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.

Resolved

 – Article has been deleted and user indefinitely blocked. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• NOA (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Noamusician (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to represent or is the said person in the article in question. Appears to be a conflict of interest given that autobiographies are usually discouraged. Said user account also appears to be for the sole purpose of promoting the abovementioned musician. GrayFullbuster (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The username has been blocked as a SPAMNAME and the article title protected against re-creation. – ukexpat (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Declaration of close connection noted. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to introduce myself to the community. My current employer is Autoweek Media Group. Due to this, I will not be directly editing any Autoweek or Crain Communications articles, but merely making edit suggestions for others to review and implement. Please note that there is a colleague of mine who maintains a Wikipedia account (ChauTime), but we are two separate people. I have read WP:SOCK, am familiar with Wikipedia’s username policies, and will ensure that I refrain from participating in any of the same content discussions.--DetroitSteele (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for being forthcoming about your association. That always makes things much easier for everyone involved if you end up editing that article. I redacted the name of your associate to avoid WP:OUTING. I'm sure you did it in good faith but we have to protect him. He may have already posted here, in which case, we can put the name back. Otherwise, we'll have to wait for him to declare his connection.

Thanks again for declaring your connection. It's much appreciated. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'd like to introduce myself as the colleague of User:DetroitSteele as mentioned above. Oldyeller, thank you for your caution - I am OK with my name being posted here on this board, so if possible, can you please retract the redaction? I'd also like to disclose my conflict of interest as I am employed by Autoweek Media Group, and I will not be making direct edits to any of our articles. Thanks! --ChauTime (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi OlYeller21, was hoping you, or someone in the community may be able to help with a stylization request on our Autoweek article. In June of 2011 we switched our branding from "AutoWeek" to "Autoweek" for all mentions of our publication. You can take a look at our site and see that all versions using upper and lower case letters are styled with a capital "A" and lower-case "w" (outside of some metas that I am trying to fix as well). Would really appreciate if someone could make a similar update to our page to reflect our current styling. Thank You!--DetroitSteele (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone post links sources regarding reviews/awards or anything else notable about this publication? At the moment, this article only has one source, and it doesn't support the information provided in the article. Rklawton (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I redacted my redaction. Sorry for the delay. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I'd help out but I'm on a Wikibreak. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rklawton, thank you for making the stylization correction. I appreciate you pointing out that the article is lacking reliable sources, and completely agree. That is part of the reason why I am here, as I can help identify WP:RS. I have created a sandbox and am working to write up a draft of the history section (including reliable sources). This should take a few days, but when completed should I return here, or would it be better to take it to a place like WP:Automobiles?--DetroitSteele (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I recommend putting your work on the article's talk page (always) and post a note in the appropriate project and/or here (optional). Rklawton (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, as soon as it is ready I will post it on the talk page along with a note on the project page

OlYeller21, I also revised the colleague name from my original post. It appears the update listed myself as the colleague, rather than ChauTime. --DetroitSteele (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Stale

 – Issue seems to have been DOA. I can't find any edits that support the accusation but there are thousands to go through. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

This user appears to be editing articles and inserting references to himself. This seems like a conflict of interest and original research. There are many more articles than those listed here.

• Oyo_Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Tunjur people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Assyria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Shango (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dierk_Lange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user appears to be inserting original research which are referenced to himself into tonnes of articles. Original discussion: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Has this issue been resolved? It looks to have been DOA. I went through several edits in the user's edit history and only see them adding references that they have not written themselves. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article has been deleted. User has not edited since. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blackfriars student accommodation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 104group2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone care to deal with this advert? Halls of Residence tend in my experience to be notable, but here we have a cut & paste from a sales pitch. I'm off doing other stuff and not wanting to touch it right now. thanks Tagishsimon (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like obvious spam to me, and tagged for speedy deletion as such. – ukexpat (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think three of us were thinking that at the same time, since I was about to delete it but Rklawton beat me to it. SmartSE (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Pure spam. Rklawton (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Username has been indef blocked. Article has been deleted. User has created new username but has yet to edit mainspace. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• User:Peterdevreotes (edit | [[Talk:User:Peterdevreotes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Peterdevreotes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a draft article in userspace. I'm being asked on my talk page for advice as to how to make it live. This is to be a BLP and the person asking me works for Peter Devreotes. I'm off to bed shortly and really do not know what to advise him because of the COI issue, so if anyone wishes to reply and give some advice on my talk page or his it would be really appreciated. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

First, remind them that once it's published, he loses all control, and the article may become something his boss really won't like. Next, advise them to request the article through the usual means (include the draft in the request). Finally, remind them that everything in the article should be independently sourced. At the moment, I see no actual references in the article. Rklawton (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But I just discovered that he has moved the article into namespace. Well, to be exact, he's moved his talkpage and a userpage into name space, converting a user into an article. Weird. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that, and gave him your advice and some more. Thanks again. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The user has been indefinitely blocked as a WP:USERNAME violation and admin Ultraexactzz has given the user the appropriate advice on the issue as it seems that the person made the account in good faith. The user has made a new account called Jkim403 (talk · contribs) but has not edited mainspace yet. I have placed the article on my watchilist and suggest/request that others do the same. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Close connection noted. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello noticeboard watchers! I have a conflict of interest in my editing, and I would like to disclose it fully. Unfortunately, I haven't ever seen anyone openly disclose this sort of thing. I have created a page User:Achowat/COI to explain my COI as well as the operative steps I will take to ensure that my potential Conflict will never negatively affect the project or my own edits. Would you fine folks be willing to look over my Disclosure and look for any lose ends or the like? Achowat (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been five days with no response, so I'm going to de-Watchlist this noticeboard; if comments arise to this post, would someone be so kind as to inform me on my talk? Thanks and Cheers! Achowat (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being forthcoming about your connection. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No clear connection between user and content they edit. User has been indef blocked for block evasion. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a new Wikipedian, so I was hoping some more experienced editors could review this for me. I was looking at the talk page for Sen. David Vitter and I noticed a user had unilaterally removed sections of the article, without seeking editorial input, especially related to the Senator's involvement in the DC Madam Scandal. The user appears to have edited several articles on conservative groups and according to his talk page was banned from Wikipedia in September 2011, about a month after making the edits to Sen. Vitter's page. Could someone more experienced than myself please review the page and see if there indeed have been edits that violate WP:COI or WP:NPOV? Thanks. DerkDark (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for taking the time to post here. It does look like that user has been indefinitely blocked for block evasion. From the looks of things, they had some nasty battles with other editors who themselves have been blocked for POV pushing and edit warring. You would need to find a person or people who are willing to go through, edit by edit, to revert content removal that does not align with our policies and guidelines. I'm not going to lie, I don't want to be on that list.

I suggest going to an associated Wikiproject and asking for help. If you believe that the problematic edits are politics based such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics or one of its subgroups. If you're looking for more help, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

I'm going to mark this case resolved on the noticeboard. The edits are certainly suspicious or simply vandalism but the connection between the user and the subject or the articles they have edits has not been established. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No proof of a close connection or even problematic edits. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 88guy88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello,

I am a frequent editor of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire article. I have recently been accused of having a "Conflict of Interest" by user 99.149.229.151. The following conversation took place on the user's talk page:

Hi 99.149.229.151,

I saw you added the conflict of interest tag to the UW-Eau Claire article. As I am the most frequent contributor to this article, I assume you mean me. I take my role as an editor of Wikipedia seriously, and I strive for neutrality at all times. If you could point to specific portions of the article that violate neutrality, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the first thing we need to know is if you are an employee of the university and, if so, are your edits in Wikipedia done on university time. Thank you. 99.149.229.151 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not an employee of UW-Eau Claire, and I have never been an employee of UW-Eau Claire. I will not be answering any further personal questions about my employment or my work schedule as they are intrusive and inappropriate. Again, please point to specific portions of the article that violate neutrality.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As of yet, I have not received a reply from the user. I did, however, ask User:Woohookitty, an admin and frequent contributor to Wisconsin related articles, to pitch in and help out. I wrote:

Hi Woohookitty,

I noticed that you have made several edits on Wisconsin related articles, so I was hoping you could help me out. The UW-Eau Claire article has been the subject of a couple of controversies these past few weeks. The article was recently accused of engaging in "academic boosterism." I took this accusation to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I worked out an amicable solution. (I removed some problematic sentences and used more third-party sources). Recently, a user has given the article the Conflict of Interest tag. I assume the user is refering to my edits, as I am by far the most active editor on the UW-Eau Claire article. I know that admins do not engage in "dispute resolution," but I was still hoping you would be kind enough to closely look over the article, not to "pick sides" but to help make useful edits and give constructive advice to all parties involved. Whatever the case, I feel it has been too long since an experienced administrator has worked on the article. Any help you could offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Woohookitty replied thusly: It's my alma matter, so I'd be glad to take a look. :) Class of 98. :) --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 01:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

These posts comprise the entirety of the dispute. So far, no action has been taken and the Conflict of Interest tag remains at the top of the article. I hope that members of this forum will look over my edits and will offer constructive advice. As I said to user 99.149.229.151, I take my role as an editor of Wikipedia seriously. I strongly feel that I do not have a conflict of interest, and, since 99.149.229.151 has provided zero evidence of such a conflict, I think this dispute can be resolved quickly.

Thanks for your help,

88guy88 (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All I am asking 88guy88 to do is declare his connection to the university in full since virtually all of his edits have to do with the university article or articles directly related to it. If he has nothing to hide, why is he being so defensive? 99.149.229.151 (talk) 02:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If his edits are neutral, sufficiently notable, are cited with reliable, verifiable sources, why do you care? Results matter - not motivation. Rklawton (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already written that am not and never have been employed by the university. Let's assume good faith and not ask mean-spirited leading questions - i.e., "If he has nothing to hide..." C'mon, let's avoid this type of nonsense and work to better the article as a team! 88guy88 (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed - any more demands for self-outing would clearly constitute harassment and warrant sanctions. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am certainly not out to get anyone sanctioned. I also would like a couple of admins to look over the article to see if they can find any violations of neutrality. I know I'm not perfect! I think Woohookitty might be the one for the job, though I would be grateful for any other admins/experienced editors to jump in and help out. Whatever the case, I have to say I find the "Conflict of Interest" tag quite annoying; it seems to be little more than an unsubstantiated accusation of my motives. What steps need to be taken before it can be removed? 88guy88 (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Since user 99.149.229.151 has not provided evidence of a conflict of interest, I am going to remove the tag. I will also leave a message on his talk page informing him of the removal of the tag. If we could keep this discussion open for a few more days (in case the user would like to bring forward evidence) I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

88guy88 (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

99.149.229.151, you have failed to provide any evidence to support your accusation of a conflict of interest. I haven't even seen any evidence that shows that 88guy88 has made a single problematic edit. We don't pour through a person's edit history to sniff out a conflict of interest simply because someone has a hunch. In the future, please assume good faith as this report could easily be considered a personal attack. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User warned. Article cleaned up nicely. Report back is issues arise. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wendy E. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lynnbaby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP subject has recently announced a candidacy for U.S. Senate from New York. Recently SPA Lynnbaby has begun pruning and shaping the page sloppily, several times trying to insert a headshot in copyright vio. In view of the circumstances, it appears to my eyes that Lynnbaby is somehow connected to the subject. Look at the photo caption in this version. BusterD (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I created this page during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, noting the outspoken involvement of the subject and listing works. BusterD (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of warning the user named. BusterD (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User has admitted a close connection by stating, "Wendy Long Owns it. It is her personal photo that she is granting usage of. We own this photo." in this edit. To me, "we" implies a connection although the statement may be in error. The user has also shared a name, email address, and phone number that I won't link here but the information there implies that they have been hired by the subject of the article.

Regardless, the article has received attention from at least three well established editors who have done thorough cleanup job. I consider this issue resolved or at the very least stale, for the time being as the editor in question has not edited since being warned by BusterD. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Close connection noted. Alex.muller seems to have issue under control. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ebuyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rbdwalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm afraid I don't have time to look into this right now, but the recent edits to Ebuyer are rather spammy. Cheers, Alex Muller 09:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, screw that. After reading the entire diff I've just reverted to an old revision. It's ridiculously spammy, removing all the negative stuff Alex Muller

RBDWalker is a username used all over the internet to identify "Rich Walker", the Marketing Supervisor of Ebuyer. His Twitter profile even mentions his website being "www.rbdwalker.com" (which is non-existent). In short, the close connection is clear, in my opinion.

It looks like you have things under control but if you feel that you need help, feel free to report back here. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Editor never edited article in their two edits. Case seems stale. Suggested taking article to AfD. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sandra Shevey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sandrashevey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I would appreciate a quick review of the edits at Talk:Sandra Shevey wherein the subject is blanking notability discussion and replacing it with promotional material. I have some involvement in the article and would appreciate someone else stepping in to explain the nuances of COI to Ms. Shevey. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that is the Sandra Shevery (which I think is a safe assumption), she's only ever made two edits and they have both been to the talk page of the article. It looks like several people question the notability of the subject but that's not really an issue for this noticeboard as Sandra hasn't done much, if anything, to impede anyone from taking action because of a lack of notability.

I suggest taking the article to AfD for a discussion. If she pops up there or starts editing the article, report back here and uninvolved editors can help out. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Article deleted per AfD. User has since stopped editing. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tov Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• toviaheli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Toviaheli has been trying to create article Tov Rose. This article has been speedy-deleted twice before (at least) as non-notable. With the latest attempt Toviaheli has added a lot of personal detail about Tov Rose, such as birthplace, father's profession, information about his siblings, and places he lived growing up, all entirely without attribution (in fact, this BLP is entirely unsourced) and none of this information looks to be available anywhere online. Getting suspicious, in my AfD for the article I brought up the COI issue here. Since then, I have twice now direcly asked Toviaheli if he is Tov Rose, here and here. Toviaheli has since edited the AfD page several times now and has avoided addressing the issue. I have even put a talkback notice on Toviaheli's talk page here and he has not responded. With this edit summary Toviaheli indicates he "contacted" Tov Rose. Toviaheli needs to explain his relationship to Tov Rose so that we can make sure his edits comply with Wikipedia WP:COI policy. Zad68 (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I have notified Toviaheli of this discussion here Zad68 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User has been indef blocked. I don't see any activity to suggest that they have continued their habits. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• TurkishFootball (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All contribution of this user is limited to adding links to a website entitled www.turkish-football.com either in external links or refereces. This website is niche based on number of user comments posted there and looks like a personal website. There are also many copyright violations of images there. Therefore I think that User:TurkishFootball is using wikipedia to advertise a website with which he is associated.--Oleola (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User name reported to WP:UAA. – ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

And now spamblocked. – ukexpat (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have attempted to address as many outstanding reports as possible. I have marked several as either resolved or stale (in my opinion, the line between the two is very thin). If you get a chance, please take a look at them and make a note if you think I have closed those cases in error. If there are no objections, I will archive those reports in the next day or two as I feel that all the clutter may be discouraging people from getting involved. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I have archived several resolved/stale sections. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The ((COI)) tag is nominated for deletion, see the discussion. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that some users often come to this noticeboard and accuse another user of having a COI but present no evidence (unless the user's name clearly indicated a conflict per WP:DUCK). Before requesting a change to the edit notice of the noticeboard, I would like to see what others think about this issue. More exactly, is it uncivil or in bad faith to accuse someone at a noticeboard like this without presenting any evidence? Outside of civility, it doubles the work done assuming the person making the report did any research into the COI. Maybe it's something we can't change or isn't worth trying to change but I'm more interested in what others think about the issue of civility at this point. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not this noticeboard alone. Some users in content disputes make accusations of sockpuppetry, or whatever else will (if believed) get their opponent blocked from Wikipedia or at least sanctioned from editing on the topic. If you can get someone kicked out, you needn't persuade him nor risk his winning an argument. Not a new idea in the world, is it? --Raven (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I'm not naive enough to think that we live in a fair world but that doesn't mean we can't strive for a fair world in our little corner of it. OlYeller21^Talktome 00:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the discussion merely is an accusuation of COI without evidence, consider closing the discussion by adding
((Discussion top|1=Closed by -- ~~~~))
to the discussion top and
((Discussion bottom))
to the bottom of the discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always been weary of doing a hard close like that. I'm not opposed to it though. I'll consider using that method in the future. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to know in advance where a discussion will head. When it reaches time for a hard close, the damage already might be done. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• We absolutely need a new approach. This discussion has been going on for 22 daysand any COI evidence has long since been presented and reviewed. COIN doesn't have anything set up to close such discussions. Seems that the COIN board will continue to be used until Toresbe is driven from the project. That isn't right. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Should the ((seealso)) tag on the top of this noticeboard be changed? For example:

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Paid Advocacy Watch

Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of another editor's comments on WP:COIN: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=500744338 --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys instruction to perform WP:BRD: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=500660854&oldid=500645404 --Nenpog (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

BRD is about article space, not talk pages or noticeboards. Binksternet (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a thread at WP:WQA by an editor who, in the words of the COI guideline, has "a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization" and is unhappy about having his conflict of interest/activism pointed out in a discussion about POV pushing. It's possible that people familiar with the COI guideline might like to look over the thread. (Please do not reply here; there's no value in spreading the dispute across multiple pages.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I posted here about WP:COI+ before, but there's been a lot of development over the past months to make it a more streamlined proposal. I'd love you to take a look and leave feedback.

I intend for COI+ to seek a middle ground between the current ambiguity of WP:COI and the severity of Bright Line prohibitions on any direct editing. This is particularly important because the community has identified that there is some problem with WP:COI but also found no consensus to outright ban paid editing.

• The 2009 RfC to ban paid editing closed with no consensus.
• The 2012 RfC on COI closed with no consensus as well.
• For as many people who have supported a prohibition on direct editing there is another editor who calls COI a distraction and cites WP:NPOV as the only relevant policy.

For those reasons, I simply don't believe that Bright Line will ever gain consensus. I also happen to think it's not ideal, as it could drive paid advocates under ground, it has no requirement for disclosure, and it offers no reasonable assurance to paid advocates of a timely response to their suggested changes.

COI+ is designed to address each of those concerns:

• COI+ would appeal to paid advocates by welcoming them to the community, educating them about our mission and policies, and guiding them towards constructive interaction;
• COI+ would require disclosure--in triplicate--on user pages, relevant article talk pages, and with links to COI declarations in comment signatures
• COI+ would set a 1 month time limit on edit requests: if no editor even responded to a paid advocate's suggestions or proposed changes within a month--after going through talk pages, help boards, noticeboards, and OTRS--then a paid advocate could make a change directly, if they left clear notice on the article talk page and at the COI noticeboard.

I am drafting a Signpost op-ed introducing COI+ to run in the next month or two, with an RfC to follow. At first COI+ would merely be an aspirational, voluntary agreement. It could, however, be a bridge forward towards a more comprehensive, instructive, and hopefully effective guideline for COI editors and particularly paid advocates. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of interest: An RfC on our COI guideline for editors with an "intractable" conflict of interest. -- Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed a certain tendency amongst some of the users who address cases of COI. Quite often, the notices left on the talk pages of reported COI users contain the cryptic shorthand of policy pages. While this may be second nature to experienced editors, we are often dealing with new users who are unaware of not only the jargon, but also the relevant policies. This only compounds the frustration experienced by new users, and sours their experience to the point of them giving up instead of becoming useful, productive contributors. I think it would be worthwhile to include a note on this noticeboard to use plain language instead of shortcuts in their communication with these users.

See WP:WTF for a more detailed explanation - and I am aware of the irony of using the abbreviation. --Drm310 (talk) 23:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see a template, maybe called something like COI-Thanks, which would say something along the lines of:

I would like to commend you for the reasonable and thoughtful way in which you recently sought edits to an article in which you have a conflict of interest. One or more us will be delighted to help you, and will try to work with you to make things as accurate as possible. We do hope that you will remain active here, and work with us in areas outside that in which you have the conflict, to improve Wikipedia and its sister projects as a whole. Again, thank you.

--Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a really good idea. bobrayner (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done

The template is located at ((COI-thanks)) and it appears as follows:

I would like to commend you for the reasonable and thoughtful way in which you recently sought edits to an article in which you have a conflict of interest. I hope you will continue to make positive contributions to Wikipedia.

CorporateM (Talk) 21:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we get that added to the Twinkle arsenal?--ukexpat (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me that I've been trying to get the ((COI editnotice)) template implemented on some test articles, since we got consensus for it back in March. I've pinged User:Theopolisme here to follow up on that template. As for COI-thanks template, does anyone know the process for getting it added to Twinkle? I would imagine that is probably not a simple task. CorporateM (Talk) 21:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I had my ((catimprove)) template added to Twinkle a while back. I had no idea how to get it added so I just asked if it could be added on the talk page and it showed up later on Twinkle. I probably should have followed the process but asking on the talk page seemed to work. OlYeller21^Talktome 01:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If an article is edited by someone who actually works for a company, are they expected to declare their COI? See recent edits to Viadeo which appear to be by an editor with such an association. 220 of ^Borg 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if you don't believe in the "bright line" rule, HELL YEAH! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mike. I see you have advised editor of COI issues, and 'restored' the page. From my reading of policy (apart from PR COI and the possible use of un-encyclopaedic PR 'spin') the fact they work for a company means they are essentially doing paid editing(shudder) is that correct? --220 of ^Borg 00:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing is not currently taboo here; but the fact is that the vast overwhelming majority of it is WP:PROMOTION, violates WP:NPOV, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been through with this very issue many times. They're strongly encouraged to disclose it, yet what I have been advised is that its against civility rule to try to force them to come clean. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A simple, direct question such as "May I ask if you have a conflict of interest on this?" is acceptable, but shouldn't be repeated needlessly, nor combined with any accusation. If a person declines to answer, or later seems to have been misleading in their answer, other editors may feel free to draw their own conclusions. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sufficiently shameless actions may fall under the purview of the duck test. Nonetheless, Cantaloupe and Smallbones (not deceased) are right: under WP:OUTING, we cannot force another editor to confess their COI. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Note also that the use of first person ("I", "me", "we" or "us") in article text or when referring to the subject in a discussion can be considered tantamount to an admission of identity and COI.--Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Glad to know that I'm (not deceased). I guess that was put in because I occasionally ask simple direct questions like "May I ask if you have a conflict of interest on this?" and nobody has killed me yet. To Orange Mike: May I ask if that was what you were referring to, or did you have another outcome in mind? :-p Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no: I was making reference to the excellent early mystery novel by Michael Gilbert: Smallbone Deceased. If you have not read it, you really should. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

These Smallbone's are everywhere, but the only one worth a damn is Penelope Smallbone. Smallbones's of course are the exact opposite. Still, I'll likely get the book. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Working for the company" covers a lot of ground. Is a student who works part-time at a student job on campus "working for the university" in a sense that COI cares about? I don't think so. How about a janitor or someone doing data entry for the payroll department? That's not much of a risk.

Similarly, "we" and "us" could mean that we've got a copyvio from their website rather than a COI situation. You need to consider all the facts and circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. " Is a student who works part-time at a student job on campus "working for the university" in a sense that COI cares about? - Yes, certainly it has the potential for COI as Wikipedia finds harmful. How about a janitor or someone doing data entry for the payroll department? That's not much of a risk. Not much of a risk unless the janitor is putting the aims of their employer above the aims Wikipedia. While the risks of a janitor's edits being inappropriate may be less than the edits of someone directly from the PR department, the risk is clearly closer the the PR Department than to zero. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. If we declare an unconnected editor to be zero risk, and the PR department to be "10" on the usual arbitrary scale, then I'd put the janitor around 2 or 3. I'd put the sales staff or CEO up around 7 or 8, but the janitor? How does the content of the Wikipedia page advance his interests? It's not like a whitewashed article will improve his pay (unlike the sales staff's commission checks), his job prospects (unlike the CEO), or his work conditions (because people aren't going to stop making a mess in the staff kitchen as a result of a pretty Wikipedia article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Any employee, whether a janitor or a student-worker, risks reprimand or losing his or her job by writing adding content that might be seen as disparaging by the employer. That alone is sufficient to create a COI. And if the student worker has been hired by the university's PR department then that's even worse, as a future job reference or letter of recommendation could very well be affected by his or her editorial judgment. Besides, it would be overly intrusive to inquire into the details of an employee's compensation. Hence the bright-line rule of WP:NOPAY. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I was up until about 3 a.m. whipping up an AfC-like submission page for COIs to request corrections, contest unsourced material and (after reading some disclosures) offer content for consideration. It comes to mind that I've seen posts several years old where editors have pondered why this doesn't already exist and it seems like a no-brainer.

It needs some coding work before the forms would actually "work" but I would be interested in (a) anyone who can help code the forms and (b) any thoughts generally. CorporateM (Talk) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This is also being discussed here[6] and here[7], and perhaps others not on my watchlist. Coretheapple (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the idea was for any discussion to take place on the Talk page of the "Article" but I suppose discussions tend to get distributed. I posted on the Talk page of COIN, COI and Help. CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

and some user talk pages, I see. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi – I'm notifying people here that I work for Bell Pottinger (see my talk page for more info) and have proposed minor edits to a number of articles on behalf of my client, the Government of Serbia. Those articles are: Accession of Serbia to the European Union, Government of Serbia, National Assembly (Serbia) and Ivica Dačić. See the talk pages for details and feel free to chip in on any/all of these suggestions. Many thanks. Vivj2012 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing recently left a message on the COIN main page about the Wikipedia:Voice intro project. He suggested leaving the template ((Voice Intro Project invitation)) on COI editors' talk page to invite them to make a short recording to add their voice to an article.

I'd like to bring this up here because I think it's a great idea. Regardless of your feeling about having the recording available to readers (listeners?), I think it's a good way to show COI editors that while they may be crossing the line by editing their own article, we value the possibility of them being able to contribute to Wikipedia as an expert on the subject (I assume they're an "expert" on themselves).

This is probably jumping the gun as the project is very new but it seems logical to create a template that encompasses a COI warning and Voice Intro Project invite. That may be too much information to take in at once as a new editor but maybe not. Just thought I'd throw the idea out there and see what sticks. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; that was my thinking, too. Happy to answer any questions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see the relevant WP:AN discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#WMF cease and desist against WikiPR. Thanks Ross Hill (talk) 21:09, 19 Nov 2013 (UTC) 21:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the first instance of COIN being notified of what may be the biggest case of COI editing in Wikipedia history? I ask only because I want to assume it's not and that the searches I've done, missed something. If this is the first time, I can't help but be disappointed.

When I read about this case, up to that point, COIN had not been notified, even after the AN discussion called for all would-be-interested parties to be notified and the same discussion had been closed. Just to be as clear as possible, the noticeboard created to deal with conflicts of interest on Wikipedia, was not notified or consulted about perhaps the biggest case of COI editing in the history of Wikipedia. I guess we have nothing to offer to the situation? OlYeller21^Talktome 05:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally use the collapse instead of hatting. But in this case (the Gabriel COI) I hatted as that is certainly not a COI concern. But, as always, feel free to revert should anyone not agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

As some readers here may know, I operate a part-time consulting business helping companies manage their conflict of interest, behave appropriately and comply with Wikipedia's content standards, creating some GA articles in the process.

The area that I am asking for input is that I feel many of my volunteer edits create a high-probability of the appearance of conflict of interest. For example, there are sometimes cases where I have edited an article on an organization as a volunteer that by chance later becomes a client, or where I have improved articles on a particular company and later obtained a COI with a competitor. I also have multiple clients that compete with each other.

In some cases like Credit Suisse I obtained images and hard-to-access sources from the PR rep at the company. This doesn't seem problematic, but in other cases other covert paid editors have been disruptive to my editing or disclosed ones (or volunteers working with them) have asked for my help in my volunteer role, only to get upset when I do not make their desired edits. Others have asked for and praised my input on COI discussions in general, while at least one editor states I have a COI with any kind of Wikipedia policy and should abstain completely.

I write a lot of articles on PR topics, including PR orgs, but many of my clients are PR agencies that may compete with them (that may be a bit too many dots for any reasonable editor to convincingly connect).

The point is I am in a position where nearly anywhere I edit where I am not actually conflicted, could to a speculative editor create the appearance that I am and I'm not sure how to avoid it, though in most cases I think the community is pretty good at dismissing the nonsense COI accusations typically made by POV pushers anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 20:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

other covert paid editors have been disruptive to my editing Yes, I've noticed that it appears that a certain paid editor, who appears to have been banned a few years ago, has been targeting you now and again, and that you have also been targeted outside of Wikipedia, such as by disclosure of your real name, which is against Wikipedia rules. I can understand your concern about this. It's hypocritical and cynical that you have been targeted by competitors and would-be competitors. However, I think that you would do a great deal to defuse these attacks if you would list on your user page the articles that you have been paid to edit. That would alleviate a lot of the confusion that exists concerning areas where you have a COI and don't have a COI. You have a great deal on your user page, but the elephant in the room - the articles you are and were paid to edit - is not stated. You opine a good deal on COI editing, and yet make only rather frustratingly vague and uninformative statements about your own paid editing activity. Also, when you edit articles where you have a COI, it might also be helpful to other editors if you would disclose on a regular basis that you have a COI. As you know, paid editing is not contrary to Wikipedia rules, and disclosure to either editors or readers is not mandatory. However, by not providing disclosure you do open the door to the kind of attacks that I've seen. Just a friendly suggestion. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I use to maintain a list of COIs on my userpage, but this resulted in stalking and harassment. That user was eventually banned, but it was quite an ordeal. The same goes with disclosing my real-life identity, which led to off-wiki harassment on Twitter and other places quite some time ago. However, I will consider whether I should maintain a list again. I think I would have an easier time now getting an admin to deal with those types of situations. While I don't think it would alleviate the problem that any volunteer edit I am likely to make could create speculations about my motives, it could help. I have also become more consistent about Connected Contributor tags, after you brought to my attention that some disclosures were being archived. CorporateM (Talk) 23:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think transparency is definitely the answer in the particular circumstances that you describe. You say: The area that I am asking for input is that I feel many of my volunteer edits create a high-probability of the appearance of conflict of interest. For example, there are sometimes cases where I have edited an article on an organization as a volunteer that by chance later becomes a client, or where I have improved articles on a particular company and later obtained a COI with a competitor. I also have multiple clients that compete with each other. It's very difficult to address this in the abstract. What you've described is a natural byproduct of running a business of editing Wikipedia articles when your clientele is not known to editors without an extreme amount of research and combing through your edits. You can certainly continue to run your business without disclosing on your user page who your clients are, but to be frank it is hard to sympathize with an editor who does so and then runs into adverse consequences from lack of disclosure and transparency. Coretheapple (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A while back I listed myself at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation#Project participants as being willing to evaluate suggestions by paid COI editors, especially in the areas of engineering and technology. As a result I have made several edits suggested by CorporateM. In every case I carefully evaluated the suggested edit (perhaps asking for modifications) and only posted it when I felt that it met our standards for sourcing and NPOV. I have actually been accused of being a paid editor for this. I have been around long enough that such things don't bother me, and I will be happy to help in the future, but I am concerned that this sort of thing could lead to exactly what we don't want; paid COI editors not declaring their COI and editing under the radar. I think that we, as a community, need to be protective of anyone who follows the advice found in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem with editors saying they are paid editors on their user page, but not disclosing their clients, is that they're not transparent or open, but for all intents and purposes are doing little more than advertising their services. While some editors may indeed circle the wagons around such an editor, it leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Suspicions do develop about where their loyalties lie, what edits they do are paid and what are not, and these are natural and understandable. CorporateM asked for advice. I can't think of better advice than for him to be transparent. Our purpose here is to identify and deal with conflicts of interest, not to function as a Paid Editor Support Group. Coretheapple (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Consider this edit:[8][9] I made the edit, not CorporateM (although he did request it). I put my name on it, and I stand by the result. Also, it is in Category:Implemented requested edits, where you or anyone else can check it and others like it. Shouldn't I be the one doing the disclosing? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

although he did request it. Right, because he was (if I understand your implication, as he has made no disclosure on his user page) paid by Money Management International to make that edit. That's what I'm talking about. He asked what he can do to make himself more welcome at Wikipedia. It's simple: transparency. You or others putting the wagons in a circle and being a Paid Editor Support Group are going to make him feel better in the short term but are going to create resentment and, I suggest, fuel the kind of harassment he is getting from his competitors in the paid editing community, especially the one who was banned and has been outing him on an exterior website. Re the disclosure that I'm suggesting: this is not some kind of new frontier of conflict of interest disclosure. It's pretty basic and actually substandard by most standards because the reader is given no such disclosure. Only on Wikipedia, which is still in the Dark Ages of COI, would we be even having this conversation. Coretheapple (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The reader? Wouldn't the reader be someone who is reading our Money Management International page, and possibly looking at the edit history and talk page? Those pages clearly show who made the edit and who requested it. Please explain in detail how a user is expected to show up on CorporateM's user page without first seeing the page and looking up who made the edit. I can only think of one reason why anyone would want someone to list who his customers are in one central location, but I am going to assume good faith and assume that the obvious purpose has not occurred to you.

And by the way, please keep your snarky "putting the wagons in a circle and being a Paid Editor Support Group" comments to yourself. Just because we disagree about how to handle COI editors, doesn't mean you have to make personal comments. It does not strengthen your argument. Quite the contrary, actually. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Aren't we all here to help CorporateM and give him information and advice he can use? He asked for our help, and he got it from me and not, with all due respect, from you. The status quo is not working for him, if I understand his post correctly (and if it was working for him then I do not understand why he is posting here). Giving paid editors love and support and tenderness is not going to aid them in the kind of resistance they're getting for just the fact that they are paid editors, since virtually none (except for direct employees) state on their user pages who employs them. No amount of support in the world is going to make them more welcome. The paid editors who are make that disclosure do not have the problems that he articulates. If I am "User:JoefromAcme" there is no doubt that when I edit Acme or make a suggestion on Talk:Acme that I have a COI. CorporateM will find that the ambiguity and doubt that follows him will cease if he simply discloses as a few others have. You don't have to live with the consequences of his nondisclosure; he does.

To answer your first question, no, disclosing on their user page won't help the reader one bit. The reader will not look in the editing history and will not find his way to the user page. That's my point. We're talking about a level of disclosure that would not help the reader, but would help CorporateM and only CorporateM, by helping remove some of the resistance and contempt that he is getting. He asked for advice, not support. You're giving him the absolute opposite of what he needs, if he is going to be more accepted by the Wikipedia community, which I understand as being the issue here. You can't force Wikipedians to accept him or any other paid editor or any other editor, for that matter. Keep in mind how he concluded his post: The point is I am in a position where nearly anywhere I edit where I am not actually conflicted, could to a speculative editor create the appearance that I am and I'm not sure how to avoid it, though in most cases I think the community is pretty good at dismissing the nonsense COI accusations typically made by POV pushers anyway. To me, the answer being "transparency" is almost ridiculously evident. Coretheapple (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming, of course that what you think he needs is what he actually needs. You think that revealing his customers will help him. I think it will hurt him. Unlike you, I use my legal name (confirmed by the WMF) and have made my home address, phone number, and email address public. What I have not published is my customer list. He asked for advice, you gave it, and I think it was bad advice. I gave my advice, and you think my advice is bad advice. Then you started begging the question. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? Are you seriously suggesting that whether or not a paid editor discloses his clients is the exact same thing as a Wikipedian who is a tailor or shoemaker disclosing his clients on his user page? Are you joking? Coretheapple (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also curious to know why you think it's bad advice. I've encountered a lot of COI and paid editors. If I had to construct a graf, it would show a direct correlation between transparency and acceptance. The ones who disclose the most have the easiest time on Wikipedia, and have the added advantage of being able to openly advertise on Wikipedia and to work the system to their advantage, if they know how to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

We could ask some of them how they think listing their clients on their user page has worked out for them. My opinions on this are just theoretical, and unless you are a stealth paid editor (not even remotely plausible) so are yours. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not theoretical - I use to maintain a list of COIs and it directly resulted in stalking and harassment. Core, it seems like you are saying my disclosure is an advertisement, then are asking me for more disclosure, but in truth I think no matter how much disclosure I provide, you would still ask for more. I've invited you to my Talk page previously to discuss your concerns and not only did you decline my invitation, but you immediately followed it up by airing your concerns on more public pages. While I appreciate that you are making an effort to be polite, the fact that you are only willing to discuss it where other people are watching and without filing any kind of formal complaint gives me the impression that you are looking for attention/an audience. I understand that you may be frustrated because you feel strongly that you are correct and it feels like nobody is listening, so the reflex may be to grab a larger microphone and respond to every post. I think if you continue down this path, you will find yourself increasingly frustrated. People will listen even less over time because you are so aggressive about making sure they hear your perspective. My suggestion would be to take a step back, absorb other points-of-view and allow discussions to grow with a more diverse range of editor input. Contribute to Wikipedia in a manner you enjoy. CorporateM (Talk) 18:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually CM, I've been a bit concerned too. When I first encountered you, I assumed you were following the bright line because you seemed to be promoting it. Then I saw you were writing or rewriting articles for clients, and then I saw you indicate to Jimmy Wales that you only or mostly make minor corrections. [10] So any clarification would be helpful. Also is it not a bit problematic that you start editing articles as a volunteer, then take that person or group on as a client? That would make being neutral even harder than usual, if there was a feeling that business could come from every edit. Would it make sense to draw a bright line there, that once you edit something as a volunteer, you don't accept payment for it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm just trying to help you with the problem that you presented here. However, the fact remains that all of your problems stem from the fact that you are a paid editor. I genuinely believe that if you begin to be transparent about your activities - and you are not transparent in any way, shape or form - that you will have fewer problems than you have. However, that's just a suggestion. There is no proposal on the table to require paid editors to disclose their clients, and in one of your posts above you said you were considering it. I encourage you to do that. You are never going to get universally loved or even respected for your paid editing, and I think that that's something you have to accept. You have the upper hand, your business is sanctioned by Wikipedia, you have a lot of support. I also don't think it's realistic to expect that you will consistently be able to persuade people who respond to you on Jimbo's and other talk pages to "take it to the user page" just because you do not like what is being said in public forums about your business model and the techniques that you use and don't use in running your Wikipedia-based business. (And not just by myself. Jimbo Wales, 10/10/2013: "I agree that the practices that CorporateM is exploiting need to be addressed and are wrong"[11]) Coretheapple (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you are having issues with a particular editor, I would report them for wikihounding, however short of that by choosing to be a paid editor, you are also choosing to be monitored more closely to ensure you consistently and constantly abide by NPOV. Saying that your edits, volunteer are not, are being closely checked is a positive sign that the community is doing its job--watching for those with admitted potential weaknesses as neutral editors, and ensuring their impact on the encyclopedia is constructive. I would welcome the additional attention you are receiving, as it is a sign of a vibrant and dedicated community--the kind that can ensure the functionality of Wikipedia for years to come, and the health of Wikipedia is required for the health of your enterprise. The byproduct that comes from some of your edits not being COI-driven, is likely a higher burden on Wikipedia than yourself. By volunteer editing and simultaneously remaining a gun for hire, you are presenting Wikipedia with the task of monitoring a higher volume of edits than perhaps necessary. So anything you can do to ease that burden on the community is likely helpful. If you take that point of view, instead of viewing close-monitoring as something you shouldn't have to deal with, I think you'll see that the extra burden the monitoring adds to your business is a benefit to the community and not a problem within it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've struggled with this subject myself at times. I edit anonymously, I give sparse personal information about myself and I am careful about who I talk too off of Wikipedia. I try to be non-controversial as an administrator but people still get angry at me; my user page and talk page have been vandalized many times and I've had my edits stalked and undone out of resentment (that happened to me just days ago). I have a family in real life and who knows what kind of obsessed person might try to harm me or those close to me because of something silly like blocking them from editing an encyclopedia web site. So I can't criticize anyone for trying to protect their privacy. And if CorporateM has had actual stalking as a result of posting personal information I have to advocate that they maintain that privacy. I do think that SlimVirgin's concerns above are valid, and so are her suggestions. But whatever solution there is, I don't think it should include a sacrifice of privacy.

I do think that Jeremy112233 is also totally spot-on. One of the main reasons we have a COI noticeboard is to identify editors who require a closer scrutiny. That's the trade-off. That applies to both paid and unpaid editors who may have a conflict of interest. -- Atama頭 20:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I think sometime soon I will start working on putting together a list. I will have a few admins on speed dial when it results in harassment/stalking, but I will tolerate that repercussion as a necessary drawback to disclosure. To address user:Slimvirgin's concern, I will provide links next to each item on the list to a tool that shows the direct edits I have made, so it is easy for editors to verify the edits I have made directly are acceptable trivial edits (or not). I will also cut back on my editing on company articles and focus my volunteer edits on the many PR-related articles I want to improve, where COI accusations are less likely to occur, etc.

I think it is a delicate line. I do make routine announcements on my Talk page regarding articles where I have a COI for the explicit purpose of encouraging editors to stalk those contribs (constructively) and I have always been willing to accept the drawback of disclosure being that I am sometimes treated unfairly as a result, so I should continue to accept that trade-off. CorporateM (Talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Atama that you're not being asked to violate your privacy. I'm wondering whether listing articles you've been paid to work on would be privacy violating, if you stuck to that (I've just seen you add where you used to work, but I don't think you need to do things like that). Another option would be to create a second account that you only use when being paid. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting all. I've started working on a more comprehensive user profile, but it's 4 a.m. and time for me to turn-in. Of course my COI works go through a Bright Line review, followed by a GA review, but both are often drive-by, lots aren't GA yet, etc. so editors may feel compelled to check them out for themselves, or even stalk me with an interest in collaborating/being helping (I can hope). There's also some older ones that are not as good and I've started circling back to many of them to bring them up to GA. I will need to dig to find some articles where I have had a COI in a more historical manner.

Any additional feedback on my user page or otherwise is welcome! CorporateM (Talk) 09:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I like it a lot. I think it is a major step forward. Coretheapple (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi CM, re your question on my talk page, I said I'd reply here. My concern was that you seemed to say you make only minor edits, but at the same time appeared to be writing/rewriting whole articles. I think keeping a list of articles where you've contributed as a paid editor (whether directly editing the article or not) will help a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I'm assuming that this is a list of articles whose subjects have paid you, whether or not you've edited them directly. I've seen situations, not involving you, in which paid editors have posted on the Reward Board, offering cash rewards, in effect subcontracting out their work. With that caveat, I think that this kind of disclosure can be held up as an example of the kind of disclosure that is needed as long as we have paid editing. And if you are unfairly hassled as a result of this kind of disclosure I think you'll find that you get support from beyond the immediate circle of people who support paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification User:SlimVirgin. I presume you must be referring to Guthy-Renker last year. For background, you can see I was given the "go ahead" (Request Edit | G) template here and was told to make the edit at COIN here. You can also see the article before my involvement here. A lot of editors aren't comfortable with proxy editing, which is why I created the Request Edit G template so I could ask an editor for unambiguous approval that way.

If you are still concerned even knowing this context, then I think it would be worthwhile for us to consider nominating Template:Request_edit/proceed for deletion, if its use is improper. CorporateM (Talk) 02:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC regarding allowing role accounts Gigs (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)