This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

((Conversation moved here from elsewhere))

The COI concern that was posted here amounts to an outing in my judgment, so I've removed it. wp:outing is very clear that it supercedes wp:coi concerns and is also very clear on how to deal with these cases - address the issue from the standpoint of NPOV without mentioning COI at all. Edit warriors can be dealt with very effectively without having to invoke COI at all, so we aren't crippled by taking this option off the table. I am going to post over at the ANI boards and ask for some more experienced eyes here (and for someone to strip all of this out of the history. Please do not restore this text until an experienced admin comments here - I'm not completely sure that I'm handling this correctly, but it seems like the thing to do. If I'm wrong I beg your pardon and thank you for your patience. Mishlai (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to restore the name of the article that may be the subject of promotional editing. Since "the user's" (username removed by [[user:Mishlai|Mishlai when moving conversation here) edits are limited to this one article, there is no harm in making that association. This does not amount to saying that the two are the same person, colleagues, or even competitors. It's the promotional editing that should attract our attention. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding Ed. I'm struggling to understand how we handle these situations. I've read this [1] and of course wp:outing and wp:coi. Both policies seem very, very clear that establishing a connection between a user and a real world identity is unacceptable, but there still seem to be people arguing that it's ok. You suggested that coincidence of names was enough to suggest COI, and that seems reasonable because that coincidence is created by the user when they choose their name. However, suggesting that - to change names and articles for discussion purposes - user:Big457 might have a COI in the article Tom Robbins because he is Tom Robbins seems to be a clear violation of outing. This would not apply to companies, ip ranges at a company, etc. - only personal identity associations. Suggesting that user:Big457 seems to be editing as though he has a COI concerning Tom Robbins is probably ok as long as it is stated neutrally as to whether he is Tom Robbins or perhaps just someone who knows him personally and is therefore to close to the issue.

Suggesting, as was done here, that a google search of "Big457" and "Tom Robbins" produces results interesting to COI seems unclear to me. This obviously outs the user (albeit not conclusively) on Wikipedia, but does Tom's creation of an off-wiki identity with the same user name - Big457 and associating that ID with his real name on another website - does that count as outing himself generally? Does that free our hands? Is it basis for us to suggest that this Big457 is the same one, and that he is probably Tom Robbins, or does this violate outing?

I'm uncomfortable with it, honestly. Outing seems strongly worded for good reason, and it also seems to me that most COI issues could be addressed properly using NPOV, COI is just the 10-pound sledgehammer that shuts a POV conflict down quickly by exposing unmistakable bias. I think wikipedia has the tools for dealing with biases without knowing a user's identity though, so I'm disinclined to give COI any real priority where outing concerns - even fuzzy ones - are present. However, I'm inexperienced with this policy and acknowledge that I may be overreacting.

Should I be sending this to oversight? Mishlai (talk) 05:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I would be really annoyed if someone did something similar to me for whatever reason. If I want people here to know my real name or which instances of my username off-wiki are actually me then I'll post it on my user page. Mishlai (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have some queries too with regards to this. Should we move this discussion to the talk however, it doesn't concern this specific COI. Smartse (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't usually flat-out report the result of Google search to show an identity. We proceed as though we have grounds for our view but don't dwell on it. It is possible to argue that someone is *affiliated* with the subject without declaring their identity straight out. Arbcom has wonderful circumlocutions for talking around COI. They have been known to sanction a person for COI without actually saying who they are, even when everyone knows. If a person is suspected of having a COI, but claims that they don't, we should give them a respectful hearing. EdJohnston (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I just realized what this thread used to be and I apologize profusely for the mishandling. As the username in question was eponymous I did not give it a second thought. Thank you for cleaning up. Unomi (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I am a bit confused, I am not sure if this thread relates to my actions or not, in light of this discussion though and my doubt regarding how I handled a recent COI assumption I ask an admin to review and delete my recent posts here and on AN/I as it relates to an article on Stephen B Young. I would also like to know how I should go about similar situations in the future. Unomi (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This thread is not related to you in any way that I am aware of. If you have specific question I would recommend creating a new section in this talk page and asking them. Mishlai (talk) 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a disclosure page or should we just post COI disclosures on our talk pages? When editing DNDN I thought this is standard in many drug related publications due to commercial significance. At least once, I was using colloquial terms for placeholders and substituted another alias for a proper name from someone who claimed to have outed himself. I wasn't aware this was such a big problem... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page or your user space (or both) are good places to put the COI declaration. Alternatively, if the COI you possess would only impact one article or a few you can declare your COI on the talk page of the article(s) in question. Something along the line of "I am so-and-so" or "I work for the So-and-so Corporation" would probably be fine and let others draw their own conclusions regarding your conflict of interest. -- Atama^chat 01:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy, there's a rough consensus to send "not blatant" promotional usernames here instead of WP:UAA. An example would be like the issue I just added, User:Marcpage, who is a single purpose account promoting an organization named MARC, UAA rejected blocking as a promotional username because it wasn't "blatant" enough. This would imply adding COI/N to the "arv" function of Twinkle, and would likely increase the number of reports to deal with here, however, they would be simpler cases in general than what is often dealt with here. Please comment on this over at the other page so that we can keep the discussion in one place. Gigs (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem right now: at UAA, we redirect some COIs that are implied by usernames to this noticeboard (under the reasoning, which I support, that it is more important to deal with the COI than the username). But this page has a bold line saying "Commercial usernames may be reported at WP:UAA". There are lots of COI cases where the username is tangentially involved, and we've decided it's a bad idea to try to use the username policy on them, but that line seems to tell someone reporting such a user here to go away.

In short, I'd like to remove the line "Commercial usernames may be reported at WP:UAA"; it's misleading and it sets us up for a game of bureaucratic ping-pong. Can I get feedback from anyone who patrols this noticeboard regularly? rspεεr (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with removing that sentence. It should be changed to say "Blatantly commercial user names should be reported at WP:UAA". If the UAA folks do not believe it's a blatant case, it can be bounced back here. The whole user name issue is a hot button for me - I think we are being far too soft on names which are promotional but do not exactly match company names. For example User:Bkpub whom I reported last week. – ukexpat (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the WP:COIN#Circumcision thread: Gary, thanks for trying to get input from more uninvolved editors. May I suggest that when it's a good time to close the thread, that someone (possibly myself) post a message to WP:AN asking for an uninvolved admin or uninvolved experienced editor to close it with a resolution or summary? Would about week from now be a reasonable length of time? I'm afraid the thread is rather long already to expect uninvolved editors to read, though more input from uninvolved editors would be helpful. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw your note on AN/I. I closed it and think the whole monstermash thing should be moved to COI/N archive 35 tout de suite for the greater good of the noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 09:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(Done and done.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering if anyone can help me with a general question: does an editor have a conflict of interest when editing the biography page of his enemy? Common sense would suggest that he does, but I can't actually see it ruled as such by the policy. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this seems to be comparatively rare.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coi#Close relationships covers that situation. The "close relationship" doesn't have to be a positive one. -- Atama頭 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there is nothing in the section 'close relationships' that explicitly mentions negative relationships. Moreover, the specific situation I am concerned about does not involve a 'close' relationship as such. The situation is this: a journalist has written publicly, scathingly, and repeatedly, against a Wikipedia editor, accusing him of bias, censorship and fanaticism. That editor now edits the journalist's own Wikipedia biography page, and in my opinion, without any objectivity. I don't think there's a 'close' relationship as such; the two people would otherwise not even know each other. So, it seems to me that we have a clear conflict of interest, but I can't see how I could apply this policy in order to have the editor desist. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might be the best place for this. It gets to the real issue: Can the editor edit in an unbiased manner? this skips any concern on if it is COI and lets others see what the bad edits were.Cptnono (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I am more interested in the general principle. I have seen time and again that Wikipedia editors write glowing pages about their friends and then write very negative pages about their enemies. Meanwhile, WP:COI, at least in its current wording, seems to be only enforcable in the positive case (glowing pages written about one's friend). However, surely, the negative case is far worse. It may be rare, as Wehwalt said, but it's also very serious. I would move, therefore, that a clause be added to WP:COI that caters explicitly for this negative case. Any thoughts? Alex Harvey (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have some diffs? I'm afraid it might be a solution waiting for a problem, if not.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

In searching for the general principle it comes across as campaigning and even potentially leading editors to request a guideline change to suit a purpose. Maybe I am too cynical but all of the concerns on those talk pages need to be handled much better.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am hardly inventing a general principle here, unless you are saying that you think it quite appropriate to be writing the biography page of someone who is known to be an enemy of yours. Do you?

The specific situation is the case of a well-known environmentalist & journalist, Lawrence Soloman, who has written articles condemning the actions of Kim D. Petersen & William Connolley, two well-known Wikipedians. Petersen & Connolley now edit the Soloman biography, and in my opinion, do not want the world to know that Soloman is in fact a well-known environmentalist, since I believe it suits their agenda to paint him merely as a journalist, and hopefully a right-wing one. You may see this at Talk:Lawrence_Solomon. Given what Soloman has written publicly about Connolley & Petersen, it seems to me that these two Wikipedians should allow others to deal with Soloman's own biography. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a probably a POV concern (haven't read all of the details) and sounds like a potential COI. Your original request was not transparent when there is a current concern so one of the noticeboards seems like a better place but adding a quick disclaimer here does help in assessing the situation. It came across off so I sincerely apologize for not assuming good faith.Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee whiz, the fact that the subject doesn't like the way he's portrayed at Wikipedia and has attacked in print the principal editors is interesting, but I think that the question should be settled in the normal way, on talk page and through standard dispute resolution, rather than seeking to generate tailor made language to use as a weapon in the affray.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I have in good faith brought to your attention a loophole in the wording of this policy. You then conceded yourself that a scenario of the form I described would indeed indicate a COI and as I have shown further that the current wording doesn't rule this out. This particular issue is more than a simple case of a couple of POV editors taking over a biography page (normal in Wikipedia's climate change coverage); it is by common sense a clear conflict of interest and a loose wording in WP:COI suggests there is in fact no way of enforcing the policy. I am rather puzzled that you've changed your tune now that you understand the specifics of my issue. Take a stand on the actual issue here please rather than speculating about my motivation: do you think editors should be allowed to edit the biography pages of their enemies or don't you? Alex Harvey (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is an enemy as Hiss vs. Chambers, of course not! However, there has to be actual animus there. I do not think writing what the subject doesn't like qualifies as an "enemy" situation. Please keep in mind I have zero dog in this fight, and you can review my contributions and check this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wehwalt, although we're getting off track from what was meant to be a query about the policy in the general case, please realise that you seem to have misunderstood what this is all about. Firstly, Solomon did not object to what was in his own biography page as you have represented above. In fact, I don't think Solomon even had a Wiki bio page at that time. Secondly, I am talking about a situation and situations generally where there is real animosity. Have a look at one of Solomon's scathing pieces here. These Solomon articles appear to have really hurt the two Wikipedians named in his various articles (and he wrote quite a few). Again, I am concerned about the principle here, not the specifics, because it is not an isolated case in the climate change articles by any means.

(Cptnono, above, many thanks and no worries at all.) Alex Harvey (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article, thanks. Again, I am a completely uninvolved admin here, but I would hate to establish the principle that because someone uses an forum they have in writing professional articles to complain about a WP editor, that that complaint thereby transformed said editor into an enemy incapable of fairly editing the articles complained about.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wehwalt, please, that is not what I said; it's not about "the articles complained about" at all. In this case, journalist has certainly turned the said editors into personal enemies (I'm not going to dig out stuff that has been said against Solomon in the talk pages in retaliation but there's no doubt of real animosity here). What I said is that the editor should desist from editing the biography page of his new enemy. And, look, can you think of a good reason why a Wikipedian would write the biography page when the subject has written scathingly about you publicly? Please: Wikipedia is not a forum where one writes about one's friends or one's enemies. Correct? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Further, to make this absolutely clear, I will hereby commit not to appeal to COI in the Solomon case, ever, my solemn Wiki-oath. :) I only want this fixed up in the general case. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add to this to remind people that Wikipedia regulations prohibit very clearly, and very enforcably, Solomon from editing his own bio page. Please have a think about this for a moment: is it fair that one is prohibited from editing one's own biography page when one's personal enemies are not? Alex Harvey (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my mistakes, you've asked about a general principle, so I have not read all the specific materials. I would say you should not edit articles about your personal enemies. That being said, you have not shown that Solomon is a personal enemy of the editors involved, and if they were aware of this thread, no doubt they would have a thing or two to say about it. I'll expand a bit. You shouldn't edit the page of a personal friend, but nothing stops you from editing the page of someone you agree with. Same for enemy/disagree.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, agreed, I haven't proved anything; indeed, it would be difficult in principle to prove that person A is an enemy of person B. But firstly, shouldn't the wording of the COI policy actually state explicitly what you just said? i.e. "you should not edit articles about your personal enemies"? Alex Harvey (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think "personal friends or enemies" would be a better way of putting it, and would avoid such misunderstandings as we just had.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well, do I have approval to change the wording? I am not sure what the process is for editing a policy statement. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"I would also like to add to this to remind people that Wikipedia regulations prohibit very clearly, and very enforcably, Solomon from editing his own bio page. Please have a think about this for a moment: is it fair that one is prohibited from editing one's own biography page when one's personal enemies are not?" Completely incorrect, you are misreading WP:COI completely. There is no "COI policy", there is a guideline that makes suggestions. There is no "rule" in Wikipedia that an editor cannot edit his or her own biography. It is strongly frowned-upon, and editors who make major changes to an article about themselves (especially with edits that violate Wikipedia policy, such as WP:NPOV or WP:OR) will probably face blocks and a potential topic ban from their own biography. But no, there is no "regulation" that "prohibits" a person from editing their own bio page. You shouldn't be discussing this here anyway. If you wish for clarification on WP:COI or wish to change it, discuss it at WT:COI. If you have a complaint about what you feel is a specific COI, you should open a query on the main space of this noticeboard. There's nothing wrong with asking the question here but I believe that after this discussion you're jumping to conclusions based on a few misunderstandings. The COI guideline is pretty non-specific for a reason, which I'm sure you'll see if you read the talk page for that guideline. -- Atama頭 06:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly always assumed that COI applies to one's competition/foes as much as to oneself and one's allies. How could it not? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That was my point exactly, a person's connection doesn't have to be a positive one for the COI to be there. -- Atama頭 22:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bureaucrat (and former lawyer) in a very minor government department. I'd like to make some edits in pages related in the Category Australian law, which is in a lacking in a lot of content. In this space, of course, many edits will be about either legislation passed by the political arm of the government, or judgements made by the judical arm of the government. I remember some controvery in 2007 when employees of the Workplace Relations Department were found to have made edits to the pages for the governments controversial Industrial Relations legislation. I wanted to ask how far this COI might extend. Should it be limited to the subject matter for my particular department, or the bureaucracy more widely, or any actions of the government? I'm not keen on the idea of proposing all edits on the talk page, particularly when it seems like I am the only one who would look at them. VeryRusty (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Not knowing any of the details I would assume that your department could be a potential COI but anything broader than that wouldn't be. Again, there's no rule that explicitly prohibits you from editing even the article about your particular department, but it's recommended that you avoid doing so. My suggestion is this... If you want to edit your department's article and you feel that nobody else pays attention to the article, go onto the article's talk page and declare your COI. Don't give out too much personal info, just say "I work for so-and-so department". Assure everyone that you intend to abide by WP:NPOV and WP:OR and that you don't have any interest in promotion or whitewashing the article. Then, edit to your heart's desire. If none of your edits are controversial or violate policy then I doubt anyone will object to what you're doing. -- Atama頭 23:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Atama's advices sounds good. As a matter of caution, I never edit articles about my own state agency; but edit articles about legislatures, state government in general, etc. all the time. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks, that's good advice. I'll steer clear of my own agency's area (which is pretty boring anyway), but other than that I'm hoping it will be improvements galore.VeryRusty (talk) 10:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Paid editing is a policy proposal that would almost certainly affect everybody who is interested in COIN. It's progress had been stymied by an editor who clearly had a poor understanding of our Conflict of Interest Policy, but I think it can be restarted now if enough people are interested in it. I'd love to see some input there. Smallbones (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop backhanded personal attacks. They don't make your case or verify your accusations, they only poison the well for community collaboration. -- Banjeboi 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, you might want to strikeout part of that comment or remove it completely. Asking for participation isn't a bad thing but attacking someone in the midst of it is really bad judgment and honestly not necessary. -- Atama頭 23:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how often this noticeboard ends up with problems of COI vs OUTING, but I notice the section above, and we have just dealt with another case. This was a tough call because one of the usernames was a corporation name; I spent over two hours re-reading it and ANI before deciding to redacted the bits that I felt went over the line, into the grey area. Do similar problems occur often on this noticeboard? I have occasionally heard it said that OUTING is disregarded when allegations about COI are leveled against new users.

I have created an WP:Edit notice for this page: Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard; it needs to be strongly worded, and this message should not be lost among other "important" information. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Outing is sometimes disregarded in COI, of course, just as other policies are disregarded now and again on Wikipedia. I don't think that it's that much of a problem on this noticeboard though. The reason is that most COI reports come about because of a very obvious connection; one person edits a biography and says "I am his son" in the edit summary, or another person editing an article about a company chooses a username identical to the company name, etc. In the last few months, I think the only time people were persistently attempting to out someone was with Banjeboi (as you see above). When necessary I try to remind people that WP:COI explicitly says that harassment rules trump any COI concerns and that outing is never accepted, but since most people on these boards out themselves in one way or another it's usually not necessary. What I do have to do at times is to remind people not to demand personal information from other editors when trying to determine a COI, nobody should ever have to volunteer more personal information than they are comfortable with (except to certain people like Oversighters or ArbCom). -- Atama頭 16:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me add, I hadn't even noticed that Sach had speculated about the identity of a particular editor, by the time I saw the notice there was a wall of text on this noticeboard and on the talk page of the article in question. If I'd noticed I would have asked him to retract that info. -- Atama頭 17:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view, had I been aware of the current hypersensitivity about outing concerns, I could have framed almost all of my comments differently and quite possibly have avoided the problem. Sach (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will suggest one method that would assist with this general problem... if the autobiographer or person mentioned were to extend (or dispute) offered copyright privileges to the Foundation on even a short published source or two or a with few a images that appear that they could be useful. It would never come up here, and the WMF certification would be on the file's page entry. I don't know if "hyper sensitivity" is quite right, since time and again if I read about anything of the sort (Atama usually covers things so well I can't even think of adding more productive reply normally) it just screams out to me that if even one involved party had spent 5 seconds on a gut duck test on comfort level for disclosing such things, it wouldn't happen at all. More depressing is that the COI-turned-possible-outing info is generally removed from the article fairly quickly as being spotted as that or just irrelevant in general, and no matter how much a user gives their blessing on an apparent SPA of themselves, I could not put good conscience put family details back into an article until a very substantial claim of notability for each member was given. We have plenty of policy and guidelines to back that up.

As the all wise and knowing resident guru here, Atama is right (as usual). Almost all of this could be completely avoidable if users decided to be at least a little more creative on the usernames or didn't give such incredible levels of detail about co-workers or family members in their articles. Temp courtesy blanking of pages with possible child safety protection concerns always gets me in a short-term huff (and panic... I've ended up in edit wars over outing of an article publisher's children). I'll quickly just hack it out or if there are a few sources that complicate things I'll collapse the article to a text box and noindex temporarily to work on it. That's at least 50% IAR on my part but I'll be damned if I'm going to let a good faith new user do that to themselves and their family even it ends up a SPA account and the article is eventually deleted. If there's any kind of existing ticket on it from contacting the Foundation regarding rights, I'd at least assume that makes it easier to point out to oversight later in the worst of cases since the basic situation info will be filled out already. It's very rare but does happen. I Apologize for the lengthy post! ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the 241 kilobyte section on User:Yehoishophot Oliver into its own subpage, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/User:Yehoishophot Oliver, on the model of ANI. This board should not be disabled for other users by lengthy debates of this sort, which really seem more appropriate for an WP:RfC. I've transcluded the contents rather than simply linking to it, so it is still viewable where people expect it. Those interested may find it easier to follow, to boot, as they can watchlist that subpage and know when edits are made to it rather than the board. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Regulars here might be interested in this, a proposed leaflet on editing Wikipedia for Corporate Communication Professionals. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. Whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.

To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are

• WP:Hazing (WP:HAZING, (WP:HAZ)
• WP:Notable person survival kit (WP:SURVIVALKIT, WP:NPSK)

Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. --JN466 14:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Earlier today I edited Tony Blair Faith Foundation to remove reference to me: [2]. I did it quickly without thinking because mentioning me there as a separate section struck me as entirely silly.

Since the edit involves me, I want to submit it here for further reflection. Is there anywhere else I should seek a second opinion as well?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BLPN? Really, the deletion just removed an invalid reference to a talkpage and a BLP vio that hinged on that ref. Of course if you become aware of a RS that would support the statement you'll know what to do.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it isn't really a BLP violation, since it's harmless and true. It's just weird to put it in the article, since it isn't notable.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing the edit is fine. It's sourced to a Wikipedia talk page, not exactly a reliable source. I think this is probably the best forum to discuss this in. AniMate 06:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Soon I will be beginning an internship at The Children's Museum of Indianapolis wherein I will be taking on the role of in-house Wikipedian. I wanted to be sure to come here to clearly state my COI. I am very much aware of the concerns and wish to be as transparent as possible, as do my advisers at the museum. My main task will be organizing the Children's Museum's free-content donation and coordinating with appropriate, already established, WikiProjects to improve Wikipedia articles with that information.

I have been in contact with a good many members of WMF, with User:Witty lama serving as my adviser for this project. I have followed his work with Wikipedia:GLAM/BM closely and will be replicating some aspects of that project, but on a much smaller scale. You can see a brief start to my Wikipedia project page here: Wikipedia:GLAM/TCMI, which includes the following:

COI statement
I am first and foremost a museum studies graduate student interested in helping the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis share their collections information and multimedia resources with a wide audience. I am, secondly, an unaffiliated Wikipedia volunteer who is knowledgeable of the community and culture of Wikimedia. In this way I will serve as Museum-Wikipedia collaborator, utilizing the resources within both the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis and Wikipedia to share free culture while building a mutually beneficial relationship between the two.

What this project is not

• There will not be a push to add external links to articles.
• I will not personally make major edits to articles (I will instead be organizing the newly available content and coordinating the efforts of other Wikipedians.)
• The Children’s Museum’s Wikipedia article will not be edited by in-house personnel (myself included).

As previously mentioned, I wish only to be as transparent as possible. Please let me know if there is anything I'm not considering and I will adapt my project plan accordingly. Thanks so much! HstryQT (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You're being transparent about your connections and motives, and are working in collaboration with other editors and Wikiprojects. While I can't guarantee you won't run into any disputes, I can't imagine anything you could do more to avoid conflict of interest problems. Good luck! -- Atama頭 20:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I wanted to be sure that I was also clear that this is a paid student internship, which is why I've made an effort to clarify my role as coordinator, rather than editor. HstryQT (talk) 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

To echo the sentiment of Atama's response, you are being transparent and that's a good thing. Helpful collaboration is always beneficial to the project, and your approach to this project is reasoned and seems very well-intentioned. --Chris (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The current header is a bit too much, so I've created a new one, located at User:Netalarm/COI. Comments? Netalarm^talk 22:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks good and it's useful. I don't know if there might be technical issues with it but I think it's an improvement over what we're using now. -- Atama頭 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ya, I've mostly tested it, but more testing would be needed. Basically, all the user has to do is enter the article name and then fill in the requested information. The report would automatically be added to the end of the page. Is there anything else you think we need? Netalarm^talk 23:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've completed the technical testing, and it appears to work as intended. If no one objects, I can bring this online soon. Netalarm^talk 01:08, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I've updated the conflict of interest noticeboard with a new design that will hopefully make the reporting process easier for new users. This update includes a new Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header, which reorganizes the crucial information to present it more clearly. All of the important instructions have been retained. Instructions for reporters are now on the editnotice of the reporting page, and instructions for helpers are in a collapsed section labeled "How to help out." I hope that this new simple system will make the reporting process much easier so newer users will be less likely to feel intimidated by submitting a report. Also, you may have noticed that the "search" box has been removed. The search function is available on the archives page, since people do not generally need to search from the main page. This new system has been throughly tested, but if you find any errors or areas for improvement, please change it or notify me so I can do so. If you have any comments, please post them here. Thank you! Netalarm^talk 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Looks nice. I would like to see the old Possible autobiographies found by bot and Category:Requested edits stay at the top of the page, though, as it was a nice quicky link to those. Arakunem^Talk 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A couple more suggestions: The COI guidelin should be linked from this page, as in: This noticeboard may be used to: Report users that have a possible conflict of interest. And I'd like to see, either in that same section, or possibly in the editnotice, a reminder from the COI guideline to make sure that the issue is a COI and not a simple dispute: Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Arakunem^Talk 00:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
    • The possible autobiographies found by bot is now linked in the "How to help out" section, since I don't think reporting users will need to see that. Regarding the other comment, I'll add that tomorrow, or you can do you to :p Netalarm^talk 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
      • It looks good and it seems as though people are actually using it which is good news for us. One thing - can the "How to help out" text be made a little larger? I didn't really notice it until I came here. Smartse (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't seem to change it. I've tried various methods here, but they don't have an effect on the font size. Since the details are pulled from ((Collapse top)) and ((Collapse bottom)), it may be necessary to change the templates themselves to change the font size. Netalarm^talk 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
          • You could subst: the collapsetop/bottom templates, which will substitute all the wikicode into the page, allowing you to edit just about every aspect of it. Arakunem^Talk 22:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's possible, but I don't think there's a real need. The font size is the same as the reporting form, and it's right under it. It is possible to modify it, but is it needed? Netalarm^talk 22:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks very nice and presentable. It's succinct and easy to follow. This should be an example for other noticeboards to tidy up their headers. –MuZemike 07:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The editnotice includes: Theres no need to sign your report, as it's automatically signed. I would replace "Theres" with "There is". But what does "automatically signed" mean? Is it simply that the preloaded text includes the four tildes? I assume that is the case, and feel that some different wording is required because it suggests that after I hit "Save", some magic process will add my signature (which I'm fairly sure is not the case, apart from Sinebot). Johnuniq (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the WP:External links noticeboard would appreciate the attention of a couple of COI-savvy editors at this discussion.

The editor who started the discussion is (AFAICT) a professional sexologist (PhD, full-time university researcher, specialized in pedophilia and related paraphilias). Two editors in a dispute at Paraphilia seem to be claiming that academic experts are not permitted to add information or external links because being an expert makes him biased. I think that comments at the WP:ELN discussion would be sincerely appreciated (at least by all of us regular editors at ELN, who are much better versed in the nuances of WP:EL than WP:COI). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Y Dydd Olaf. See my comment on the discussion page. Llais Sais (talk) 10:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Yesterday I posted the following to the Project page, although it seemed a little out of place and I wasn't sure whether I'd get a response. I didn't. Re-posting here and commenting out my initial follow-up. Any input would be most appreciated. Cheers, WWB (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting this request before I make any edits to articles about C-SPAN -- which have many issues, as I'll discuss below -- because I work with their web team, and so I have a potential conflict. I'd like to begin improving these articles (C-SPAN knows this) and I have a pretty good idea about which non-controversial edits I can make directly, and which are best discussed first. That said, I'd like to invite anyone here to look over my shoulder as I do so and weigh in as you see fit. A few examples of issues I see now:

• Rather unusually, there are duplicate pages for their Sunday night program, "Q&A":
  • Q & A (C-SPAN)
  • Q&A (talk show)
• There is a category for Category:C-SPAN shows but there is none for Category:C-SPAN
• The article Washington Journal contains no third-party sources
• The flagship article, C-SPAN, is also missing citations and, while 21Kb, has been assessed Start-class

Second, In the past I have worked on COI-related articles fully-disclosed manner, although I did so with a secondary account to distinguish that from edits of purely personal interest. However, that account was identified with my former employer, and I've since retired the account. My question, then: should I just use this account? Or better again to create a new legit sock? I lean toward the latter, but I don't want to make things more complicated than they need be. Thoughts? WWB (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In the absence of any comment over the last five days, I've decided to create a new secondary account: User:WWB Too. In addition to distinguishing potential COI from non-potential COI edits, it also indicates that it is my secondary account without, I believe, being too confusing. As in the past, I promise that I won't cross the streams. Your comments, on either Talk page, are most welcome. Cheers, WWB (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Great someone just archived a thread that hadn't been resolved... now what? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the last two archives and looked for articles that were reported, and that as of today, have a ((coi)) tag:

From Archive 46:

• St. Mary's College of Engineering and Technology (notice)
• Kinda Hibrawi (notice)
• Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research (notice)
• Dick Beardsley (notice)
• Stanley Steemer (notice)
• Alex Konanykhin (notice)
• Guy Bavli (notice)
• Magnolia (CMS) (notice)
• Kipp Marcus (notice)
• Boom! Studios (notice)

From Archive 45:

• BIPAC (notice)
• Donald Weder (notice)
• Steven T. Murray (notice)
• Tiina Nunnally (notice)
• American Automobile Association (notice)
• Momentum Accounting and Triple-Entry Bookkeeping (notice)
• James Graham (artist) (notice)
• EDAG (notice)
• Ron Holloway (notice)
• Don Brown (author) (notice)
• Filipino Plaza (notice)
• Dick Beardsley (notice)
• Vidya Academy of Science and Technology (notice)
• Path Solutions (notice)
• Diabetic Rockstar Inc (notice)

(Disclosure: I placed the Alex Konanykhin and Guy Bavli notices)

Please add any articles I missed. Thanks.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     14:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This one is still "open: [3]. The problem is that it affects so many articles that are otherwise kosher that i did not want to slap COI tags on all the affected pages across half a dozen Wikis before getting some guidance on how to process. Could you un-archive that one please? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Canadian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Heavy_use_of_COI.3DPOV_government_sources_on_political_articles.Skookum1 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, the description of this board reads: Furthermore, accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited. Way after uninvolved editors decided that Wikipedia:COIN#CarolMooreDC is really a POV issue (as the editor who brought it was told weeks ago after a similar WP:ANI), two other editors are continuing to harass me with questions which either are repetitive of ones I've already answered or go far beyond what WP:COI recommends. (Why do you think people think you have a COI? Do you belong to any organization that has even a minor little position on the issue? Like, what, the Democratic Party??) I've told them enough already but they keep it up. One of them may be annoyed because I'm encouraging WP:MfD an unpopular noticeboard she just created.(I won't speculate about the other person's possible personal motivation unless they bug me again.) Anyway could someone end the harassment, close and archive the discussion? Thanks. Sorry - signing now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I presume that I am the other editor referred to here. I have no content dispute with CarolMooreDC. I do not recognise this account of my questions, which were intended to lead CarolMooreDC to reflect on her own motives for editing in these areas and on how her editing might look to an impartial observer. I consider this an entirely appropriate mode of proceeding at this board.

I am concerned by the sentence "I won't speculate about the other person's possible personal motivation unless they bug me again" which sounds like some kind of threat: I look forward to CarolMooreDC explaining, or better, striking it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have stuck it because I did get a bit confused between "upper hand issues" and COI issues which I felt you might have. They are related to your style of relentless questioning, including repeating same question over and over again, to the point of harassment, and your possible personal interests based on the kind of articles you predominantly edit. While I know there is more leeway in noticeboards for speculating on people's motives, it also has been pointed out possible COI concerns first should be brought to the person's web page. I guess I should just do that so it doesn't look like a threat.CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Either supply diffs to substantiate your charge of "relentless" questions, and "repeating same question over and over again", or withdraw the imputation of harassment. I remind you that "It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:An/i#Off-wiki_harassment_by_User:Carolmooredc. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said on my unblock request, I am truly sorry that my anger/frustration over weeks of problems led to my taking it out on User:Kenilworth Terrace and I do thank him for accepting my apology. I bring this up here, in part, because in a little while I will present a link to a talk page entry on a different issue about some COI questions I'd like some truly NPOV editors to look at on a complete different article since I'm not sure the best way to deal it. Nothing that rises to level of WP:COIN complaint, yet, however. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: my declared WP:COI and some heavy duty undeclared ones from the past that might come up again in the future - and most appropriate way to deal with them. I'd really appreciate it, if possible, we could keep this to NPOV editors who have not been involved with making various accusations against me in recent contretemps. Or defending me, for that matter. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Bibliotastic is posting links only to a website of the same name. BOZ (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Header currently says:

I think it might be useful to change that to emphasize the distinction between having a conflict of interest and violating our COI policy. Perhaps something like this would work (changed text underlined):

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I just removed a "Resolved" tag placed, with a long summary, by an involved editor.[4] I think it's inappropriate for people in a dispute to be declaring that a COI has proven and to close the discussion. Even if all of the facts are true, it is a bad precedent. "Resolved" tags are not generally used on this page anyway. If someone who hasn't edited the article in question would like to mark it resolved, if it really is, then I don't object.   Will Beback  talk  08:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, "resolved" tags are used on this page for as long as I've been visiting it (the last few years). Just like WP:ANI or other noticeboards, they're not used to close every thread, but are sometimes added more-or-less on the whim of whoever is involved in the discussion. They're just a way to let people know that the discussion is done. Usually I see them after an editor has been blocked, or the person making the report agrees that the COI is invalid, or if there's some other very clear-cut end to the discussion. The tag that you reverted was most definitely inappropriate, that editor should not have unilaterally declared that the COI is valid and closed the thread themselves. -- Atama頭 16:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely inappropriate. The gall of some people. Now that the upstart has been put in his, or her place as the case may be, back to Flamingfire. So what do my two esteemed colleagues think? No COI. Maybe COI. Or I've never seen a more blatant COI in my entire wiki career! – Lionel ^(talk) 23:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Another reason why closing the thread is inappropriate is because that would mean that there is no longer need for further commentary, or action. Which I don't think is the case. I'll give my opinion on the noticeboard itself, however. -- Atama頭00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Can some admins look at the page and talk page and give some direction please as things appear to have reached an standstill.Rotsmasher (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I more-or-less responded to this request on the main noticeboard. This talkpage is for discussing the noticeboard itself, not any specific COI claims or concerns which should just be discussed on the noticeboard. -- Atama頭 17:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey! I was wondering if we have an unofficial list of admins that generally watch over WP:COIN. It seems to me that ~80% of reports don't require administrator actions specifically/only for a WP:COIviolation but I've noticed that we seem to only have one admin who watches the page consistently (user:Atama). Atama always does a great job but, as is to be expected, can't always be around to address the sometimes urgent needs. I've only been around WP:COIN for a few months but is this normal?

Regardless, I'd like to be able to notify an admin or two when it seems that something isn't being taken care of. There may be other solutions to this issue but I think it needs addressed and I don't think it's fair to require so much attention from one admin. OlYeller^Talktome 12:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This unfortunately is a problem with many other important noticeboards.. the spam reports board I seem to recall was struggling a bit, and the various copyright investigations boards don't get the attention they deserve from admins. It's only too rare that admins come around specializing in a certain area and are consistent in patrolling that area. While others (like me, at times) spread themselves too thin by trying to patrol everything at once. I don't know of any method to encourage more participation, besides requests at WP:AN. Unfortunately neglected areas just tend to stagnate and pile up with reports (seeWP:FEEDBACK) until they eventually get tagged as inactive. I can't see that happening here though. -- œ^™ 17:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To report a possible COI, this noticeboard's form asks for an article name. What about a user that is hitting hundreds of articles with contributions of data from a website he is affiliated with? How can I report that as a possible COI? Hwy43 (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't be constrained by formalism, go ahead and just post a new section and let us know what the problem is. --Jayron32 06:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The issue may be resolved shortly by other means. If it isn't, I'll post a new section. Hwy43 (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

If someone (unintentionally? it seems so) disclosed their identity to me in a private e-mail, and I discover they've made edits to articles about themself and their company, how do I deal with that? I'm not allowed to "out" them, am I?

The issue isn't very serious and their edits aren't promotional, I'm just wondering what the standard thing to do is. (For now I'll just talk to them about the COI policies through e-mail and see what they say.)— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Would knowing the article (along with the information you just gave) give out the person? Perhaps we can just scan an article for issues and essentially leave the person out of it.

If it were me, I would probably try to work with the person on the article. If it became obvious that the person's aims conflicted with WP's, I would probably take it to WP:NPOVN.

Ultimately, I don't think you would be outing them unless you actually exposed personal information about them ("legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information"). You'd be walking on thin ice but noting that they have a close connection isn't specifically outing but it's probably best not to escalate the situation to that point unless you think it's really needed. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

If the edits really aren't promotional then there is no problem. E.g. it's totally normal for someone associated with a company to update information about the current management, preferably with a link to a source. Hardly anyone else would care about this kind of thing, and it's good if someone does it. Editing with a conflict of interest is not forbidden. It's just that one isn't allowed to edit non-neutrally in such a situation and those people we usually deal with here are the ones who have a problem with that. Hans Adler 13:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I e-mail about this to any one of you who's very familiar with this type of thing? The user had to be warned up to the "last warning" about disruptive editing, and they started what ended up as a very substantial edit to the article. I'm saying that the issue isn't serious because as far as I can tell the articles are currently under control; but in any case I'd like to know, for future reference, how to handle this type of thing.

The editor doesn't disclose their name on Wikipedia, but (accidentally) disclosed it to me. As much as I understand from the policy, I can't publicly warn them about their COI because I'd be revealing their identity. (In a hypothetical scenario where the issue should turn serious, how would I deal with that?) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 14:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I deal with COI issues all the time, I've even been contacted by WMF a few times to help out with certain situations in total privacy, so if you want discretion you can ask me. I'm used to that sort of thing. I haven't been very active lately anywhere on the encyclopedia but I check my email multiple times a day. My advice in general, though, is to remember that our rules against outing trump any COI issues that might arise. I can tell that you're aware of that but just try to remind yourself of that if the matter starts to get frustrating. I've been there and lots of other people have too. Sometimes editors even hide behind that, and unfortunately if they are careful to keep their information off the encyclopedia they can do so successfully. But you can always console yourself with the knowledge that COI issues aren't a problem unless they lead to disruption of some kind, and disruption can be dealt with on its own even without identifying a COI. So nobody can ever really "get away" with it. -- Atama頭 23:44, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

E-mailed you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested here, I've been asked by an organization called Academy of Achievement to help resolve an ongoing COI (and POV) issue on the article about them. To wit, the organization had edited this page in the past, resulting in far too promotional an article; uninvolved editors began pruning it back, but now I believe they have added too much tangential, negative material, while leaving the warnings in place. I've prepared a proposed replacement version and explained this in more detail on thearticle's Talk page, and would appreciate any interested editor's participation there. Cheers, WWB Too(talk) 18:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)