Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 32

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34

Add something about not making groundless accusations of paid editing to this guide

As someone who occasionally edits pages related to corporations, it is surprising to me how often I see allegations of COI editing on these. Sometimes there are obvious good reasons for doing this, other times there is no more basis than "you wrote something non-negative about this company" or "You are editing a page on which COI editors have previously been active". This goes against WP:AGF and is a form of personal attack. We should have something here reminding people that whilst WP:DUCK is often a useful rule, they need at least some evidence before they start making allegations of undisclosed paid editing. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

+1, we should generally start the conversation with "apparent COI" rather than "paid editing", unless there are obvious cues about actual paid editing. --MarioGom (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. This could open up an opportunity for policy violators to wikilawyer how they were spoken to. That one should not do things groundlessly is pretty much common sense for anything on-wiki, and should not need to be spelled out. In the event of a good faith, but mistaken, accusation of COI, the best solution is an apology. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'm seeing editors in content disputes who casually toss out a demand that everyone who disagrees with them needs to declare that they don't have a conflict of interest. It is not "civil" behavior, in the sense that dropping a bomb like "Oh, by the way, could you please just declare for the record that you're not an alcoholic?" into the middle of a chat with someone at a party isn't civil behavior: it tends to destroy the fabric of the community. In the real world, that kind of behavior will get you swiftly uninvited from future parties, if your hosts have any sense at all. Here on wiki, we want to believe that you're being rude because nobody told you that it was rude to publicly accuse people of being untrustworthy, but the effects are the same: people feel insulted and degraded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Some Wikipedia editors seem to think that any undesirable behaviour needs to be spelled out in a guideline or in a personal warning before they can know that it's uncollaborative. In reality, just like every community out there (online or offline), we depend on people carrying forward the lessons they've learned in co-operative behaviour throughout their life experiences. It's infeasible to have guidelines covering every aspect of interpersonal behaviour, and no one would read it all if they did exist. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Could we please remove the word "stakeholder" from the definition of writing "about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship"? Stakeholder is far too vague a term to use here. Anyone who makes even a minor edit to an article about a business they buy from is required to disclose a COI under this definition. I would love to hear what everyone else thinks about this, thanks! GrammarDamner (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

A customer of a business isn't, for the purposes of determining a financial conflict of interest, generally considered a stakeholder vested in its success or failure. (There can be exceptions, such as certain domains where by their very nature, there are only a small number of suppliers and customers and so they thrive or fail together.) The idea is that someone who can directly benefit financially from the success of a company has a financial conflict of interest. isaacl (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that in the sentence This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder., "stakeholder" is vague and unhelpful. I would change it to say more specifically what we mean, which is probably something along the lines of "or otherwise receiving a financial benefit from the article subject". – Levivich 20:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps "stakeholder" doesn't need to be removed, but I think we could benefit by adding a short sentence to clarify this. GrammarDamner (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
"Otherwise receiving a financial benefit" may be too broad; this would include customers getting rebates, for example. I think the concept of someone with a personal stake in the success of the company is an important one to capture. isaacl (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Or perhaps "or otherwise benefiting materially in return for editing about the article subject"? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think that gets too much into paid editing territory, with direct compensation for the edit itself. Financial conflict of interest isn't so much transactional, but benefiting in general from a company's success. isaacl (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the sentence we are discussing is in the page section about paid editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know, but the sentences in question are: An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. The word "stakeholder" is being used to define an editor with a financial conflict of interest. isaacl (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Do we have evidence that this is an actual problem? Can someone find a couple of diffs showing that people actually think that if you buy anything off of Amazon that you have a conflict of interest for mentioning Amazon in an article, that if you have a computer from Apple or with Microsoft Windows on it, that you have a conflict of interest for articles about their products, etc.? It is theoretically possible to misunderstand just about any sentence in guidelines, so we normally only make changes when there is demonstrable evidence of more than one misunderstanding. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
See generally, [1] a general phrase like "or other stakeholder" is construed as limited to the types things in the specific list that came before. So, here "or other stakeholder" would mean "like" "an owner, employee, contractor, investor". Applying the guide of common sense ("How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense.") a customer is not generally like an "an owner, employee, contractor, investor" whereas, say, an uncompensated or compensated governing independent board member, or the heir to the fortune of the company, etc, would be. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Student of a school

Am I allowed to edit an article about a school that I am an alma mater of? Wei4Green · 唯绿远大 00:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

my understanding of the rules here are that being a student isn't really the same as being an employee. it's like living in a city vs being in the Mayors office 2601:190:400:3E40:950A:FDD5:3F84:DF4D (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

What about modern questions like an open source author adding technical details?

I was told by someone who works for a company and who is working on an open source project that it's a conflict of interest to edit the page that describes that project. I recently edited such a page and am not associated with the project, but it could be updated more quickly and accurately if people closer to the project did it directly. For such some of these endeavors, the people who are most familiar with them are those close to or involved in the project. I have also been told that it's OK for them to edit Wikipedia so long as they abide by these guidelines. But the guidelines are a little unclear on this, I think.

For an open source project, some of the edits can be about technical specifics or only about what the latest version contains, which is hard to spin, but useful to the public. If someone adds a note to update the page, those who can do it the fastest are those who know the project the best. There's a big difference between saying my product is the best, so buy it, and adding specs or updates about a collaborative, open source project because you know the project.

To be on the safe side they could just add to the Talk page. And Wikipedia is only for topics that are general-purpose enough that others will have interest, so eventually someone like me is likely to edit the page. But without their contribution, there is a greater chance that a page will be out of date or inaccurate for months at a time.

At the very least it might be helpful to include more guidance here about this. There is usually no direct financial incentive for describing the details of an open source project. But many of the people who use open source and are familiar with it are being paid to do software development, and in the course of that will contribute to the open source project. If we exclude everyone who does software for a living from contributing to the page, then it may not have the proper technical content.

I think that if the contributor uses journalist-style integrity and proper sourcing, then it shouldn't be a problem in many cases. He can cite an outside source, but summarize it better and tell the reader where to look to find that information. Then, worst-case, if someone else thinks that the edit is skewed in some way, he can edit it later.

I definitely understand being cautious about conflicts of interest, and I agree with that. I've just noticed here that there can be some unnecessary delays in providing what are basically objective facts if this policy is taken too far.

--100.4.149.195 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

100.4.149.195, your question touches on so many points not just COI.
  • "those who can do it the fastest are those who know the project the best" There's WP:NORUSH. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's not a How-To guide. It's not a software manual. It's just an encyclopedia. (WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:NOTMANUAL)
  • "in the course of that will contribute to the open source project" Bringing those contributions to Wikipedia would be original research. (WP:OR)
  • "no direct financial incentive" Conflict of interest is not confined to direct financial incentives. If JSON Meta Application Protocol becomes widely adopted, will there be a financial benefit to employees of Fastmail who are involved in the project? Better looking CV/resume? Higher salaries? The benefit isn't direct, it isn't immediate, but it's still there and it's real.
  • Once you know that part of the article has been improved by an involved person there's always going to be a niggling doubt that some unfavourable information may not have been added, and that Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) has not been maintained. The article may be factually better, but its impression be tarnished. Once it becomes commonplace, Wikipedia's impartiality and accuracy become less trusted, and the taint spreads.
There used to be a public health film which graphically showed an infection spreading, from someone coughing into their hand, then touching a phone or a doorknob, and the infection spreading to the next user of the phone or door. Conflict of interest is like that. It's a taint that spreads... one article has a connected editor, that subject area looks biased, and all of a sudden Wikipedia gets a name for being unreliable.
There's every reason that your acquaintance may want, with the best intentions, to contribute. And there's every reason that, as a wikipedian and for the good of the wiki, you should discourage them from doing so in an area where they have a conflict. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Should the "Making uncontroversial edits" section be considered an exhaustive list?

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits was made into an exhaustive list with this edit based on this rather short section: Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 21#Non-controversial edits. While I'm not sure that was the intent of Fuzheado's edit, it has stood for some time. Should the list at WP:COIU be considered exhaustive with respect to what may be considered an uncontroversial edit? –xenotalk 12:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the wording was revised further after the time of that edit. As of now, it also says: If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit. Unless I'm missing something, that should cover the concern, because it says "for any reason". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
The concern is that there may well be other types of edits that may be considered uncontroversial. Are such edits allowed? If so, the list is not exhaustive and should not be indicated to be such. –xenotalk 21:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see, I basically got your question backwards, sorry. So this isn't about whether something not listed could be objected to as controversial, but rather, whether something not listed could in fact be OK. I'd be very wary of saying anything like there may be other, unspecified, things that are OK, because that would open the door to a lot of gaming the system. As for specific things that could be added to the list, I can't think of any. I don't really see any harm in erring on the side of taking it to talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Scholia links

I am one of the developers of Scholia and control the https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/ webapp. The {{Scholia}} template here on the English Wikipedia can link to this webapp. I have added the template for a few articles, see, e.g., [2] and [3]. It is unclear to me whether such edits should be regarded as COI edits or in the vicinity of WP:SELFCITE? And if yes, how I should behave? — fnielsen (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This is kind of specialized subject. User:GerardM, do I recall correctly that you know a bit about Scholia's integration into Wikipedia? Can you provide some advice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Scholia provides information in a concise model and depending on what the subject is about it provides much more information than what we find elsewhere. I am adding all the members of the of the Academy of Science of South Africa, the information that is available in Scholia is much more informative. Both Reasonator and Scholia are updated on a near real time basis, there is also the Listeria list and its use is very much an aid that informs what info is available and if there is a Wikipedia article..
The best argument why you want to use Scholia is that it integrates data on subjects, authors, awards, organisations and papers.. There is more but this is what I can tell you about. Recently I added new members to the de Jonge Akademie and I looked at some of the awards, completed them and was really happy how it influences the Scholia for de Jonge Akademie. It follows that the information is not one dimensional. When new papers are added, when new co-authors are added, it results in changes in Scholia.
One really powerful argument for the use of Scholia is that it could include all the current references for a Wikipedia article. Better still it will also include all the references to a subject that is not reflected in an article. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Since the question here is about the possible conflict of interest, I would say that it only would be a problem if you were to derive financial or professional benefit from having more readers follow the link in the template – beyond it simply being a positive reflection on having the resource hosted on WMF servers. I think the fact that it is part of wmflabs makes it something that is not a COI, just as it is not a COI for an editor who has created a template to then put that template on multiple pages. But thanks for asking here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
And that's where it gets complicated. I leaning towards agreeing with you, and this is more or less the general consensus in academic publishing too... but as scholars, we have financial and professional benefit from research grants, and we now have one for Scholia. These grants do not directly benefit us (personally), but it cannot be denied that without these kind of grants we would not have the position we are in (so, not getting the grant causes a negative "benefit": we get fired/phased out). This is also why I have been hesitant in adding the Scholia template. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Those are interesting points, and I appreciate the carefulness. Does Wikipedia have any guidelines about the use of the template? If so, then I think using it in accordance with a guideline that is agreed-upon by the community is fine. If not, I would suggest starting a discussion about it, perhaps at Village Pump–Policy, and utilizing the consensus there as the determination of where the template should be placed, and by whom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Should I report jobs on Upwork requesting Wikipedia articles?

I work through Upwork as a MediaWiki developer, so I often see job postings requesting Wikipedia articles be created. I personally just ignore them, but maybe I should start flagging them as inappropriate, with a link to this page. However, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure says that paid editing is allowed as long as the editor discloses his or her employer. Or is it allowed only if not creating an article for the employer? Because the job postings almost always request an article be created. Can someone help me clarify the policy regarding paid article creation, so I can decide if to start reporting these kind of job postings? Thanks! Sophivorus (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sophivorus: most articles created through Upwork are promotional and/or created for undisclosed payments. Reports are welcome at paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. MER-C 05:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Organization open about long term misconduct

Status Labs, formerly Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Proposal at

Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Organization-specific wikiprojects?

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/National Science Policy Network.

I've said my piece on it, but others may have a different perspective.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with Vandalism

WP:FORUMSHOPPING (see Wikipedia:Help desk#Help with Vandalism)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


If any administrator is nearby, I need your help, this guy is vandalising the main Russia page and is spreading lies to the community. Can you send him a proper warning that if he does this again, can you block him? He consistently disputes with me about this until it turned from an argument to vandalism. I need admin help immediately, please respond.

I fail to see how this is vandalism. It's just a content dispute about a difference in population. Nothing to block anyone about. JIP | Talk 14:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irrevocable

Included in this guideline is the sentence "Content is irrevocably added with every edit.". In truth, no addition is irrevocable, and not very edit adds content. I suggest we delete that sentence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the founder and presumably organiser of a group, eg American Descendants of Slavery considered a paid editor or just one with a COI?

Before I nag him again I want to be sure what I'm doing. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on updating the paid editor page in the Article Wizard

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Article_wizard#Updating_Paid_COI_page_of_the_wizard. Sdkb (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Question about a possible COI on my part

A great grand uncle by marriage (my great grandfather's brother-in-law) has an article devoted to him, one which was not started by me. Neither he nor my great grand aunt are still living, nor did I ever know them. Would it be a violation of COI if I added her name and relevant dates to his article as his spouse (edit: using reliable third party references, of course), and would previous edits to the article on my part require a declaration of COI? —DocWatson42 (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It never hurts to put your relationship on the record via a quick note on the article's talk page. You don't mention what your earlier edits were, but the ones you describe should be uncontroversial and you should just go ahead. Just make sure your sources are RS. (A lot of those genealogy sites are user-generated.) EEng 00:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
I wanted an opinion before revealing who the person was. The article is Harry Ferguson, who made the modern tractor practical; here are my edits. The reference is:
  • Fraser, Colin (1998) [1972]. "Chapter Four: Independence and Marriage". Harry Ferguson: Inventor and Pioneer. Ipswich, England: Old Pond Publishing. ISBN 9781910456859. OCLC 966391990. See pages 25–29 of the 1998 paperback reprint of the 1972 hardcover.
I posted my relationship on the article's talk page, and also added his NYT obituary. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Authorship Question

I have a question that comes from my review of a draft paper. By the way, the paper is Draft:Copy Detection Pattern. The author of the draft has provided a conflict of interest declaration because he is the author of some papers that are cited in the draft. The papers appear to have been published in academic proceedings, so that this appears to be a case of someone providing Wikipedia with a draft article about which they are an expert, and I don't think that there is any other conflict of interest. So it appears that the author is being careful, and that the conflict of interest is one that may be beneficial rather than harmful to Wikipedia. What does anyone else think? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

How to declare a COI

I was asked about the proper way to disclose your COI, went here, and... as far as I can see, the section "How to declare a COI" gives zero mandate to actually tell an editor to explain HOW he's connected to the subject. He just needs to "declare a COI" (slap a template somewhere) in regards to the subject. He can (or should?) leave out anything about the nature of that COI?!?

Bullet point 1 on this page (WP:COIDEC) does say Insert relevant affiliations, disclosures, but that seems circumventable by simply opting for choice 2 or 3 instead. I guess there's this (here WP:PSCOI#Advice): Being transparent about who you are and who you're working for is the easiest way to gain the community's trust, get help, and avoid embarrassing revelations of misconduct. Clearly state your background and goals on your userpage, but that is nowhere to be found on this page. I'm not trying to game the system here, but I guess I'm confused by how the guideline doesn't speak up. Is there a reason we keep mum on this? Or has years of editing just made it fall off?

Is this accidental? Then we need language that actually tells the editor to explain his or her COI declaration.

Or maybe it's intentional? If so, shouldn't we say so clearly? "You must declare a COI but you are not required to give out any details".


Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no consensus to compel a non-paid editor with a conflict of interest to disclose personal information, beyond the existence of a conflict of interest. isaacl (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we distinguish between paid editing - that requires the editor to reveal personal details - and COI editing which includes paid editing but doesn't require specific details to be included. While personally I'm opposed to requiring any disclosure of personal information (for paid editors or otherwise), I would argue that we all have COIs because of things outside of our immediate control (jobs unrelated to WP, relationships, etc) but paid editing is something in our control. Thus with paid editing you can choose not to engage in it, and therefore choose not to provide personal details, while can't choose to have or not to have COIs. - Bilby (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Does being a shareholder create a COI?

Does being a shareholder in a company create a COI? This came up with Springee. To me, if one has positions long or short in a specific company that creates a clear COI and if disclosed or known would indicate one should not edit the relevant article directly. I would not take this as far as owning a fund of some sort that happens to include a company as one of many because that is a more generalized or abstract interest. Nearly everyone in the US arguably has some interest in the Dow going up. That's not specific. If you personally stand to significantly benefit (Springee said they have 100 shares of Grumman) from the stock going up or down how can you impartially edit the article? This is the same as editing the article of a company you own entirely, or that you work for, or etc., in my book. Clarification welcome. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

DIYeditor, thanks for asking this question. For discussion purposes I will offer my opinion but like DIYeditor I'm interested in the views of others. In looking at the COI page it's not clear to me how being a minor shareholder would apply in a case like this. COI states, "When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." That part seems reasonable. If I have an external relationship that undermines my ability to constructively contribute to an article I have a COI. So what causes a COI? That's harder per COI. "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. " So this could mean that anyone who is a Democrat or a Republican should not be allowed edit an article that is related to Democrats or Republicans. That's probably taking things to an illogical extreme and certainly we see many cases where editors write about "the other side" in a way that suggests they want the reader to dislike the subject of the article as much as they appear to. So what about my "100 shares of Grumman" (please note I deliberately picked a stock that no longer exists as my example)? First, absent insider information, how much impact could I have on the stock via edits to the article? If the material I add is both WP:V and WP:DUE then it would be well known to stock traders and thus should have no impact to my holdings. Also, as a minority share holder how much could I possibly expect to be able to move the market? What if instead of individual shares I had a mutual fund (say my retirement account) that included Grumman shares (again if it did I've got a crappy mutual fund)? Springee (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Please do not restore material that I deleted before you were able to respond. I deleted it because it is clearly stated: This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. There could not be a more clearcut example of a COI IMO. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
It also clearly states "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. " As I said above, should anyone who is a registered Democrat or Republican be barred from editing any article about any candidate from either party? I would think common sense would say a small time shareholder is different than a major shareholder. I believe the SEC does have laws regarding what it sees as COI when discussing investing though I don't know them in any detail. Certainly there is a difference between being an insider or a major holder vs John Q Public who owns a few shares. Since this came up in context of the Tesla article should all editors who want to edit that article be required to say they have no association with the company? No fiscal ties and don't own a vehicle (the value of the vehicle would presumably change if the company's fortunes went south)? This really is a question regarding how big an interest vs any interest. Springee (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Imagine if someone reviewing products owned shares in the companies making the products they review. Reputable reviewers are explicit that they do not do this. Or if someone giving stock advice was long or short in the stocks they are promoting or advising against? 100 shares of Northrup-Grumman would be $32,000. This is hardly "it makes up 0.01% of my retirement in some fund or portfolio I'm only vaguely aware of the contents of". It could not be more clear that if someone is shorting Telsa (the example that gave rise to this) they should not be anywhere near its article. So the opposite must be true as well, if they are long on Tesla they should not be anywhere near its article. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I used Grumman specifically because it no longer exists. The current value of Northrup Grumman is irrelevant since this is a hypothetical question. As for the Tesla question, it was the site owner of the potential source that had an interest in Tesla. No editor had said they have a fiscal interest one way or the other. But if that is a specific disqualifier for potential sources then Cleantecnica and Elektrec need to be removed as they do have specific fiscal interests. Springee (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, in the context of "stock advice" you should ALWAYS assume that the person giving you the advice is invested in the outcome. Practically everyone on the internet (and most people in real life) who are hyping up or talking down a certain stock has an interest in wanting it to go up or down. It's not unusual in that context. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
You raise a very interesting point and the definition of "financial conflict of interest" is ill-defined here. Most people would probably agree that someone who has 50% of their net wealth in Widgets corporation shouldn't edit the article on that, but what if its only 0.2% of my portfolio? Or if I'm holding a mining ETF perhaps I shouldn't edit mining related articles? Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Page Edited By Warren Bradley

I have this evening attempted to edit my personal Wikipedia page, which is malicious and was originally set up by a third party who had a political/personal gripe with me! If the editing of the page isn’t allowed I want the page REMOVED, as is my right by law. I would appreciate your immediate attention to this request! Warren2922 (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

COI in my field of work?

I work in theatre, which is a very small world. I'm likely to be connected, if only through friends of friends of friends, to a significant proportion of the subjects of contemporary theatre articles, at least in Danish- and English-speaking countries. I haven't significantly contributed to any theatre articles yet, but I've joined Wikipedia:THEATRE and WP:MT, and am about to inflate a theatre-related stub. I'm likely to be motivated to make contributions in that area. Please advise on the best and most open process for editing / AfC'ing / declaring? I have read the COI pages, but am not sure where to draw the lines in this instance. Am happy to just regard any theatre similarly, if that's the best way? Thanks for advice. -- BessieMaelstrom (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You should declare a COI if you currently work for a theater company and want to edit that company's page as part of your job. If you want to edit pages about friends, I would say that it's fine as long as you're aware that you may have bias about the subject. If one of the subjects of a page you want to work on was involved in a scandal, you might want to ask a friendly fellow Wikipedia editor if it should be included on the page. If you're not being paid to edit a page, I don't think you have to declare a COI. If you want to be open about your theater connections, you could mention them on your user page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on tagging BLP with template messages signaling COI and OWN

There is an RfC on the following link: Talk:Boris_Malagurski#RfC_on_Template_messages_and_Article_sections. It concerns dispute over tagging the BLP article with template messages which point to the possible COI and OWN issues that plagues the article for more than a ten years.--౪ Santa ౪99° 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

List of individual ideas to combat Undisclosed Paid Editing

I've created a summary list of various ideas to combat UPE that have been proposed, mooted, rejected and so-on.

It's currently at an add-on/idea stage, more details on which can be seen at the page. Please feel free to add your own, tweak the summaries or leave an initial comment on the idea (any that are universally panned will be filtered out before taking forward to RfC).

Many of the proposals are deliberately not fully formed, to avoid submitting an unwieldly large amount of policy thoughts all at once. Proposals passed by the community that need further details (such as a "mystery-shopper" counter-UPE method) would be expanded by those interested and resubmitted on its own.

Please invite anyone you think might be interested. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding an unofficial summary just above the guideline

Hi all!

The guideline is somewhat long. Various user warning templates link to it, but I think it may be difficult for brand-new Wikipedians to understand. I think it makes sense for us to offer a short unofficial summary, in order so that new Wikipedians can more easily know what to do. I think that adding a summary might improve compliance with the guideline.

Per WP:PGBOLD, I added a summary to the top of the guideline. (Diff.) Soon after, ThatMontrealIP reverted me. Despite the fact that WP:PGBOLD asks him to give a substantive reason for reverting me, he didn't really do so.

Dear ThatMontrealIP: I assume you probably disagree with my reasoning above. If so: why?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a nice idea but I agree with MontrealIP that it is a bit strange to put the unofficial version before the official one. This page isn't designed purely with new editors in mind and neither should it be. Also, we already have Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide hatlinked - should we maybe make this more prominent and link to it from the {{nutshell}}? SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that the guideline is confusing to new editors. However in terms of this edit, I reverted it because first, as it says in the header, Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. Second, we already have what you were trying to do, in the form of the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. What your edit did was basically add a set of unofficial points followed by the established guideline, which makes the page more confusing: First, the unofficial summary... The above unofficial summary is not part of the official guideline below. The edit deleted the lede that summarized the guideline, and replaced it with your own disclaimer-framed short guide to COI. I'll leave it for other editors to comment. (Also, small note but the bold on strongly discouraged isn't needed: and WP:MOS suggests we don't use bold for emphasis in that way.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Unforgettableid's edits appear to make the assumption that COI editors are too stupid to understand the guideline. Also, if a user is reading the "guideline", placing an "unofficial summary" at the top of the guideline will likely confuse readers, not help them. "Here is the official guideline, but first, the unofficial guideline". It just looks kinda sloppy. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Magnolia677: What if we keep the summary on a different page, but we put an obvious link (not just a hard-to-notice hatnote) somewhere within the lead section? I could add the link. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Unforgettableid: We already have the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide; what you are proposing duplicates that page. I'd support making the link to the plain and simple guide clearer, as SmartSe suggests above. What would you think of that?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear ThatMontrealIP: This would be a good idea. Let's not link to it from the {{nutshell}} template; let's link to it from the main text of the lead section. Ideally, please don't do this yourself; please let me do it, a bit later on. Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure. Let's get consensus on that first.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
There's a link to the plain and simple guide in the hatnote at the top of the guideline? How much easier could it be? More important... why? Imagine the COI editor. They are either completely naive, and enter obvious COI stuff about themselves or their garage band. Then along comes another editor who tags their talk page. Same deal with a less-naive COI editor. Their talk page gets tagged, and they have been warned. Why make so much effort to simplify the COI guideline? Anyone who ends up there has been caught, and the naive newby will make the effort to find out what they did wrong, although it's usually unbelievably easy to figure it out just from the warning on their talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Magnolia677: A) How much easier could it be? Well, there could be a bold link in its very own paragraph in the prose part of the lead section. B) Why? Well, naive COI editors may get a talk page message which sends them to WP:COI. They'll know they did something wrong. But there are quite a few of rules for COI editors, and they have to read a lot of the guideline to learn them all. Some new editors may not bother, and may give up. If we include a prominent link from WP:COI to WP:BPCOI or WP:PSCOI, they can learn a good summary of the rules in much less time. This may reduce the chances that they'll give up on their reading and know none of the rules. ❧ In short: The guideline is like an official user manual, sprinkled with legalese jargon, that many people won't bother reading. A summary "quick-start guide" would be better for most newbies. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear ThatMontrealIP: A) It's true that one of the header templates does say that substantive edits should reflect consensus. B) It's also true that WP:PSCOI already exists. C) I didn't delete the lead section; I moved it downwards into a new "Introduction" section. D) MOS:BADEMPHASIS indeed says not to use bold for emphasis, as it's too distracting. Matthew Butterick, on the other hand, points out that, when using a sans-serif font, italics don't stand out enough. In practice, WP:COI does use bold for emphasis. Also, I don't think the MOS is mandatory for guidelines, or in fact for any part of project space. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We already have a lead and a {{nutshell}} that summarises this policy. Then there's also WP:PSCOI and numerous message templates that explain it in various levels of detail for new editors. Adding yet another resume makes it less clear, not more. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Help me

I need someone who can help my client create a wikipedia page he is a public figure how much will it cost me Emmanuel Enoch Iroegbu (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It will cost you nothing because we do not accept such articles. Whether you client is a public figure or not they must qualify for an article under the Notability criteria. "Notability" on Wikipedia means something slightly different from its meaning in regular English. Instead of "worthy of notice" it means "has generated notice in third-party reliable sources". Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. If your client is actually notable, then an article will likely be created by an independent person. If you want to speed the process, you can try to request an article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

What comes next for non-responsive editors after a COIN discussion?

The "How to handle conflicts of interest" section of this guideline appears to be missing a crucial step: What can or should happen if an editor is discussed at COIN but he or she does not reply and continued editing? Is that editor free to ignore the discussion and any questions while they continue editing articles? If so, that is an egregious hole in our COI policies and practices as it allows an editor to easily sidestep them without any consequences.

I recommend adding language to this guideline that specifically addresses this. It appears that adding Template:Uw-paid1 is the first thing that should be done in this instance as that template tells the editor to cease editing until they answer the question. If they continue to ignore the discussion and the template(s), the next likely step is to open a discussion at WP:AN linking back to the COIN report and explicitly asking an administrator to block the editor until he or she replies to the query. This general concept - giving editors the ability to stop another from editing until they answer a specific question - does run the risk of becoming harassment but I trust that administrators can deal with that. ElKevbo (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of guidelines where if you ignore them a couple of times and refuse to explain your actions, you'll likely find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. I don't see any reason that this guideline should be any different, except that it has a policy WP:PAID behind it, which means it should be more strictly enforced. Sure, we can set out requirements such as "you should fill out the required templates", but don't let those additional requirements weaken the enforcement - if you are ignoring the guideline you're likely engaging in disruptive editing and can be blocked immediately. No need to go to WP:AN, as far as I see it, any admin can block somebody for repeated disruptive editing.Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes but how are editors who are trying to follow the advice in this guideline supposed to know all of that? It just says "report them to COIN" and the advice ends there. How are editors expected to find and ask an admin to block someone? ElKevbo (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The wording of some of the template messages should also be strengthened. Template:Coin-notice, the standard COIN notification, says "There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you." That doesn't even ask the editor to join the discussion. Template:Uw-coi is also worded in a way that does not require a reply from the recipient. TSventon (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Another issue is single purpose accounts who edit occasionally and then don't edit for months or years. They may well not see any COI or paid editing messages until much later and may not actually read their old messages when they log in again. TSventon (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Well if they don't edit for months or years then there's no disruption and no problem. If they don't read their messages upon returning there is a problem. However, in that case they're not going to be able to find the long archived thread (as I presume they aren't using something like User:SD0001/find-archived-section.js). So it would probably make sense to change the template wording slighty, as you've identified. That still leaves the discussion issue lingering. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Articles that are edited without proper disclosure will be removed unless adopted by a responsible editor; people who violate the policies after a warning will be blocked. Just as now---the proposals here are designed to provide a more systematic and effective way to find and deal with them. A deleted article can be rewritten by an editor without POV. A blocked editor who decides to comply can appeal the block; I would normally grant such an appeal--the first time. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
"Articles that are edited without proper disclosure will be removed unless adopted by a responsible editor" No they won't, because there is - rightly - nothng in our deletion policy allowing for that. As I said above, we do not use deletion as a punishment, and nor should we start to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Mandatory user page disclosure

I am wondering what everyone thinks of making COI disclosure on one's user page mandatory? Based on my experience at WP:COIN, the problem with having three different methods of disclosure is that when a serial COI editor is found, without a user page disclosure it can take hours to track down all their COI contributions. At the moment, the latitude given for disclosures makes ample space for hiding disclosure. An editor might, for example, just put "I Have COI", or "I know them" or "this is about a friend" in the edit summary, thus satisfying the disclosure requirements. Or they might tag the talk page as connected contributor. All of these are hard to find when, for example, someone on a mission to document their family history is found. Having the user page list of COI articles as standard would clarify the process a lot, and perhaps make it more viisible when someone is on a bit of a COI binge.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

ThatMontrealIP, I think your idea is an excellent one. Let me suggest some enhancements to your idea, which I think make it even better. We could make two new rules.
The first new rule:
And the second new rule:
  • If some, but not all, of your edits are COI edits: You must provide us with a list of affected articles somewhere on your user page. You can do so either inside or outside the userbox template.
Once the new rules become final, perhaps:
  • We could make a small tweak to the navigation-popups gadget. When you hover over an affected user's username, the hover popup could show the text "COI" or "Paid" next to the user's edit count.
  • And, if all of a user's edits are COI or paid, we could tweak the MediaWiki software to automatically add "(COI)" or "(paid)" to their signature.
Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC); edited 08:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that would be helpful. I work at a university library editing Wikipedia. Are all my edits COI? Are my edits on historical figures with ties to the university COI? What about edits on individuals whose only tie is that their papers are in our archive? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Rachel Helps (BYU):
Which of your edits are COI? Dunno. It's a gray area.
We could exempt all GLAM editors from having to provide a list of COI articles (and maybe we could also exempt all Wikipedians-in-residence). You could simply add {{UserboxSomeEditsCOI}} to your userpage and then return to your usual routine.
We're not actually worried about GLAM editors here. Instead, we're worried about other COI editors, such as Greghenderson2006.
Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm okay in favour of the userpage bit (there's probably a few editors with a broad set who would need a "I have COIs, please click this link for a subpage listing all of them"). I'd be okay with the paid hover popup addition but it seems to discourage the COI declarations if it's always going to be associated with their popups, for eternity. Now if you could find a way to limit it so that it only appear on popups if you happened to be on that page/its talk page that would be phenomenal and really beneficial. But otherwise I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nosebagbear: Fair point. On second thought: Let's show the popup message only if all their edits are COI or paid. If only some of their edits are COI or paid, let's not show any popup message at all. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a very good idea. I help a friend out with his aquarium shop and have added my own COI statement to my user page as I have created some articles about bettas. It would be best for everyone who may edit in a particular space but has even an unpaid COI should disclose it on their user page. A standardised template would be very helpful! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

What if a person does volunteer work?

An editor complained here about being called a "paid editor". This person was doing the editing as part of a volunteer job. Is there a solution that includes people doing Wikipedia editing as part of a job they are not being paid for?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, there is usually going to be a conflict of interest, but I assume you are asking if WP:Paid editing disclosure applies. I think the phrase money or other inducements (emphasis mine) applies. MOST people get something out of doing volunteer work, whether it's a good feeling, the feeling of fulfilling a moral obligation, prestige or avoiding the shame of being "selfish," personal contacts ("networking"), fulfillment of a court or other obligation, etc. There are a few times when there might not be any conflict at all. For example, if your social club voted to do a one-time project with Habitat for Humanity, and you only participated that one time, AND you didn't get any ongoing benefit from that experience that would put your interests in conflict with Wikipedia's, then you aren't a "conflicted editor."
There is also the issue of people who volunteer with galleries, libraries, art, and museums ("GLAM"). I'm not sure if there are any exceptions to the paid editing disclosure rules or the conflict of interest rules for GLAM editors, but to be on the safe side, I would encourage editors to disclose conflicts of interest and "paid" editing "for other inducements." In fact, the GLAM "beginners guide" specifically says you should declare your affiliation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Taking "other inducements" to mean "good feeling / moral obligation / prestige" etc, and thus PAID applies, is a stretch. It is almost certainly referring to other equitable benefits, such as a car, gold, stock, etc. Not "good feeling". To answer the question, paid editing does not apply, but they still have a COI. There are no formal obligations as such, but it would be recommended for them to follow the COI recommendations when making edits to such articles. Nevertheless, if the company 'volunteered' for is in a spammy area and very for-profity (eg your example, asset management) the assertion of volunteering may be dubious, and an admin may decide (particularly if the contributions are quite problematic) to take intervention. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Vchimpanzee, if they were doing the editing as part of the volunteer work it is classified as WP:PAID per Interns, on-loan staff, and unpaid workers, including volunteers, are deemed to be employees. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of their tasks, they must make a paid-contribution disclosure.. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
In the example, though, it is not clear if they were editing as a requirement of their volunteer work, or by "volunteer work" they meant their volunteer work as an editor of Wikipedia. I'm inclined to AGF and assume that latter. - Bilby (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Bilby that in this particular case, based on the messages at the present time, the sense I'm getting is that "volunteering work" referred to volunteering to edit Wikipedia on their own initiative. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I saw "volunteering work" and just assumed.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Policy changed to be against WP terms of use

This doesn't look right: Pigsonthewing has changed some of the must/should requirements for paid editing. Notably they have changed "must disclose" on talk page/user page/article to "should". That seems to be the opposite of what the Wikipedia terms of use says: "You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways..." I was going to revert at least the first instance, but first let's see what others say.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

If the WMF TOU say, "at least one of the following ways" then the paid editing section should be consistent. I'd suggest a rewording of the this page to reflect just that - a list of options. Saying you "must make the disclosure on your user page, on affected talk pages, and whenever you discuss the topic" as a string of AND conditions is not logically consistent with the TOU which is a list of OR conditions. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I was bold and used the exact wording from the Terms of Use [4] -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: I don't think that's the intention of this section as it is trying to go further than what the ToU demand. i.e. you "must" make a disclosure in some form, but you "should" make the disclosure whenever appropriate. SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The current wording is what was there before it was changed by DGG in May: [5]. The ToU require a disclosure is made somewhere and only once, not that you must disclose it every time and in every place. Personally I think this is a weakness of the ToU rather than this guideline, since to be compliant with the ToU, making a mention of being paid once in an edit summary is sufficient. SmartSE (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
My "change" simply reverted some of those made earlier this year, with no discussion, one of which is contested in the above RfC. You'll note that my edit summary said "rv changes that were undiscussed; some currently discussed on talk page". The claim "changed to be against WP terms of use" in your subject heading is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
the tou is is the minimum wording. We have the right to adopt stronger requirements, and, as the Wikipedia project most under attack from paid editing, need to do so. We could , for example, ban all paid editing altogether. , or ban in in certain subjects, or require every paid editor to get pre-approval before writing an article. The only thing we can not do is to not require them to disclose at all. As for the merits, I think we should at the very least require disclosure at every possible place, so that user may be warned. What possible reason would we have for not doing so? The WMF does not make our rules, though in a few cases it has made minimum rules that all wikis must follow, such as the CC license , and avoiding libel , all or almost all of which are very widely accepted here, as they must be. In most cases, we go considerably beyond their minimum. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Although technically we can layer on additional restrictions on disclosure, personally I feel it would be more straightforward to actually enact an alternate alternative paid contribution disclosure policy if the additional restrictions are significant. This would simplify documenting the disclosure requirements, thus making them easier for newcomers to understand. isaacl (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
> The only thing we can not do is to not require them to disclose at all.
DGG, are you sure about that? Are you saying that c:Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy is invalid? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I presume DGG was speaking in the context of complying with the policy defined in the terms of use, and not enacting an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, as described in the terms of use. isaacl (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Or What? Actually, DGG's "the tou is is the minimum wording" is sub-minimum, because it is missing the "or what". A "must" must be couple to a consequence of failure, or it is inadequate rhetoric, or a bluff. See WT:Deletion policy/Archive 48#Undeclared Paid Editor (UPE) product where I think it is confirmed that ignoring the tou is not even a reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    • "...ignoring the tou is not even a reason for deletion" Good. We don't use deletion as a punishment, nor should we start to do so. I also note that it appears that some people in that discussion falsely believe that all UPE is advertising, and that all UPE is vandalism. What nonsense. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
      • The or what? above made a subtle switich. DGG said that we must enforce the requirement to disclose. The or what? is obviously that the undisclosed paid editor is blocked. They have no right to edit here per the ToU. The switch was to something about article deletion, which is irrelevant to what DGG was saying. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
        • The undisclosed paid editor is blocked? An account is blocked. A throwaway account is blocked? On discovery, on being asked a few simple questions, they never edit again anyway. This is a complete pretence. If their product can’t be deleted, their is no downside for them. The “must” is toothless. You may as well just say “please”. Or find a way to limit throwaway accounts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not concerned with punishing anyone, on or off WP. I'm concerned about keeping promotionalism and other junk out of WP, and almost all paid editing fits both terms. The way to keep it out is to delete it, the way to prevent the same person inserting more is by blocking and looking for sockpuppets. Neither procedure is always effective, but it's way better than giving up. It's not practical to enforce all rules, but it is still necessary to have them, to set the norms against which behavior can be measured. Most of the tou, if it comes to it, makes requirements that we and the foundation cannot effectively enfroce, but we still need them to set the expectations. "Must" is the least ambiguous term to use in doing this. Anyone who had worked with disruptive editors will have seen them arguing "you didn't say I couldn't do it, only that I would be advised not to"--the time has come to end this excuse. It is true that what we do is what matters, not what we say, but we need to word things to be as clear as possible, as abackup and defense and explanation when we;re challenged-- especially when we're dealing with people in the UPE rings whose profession is based upon prevarication and deception.
    Remember , that many coi UPE are not professionals, but PR agents associated with the companies or universities. Most will not deliberately lie and break the rules. In my field, I can usually tell the difference between the total incompetence of the rings and the totally unencyclopedic but grammatical style of the PR people. I. usually handle things a little differently, because there's no point in explaining things to the people in the rings, but there is to people who id not realize they were going about things wrongly. Other fields will vary, but we always going to be dealing with both. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Thank you for clarifying that not all paid editing is "promotionalism" or "junk". I'm sure that we can all agree that (notable and cited) content that is not "promotionalism" or "junk" should not be deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, I meant just the opposite. All paid editing I have seen is inherently promotional , even though it be done with the intention of just providing information. . The problem I call attention to is that in some fields, we will have to move carefully in not removing existing content. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
        • You now seem to be leaping from "All paid editing I have seen is inherently promotional" to "All paid editing is inherently promotional". In doing so, you could not be more wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Changes to WP:PAID being discussed at the village pump

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 65#Volunteers must declare that they are paid? about a recent edit that restored the April 2019 version of the Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation" section of WP:PAID. – Joe (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

As I have also pointed out to you elsewhere, the discussion is in fact about the edit I reverted, which made a change to this policy, such that it asserted that "volunteers are deemed to be employees". I did not "restore the April 2019 version" of the section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Cunninghams

The Cunninghams is our article with the oldest transclusion of {{COI}}; it was first tagged in August 2008 (yes, over twelve years ago). I removed the tag on the basis that the conflicted editor has not edited the article since 20 August 2008‎‎ (and not substantively since 31 March that year - again, over twelve years ago); and that since then, well over twenty other people (not including bots) have edited the article.

Furthermore, the requirement for "a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article" was (and apart from a repetition of the assertion of CoI, is still not) met.

The tag has been restored to the article. Should it be there, and if so, what is needed for its removal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Did you mean to post this at COIN? It doesn't seem relevant to this page. SmartSE (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, and there's already a discussion about it at Talk:The Cunninghams. – Joe (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
More fundamentally, I'm far from convinced that this band is, or ever really was, notable. Nominated for AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_32&oldid=1045696438"