors this content is prejudiced or inappropriate, then I will remove it all and revert the article to the previous stub. Thank you.

BlueLevelBoy (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You most certainly can add material to the article that you have written about in your book. However, understand that anything you add to Wikipedia, while still under your copyright, is by default freely licensed, so that anyone can copy or otherwise use that material for any purpose. Do not cite your book for any material you add to Wikipedia. Instead, cite reliable sources that support that material. While not every statement needs a citation, every statement must be verifiable from a reliable source. As you are now aware, material in Wikipedia must be written in an encyclopedic style, and from a neutral point of view. You are in a position provide sufficient detail to produce an informative article about your community. The problem, as I well know from working on such articles, is finding sources that support what you want to add, and that will pass scrutiny as reliable sources. Anyway, good luck in your endeavors. - Donald Albury 18:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have appropriately and adequately cited this information. I suspect Wikipedia’s claim to neutral language is at best a continuum, at worst merely vacuous language. I have been to graduate school, and my experience has been that authors do cite their own research. I agree that supporting or confirming documentation is always preferable; my research does include reference citations, as well.

I have one goal: To publish sound historical research. Please tell me what is necessary to satisfy Wikipedia’s standards—more specifically, to remove “page issues.” If removing “Further Reading” links will do it, fine. BlueLevelBoy (talk) 19:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I am well aware that scholarly authors cite their own works, including "works in preparation", as well as things like "private communications" (I may have done so, myself, but it has been many years since I published anything scholarly). We do not do that in Wikipedia. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is the policy prohibiting original research. Before you cite your own book, I suggest that you read through the guideline at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, and, if you still want to cite it, that you submit it for an opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. - Donald Albury 21:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia It's great to see someone with a passion for research joining Wikipedia. I highly recommend you take some time familiarising yourself with what can seem like a bewildering array of policies and guidelines. If in doubt ask at the Teahouse or on the article's talk page.


 * Actually it is not quite true to say one can't cite one's own work. One can certainly do this, unless it is self published. If one's own work is published by a reliable press with editorial oversight then it can be cited, see Citing yourself. You should carefully read the reliable sources pages, paying special attention to Self Published Sources to determine if your book is self published. Wikipedia generally encourages the use of secondary sources rather than primary ones. This is not to say that primary sources are prohibited but you should read Primary sources to see how they may be used. Morgan Leigh | Talk 22:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Nick Bostrom
This is not a clear COI, but the article entry Nick Bostrom, according to that talk page has (or still has, did not looked into that yet) some issues with sourcing, and this author is cited about two dozen times in this article Global catastrophic risk. His book with the same title was until today also redirected in the article lede as a redirect, even though it is just a stub. Additional his writings cited at Global catastrophic risk attribute him to many ideas, which he clearly just picked up, for example colonizing space, or his cite in the first lede sentence for the definition of Global catastrophic risk, that it is a future risk, see also my today's talk page entry in this regard, here. So my point here is basically that his publications are used to define a major topic, which hints at a potential COI. Summary: The article Global catastrophic risk relays too much on a single author opinion, and opinions which originate in many cases from someone else. prokaryotes (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem with Bostrom is not a clear COI as such, but a subculture of enthusiasts - the LessWrong cluster of transhumanists and singularitarians. The best first action is absolutely robust sourcing. Bostrom is very good at self-promotion, so he gets a lot of play in actually-mainstream sources - but ruthless culling of transhumanist pseudojournals and bad sourcing should help a lot - David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

If a paid editor votes "keep" at an AfD...
...should they be encouraged to strike their vote? I've seen paid editors offer comments and sources, but have not generally seen them vote "keep" at AfDs of articles where they have a financial stake. I would appreciate hearing feedback on this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No. A Keep !vote that's grounded in Wikipedia policy should not be disregarded, and a Keep !vote with no policy-based argument is generally ignored by the closer. —Jeremy v^_^v  Bori! 00:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, a paid editor should disclose his financial connection and be sure to give good reasons to keep the article. A valid reason is a valid reason no matter who posts it. I see no reason why they should not comment. We let the person who created the article weigh in on whether it should be deleted, despite the obvious bias. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course a paid editor is required to declare his paid editing status for every edit. If he or she confine themselves to one or two articles then a simple listing of those articles on their user page is usually acceptable, but with AfD's everybody participating in the AfD should be made aware of the paid editor's status.  Once everybody on the AfD page, including the closer, is aware of the paid status then the closer may better ignore any non-policy-based !votes. I'd say it's bad form, in general, for a paid editor to !vote on their paid-for articles.  It looks a lot like a paid-for !vote.  Do we really need a new rule to properly discount paid-for !votes? (If so, I'll go propose one - but it is simple common sense). In any case the closer and others need to know upfront. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:32, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

OK to revert user's edits if no consensus on COI?
If there's no consensus an editor has a COI -- both at COIN (here, 5 June 2010; and here, 14 February 2014) and via a pertinent RfC (here, 10 May 2015) -- is it OK for other editors to act like he must follow COIADVICE anyway and revert his mainspace edits using COI as a (and even the) reason? "Asking for a friend" (i.e, this is about me). --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 15:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC); ironic understatement clarified, 16:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC); added COIN link & minor ce, no change in content 17:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC); add dates of COIN and first RfC 17:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC). Added 2nd COIN, self-brought, 20:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC).
 * , ,
 * did you mean a user who claims to be a scientist who thinks acupuncture is real medicine, who charges real money to his victims for therapy that all the science shows him he is a fraud, quack, con man and shyster, and clearly thinks that getting Wikipedia to break its own policy on reliability is a good idea? Are you familiar with what jimbo said about lunatic charlatans? Roxy, the dog . wooF 15:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * never mind the abstract question of the RfC. Isn't this a question specifically about you? Did you not have your own specific case here? Alexbrn (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course (I assumed the links made it obvious, but I'll make it explicit). For my COIN request there was no consensus; the thread was simply auto-archived, as usual in such instances. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • acupuncture COI?) 16:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A majority(~60-70%?) of the editors(me included) on the RfC are saying that an alt med practitioner does not necessarily have a COI when editing articles about their field. The first diff given here does cite lack of consensus for the change, but the other two are essentially unjustified reverts(unjustified as in no proper justification given in the edit summary, I have not looked into the validity of the edits themselves) the fact that someone is an acupuncturist is not justification for reverting their edits on acupuncture related articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the second revert on the merits, but I agree the third was a bad one. Well-sourced material like that (Harrison's ffs) should be improved (note the ES), not removed, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, which is policy. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please link the COIN request. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't recall exactly when it was that we finally started taking COI problems far more seriously, but I believe it was after that 2010 COIN discussion. I'd say that any perception that there was a lack of consensus at the time is irrelevant, and the problems that were brought up then that are still occurring now are disturbing. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't even think it was "no consensus" - looks to me like there was consensus Middle8 had a COI. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * When there is consensus "Yes" or "No" then it is closed by this board's admins with a "Resolved" tag or the like. Most of the cases in that archive did not close.  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because obvious cases don't need a formal close, I suggest. Many cases are like that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not how the board works (read the header). I trust you've noticed how "obvious" both RfC's (which match my situation exactly) have turned out.  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And that is the question, whether it is OK to treat an editor as if they have a COI when they have not been found, via standard procedures, to have one. (As for the disturbing problems, see here.)  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 17:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this is IDHT. Please just use edit requests, and listen to others rather than arguing. If you honestly don't understand something, ask questions and demonstrate interest in perspectives other than your own. --Ronz (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I heard you Ronz, I just don't believe you're the arbiter of such things. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 19:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You asked for my opinion. You don't like it, so you look for a reason to ignore it. That seems to be a pattern, and typical of COI situations. --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not. You showed up at my talk page out of the blue and started telling me what's what, making broad accusations backed by no evidence.  Which fits the pattern I've seen from self-appointed COI arbiters.  --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 20:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't like the opinion of an editor who is very experienced and very conservative with handling potential COI situations. Don't ping someone whose opinion you don't want. --Ronz (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note, there were actually two COIN requests, 2010 and 2014 (sorry, I remembered there being only one, and didn't search further after finding the 2010.) . Neither of them closed (i.e. both = no consensus). Now both are linked in thread-starter.--Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 21:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see one edit that was against talk page consensus and two that had significant source misrepresentation. Perhaps they should have had a different summary but each one was properly reverted.  If you desist from pov pushing and misrepresenting sources people will probably stop thinking you have a COI.AlmostFrancis (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Please note that [1] The specific reason for the RfC being posted was that Middle 8 claims that it is OK for him to edit pages where he has a financial interest in what the page says (see the "acupuncture COI?" link in his sig) and quotes an old RfC with a No Consensus result to support that assertion, and [2] It could very well turn out to be be the consensus of the community that practitioners of alternative medicine don't necessarily have a conflict of interest with regard to content describing their field of practice but that Middle 8 specifically does. Right now we are deciding the first question by RfC, and nobody should act as if the RfC is closed and the question is settled just because they think it is going one way or the other. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The financial interest that goes with having a profession, yes. --Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 01:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The financial interest that goes with selling snake oil to vulnerable people yes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Or not, but that's for the RfC. I just don't want my own comments misconstrued. -Middle 8 (t • c &#124; privacy • acupuncture COI?) 03:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)