Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest

This page is for discussing edits concerning the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy page. For assistance with concerns about an article relative to this policy please utilize the conflict of interest noticeboard.

• Wikipedia talk:Vanity guidelines/Archive 1
• /Archive2
• Premerge talk page of third section
• /Archive3

"Unintended consequences" section

Hi.

I saw something disturbing here: "If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to delete it or to control its content. " So what?! If I make a total vanity article about myself that obviously cannot satisfy WP policy, I have "no right" to delete it?! If I go out of my way and delete it could I be banned?!?!?!?! This is WRONG! 70.101.145.209 08:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This refers to the fact that all submissions are under GFDL and the contributor does not have the legal right to withdraw his submission. It has nothing to do with being banned. WAS 4.250 08:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I see that sentence is ambiguous. What it means is that we are not obliged to delete things just because you want us to. Of course deletion of such an article can be proposed via the regular channels by anyone, including you, as long as that person has a plausible reason (such as "cannot satisfy WP policy"). (Radiant) 10:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If you aren't an administrator, it's hard to delete something. Also, that wouldn't get you a ban, as they are only handed out for extremely severe violations. As above, this just means that once something is submitted, it's out of your hands and can be edited, added to (in ways you might not appreciated), or deleted. 68.39.174.238 02:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Exceptions

There have to be some exceptions to this: e.g. should I not revert vandalism if I see someone replace the page of another competing charity with "blah blah blah" etc. Of course I should. I guess it is a guideline like all guidelines and I have to be prepared to take the consequences (particularly the balance of proof being against me in any dispute) if anyone else ever complains or objects (which they haven't). --BozMo talk 09:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Indeed, as you say, a guideline is not law, and you can do as you think best and accept the consequences (we even have a policy stating so, WP:IAR). Reverting vandalism is useful even on an article from a competing business (indeed, reverting vandalism is exempt even from the WP:3RR). Nobody's likely to object if you fix typoes either. You should probably avoid changing the tone or content of such articles, though, and Wikipedia has plenty of places to request outside opinion if you need it, e.g. WP:3O. (Radiant) 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  However, remember that if one does not actually have the intent to create bias -- remember, a "conflict of interest" depends on intent, then one can edit whatever the want. If onereally tries to follow NPOV and all other relevant policies, I would seriously doubt one could be "arrested" for "violating" a guideline like this. 74.38.35.171 22:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Bias is only equivalent to intent if you have perfect self-awareness, and demonstrably most of us do not. Some of the most obviously POV writing on wikipedia comes from people who sincerely believe that they are unbiased. Moreover, C.O.I. questions are procedural. When someone looks at a collaborative effort like a wiki page or a parlimentary vote, they do not want to pick through everyone's independent motives and whether or not so-and-so was really trying hard to overcome their biases. They just want to know that participants with potential C.O.I. abstained. Ethan Mitchell 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved here from BLP talk

(below moved from subsection called "BLP policies regarding edits by paid assistants of the subject of an article" WAS 4.250 22:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC))

I have a question regarding a procedural issue that is not spelled out in WP:BLP -- what to do with edits by people who are paid assistants of the subject of a WP:BLP. Martin Kramer, who has posted and identified himself on talk, has acknowledged having his assistants add material to various Wikipedia articles. I made the suggestion that if the subject of a biography has paid assistants working on articles at his direction, that those assistants should be up front about their affiliation and their instructions. I did not suggest that their edits were ipso facto invalid, but I am aware that this has been a problem in the past when U.S. Congressional staffers edited Wikipedia -- I am not aware of any reason that academic staffers present less of a conflict of interest issue. I suggested something I thought was quite reasonable and acceptable to anyone, which was that anyone editing under such direction should identify themselves as doing so. Apparently that suggestion was not acceptable to some (well, one). Can someone from here give us some direction here? Is it out of line to suggest that if someone is editing Wikipedia because they were paid to do so, that they acknowledge that fact? csloat 00:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

We've had people paid to edit corporate articles before -- Arch Coal was originally based on text paid for by the company. COI needs identification so we can watch for bias, and likely biases should be identified, so I'd support encouraging them to identify themselves, and treating them as if they were the subject for the sake of COI. Edits by the subject or paid representative are not inherently invalid, but we need to check them for compliance with our policies, especially WP:NPOV. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, but Arch Coal wasn't paid for by anybody, according to the original author's statements. If you want a better example of people blatantly being paid to edit Wikipedia, then Wikipedia:Reward_board is probably more fertile ground. As long as the Reward Board remains intact, all of this bickering over paid conflicts of interest is either hypocritical or moot -- take your pick. --JossBuckle Swami 16:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added Wikipedia:Reward_board to the see also so people can go there to see the issue isn't money but offers that affect NPOV. Perhaps a comment to that affect should also be added. WAS 4.250 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if someone is getting paid but does not violate NPOV then they're OK, even if they may be "violating the COI guideline" simply due to circumstances beyond their control (judging on that alone is prejudiced cee are ay pee.). 74.38.35.171 05:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

But that is true of any edit, regardless of who makes it or of he's paid to do it - all edits must conform to WP:NPOV, and bias should be taken out of articles regardless of how it got there. I don't see how being paid to edit is different than editing out of ideological motivation, or even plain domain expertise. The criteria should be adherence to WP policies. The motivations of editors should be kept out of it. Isarig 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It is different because one is motivated differently when one is motivated by money or by fear of losing a job as opposed to being motivated by one's actual beliefs, values, or feelings about an issue. WP:COI may be helpful to your understanding of this. csloat 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am asking you how they are differently motivated, and you are responding by asserting that the motivation is different. And the motivations are entirely irrelevant. What matters is adherence to WP policies. You have not yet addressed any of my questions. Isarig 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think WP:COI will clear up your confusion on this matter. csloat 05:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have an answer, or don't you? Stop condescending, and address my questions. If you are unable to come up with an answer, say so. I have read WP:COI, and it is quite clear that "Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." Isarig 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have answered. You are the one condescending. To explain again, there is a big difference between someone editing because they believe in a particular viewpoint vs. someone editing because their boss told them to (or because they are being paid to). What you quote indicates that COI is "created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." Working for someone who tells you to edit Wikipedia in a certain way creates just such a conflict.csloat 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you have no answered, and telling someone that they are "confused" and telling them to read something to fix their "confusion" is textbook condescension. It seem you are simply incapable of writing anything without it, or perhaps you don't know what the term means. Once again: you are not 'explaining' anything, you are merley repeatedly asserting that there is a big difference, but not explaining what the difference is, let alone showing that it is a "big" one. Working for someone who tells you to edit Wikipedia in a certain way could create a conflict of interest. And being an unpaid activist for a political or ideological cause could create exactly the same COI, and this is spelled out clearly in WP:COI: "If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." I am beginning to suspect that it is you who needs to read that guideline. Again: what is the difference? (note: responding with "there's a big difference" , which is what you have done so far, is not an answer to that question). Isarig 05:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Isarig please. I have asked you to stop being abusive. Please stop. You were the one expressing confusion; that is why I asked you to read the article that clears up a point that seems obvious to me (as well as to at least one admin who has commented on the issue). I have explained it, but you keep asserting my explanation is not an explanation -- I really don't know what to say. If you don't know the difference between doing something because you believe in it and doing something because your boss told you to do it, I am not sure I can help you -- please ask someone else to help you. I am tired of your abuse. csloat 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am neither being abusive, nor am I confused. I am asking you a question, which you are repeatedly refusing to answer. The question is, once again: it terms of conflict of interest and its impact on editing WP in a neutral way, what is the differnce bewteen a conflict of interest created by a paid contributor, to a conflict of interst created by unpai, ideologically motivated editing on behalf of a ceratin cause. A resposne that syas "one is paid. the other is not" is not ananswer to that question. I take it you have no answer, that's fine. We can leave it at that. Isarig

You have been being extremely abusive as I noted on your talk page. As for your question, I have answered it at least 6 times now. Here is what I just wrote on the talk page: "You're asking for a distinction I have already made -- the distinction between someone who genuinely believes what they write and someone who disingenuously writes as if they believe because they have been instructed to do so. I really have no interest in continuing to counter what appears to be sheer sophistry on this matter. I have made my position clear, and everyone else who has entered the discussion appears to agree, and Wikipedia policy appears to be consistent with my position -- again, you are advocating a bizarre form of paid meatpuppetry, something users are generally banned for." Do you understand yet? If not, please ask someone else to help you out. I'm sure they will. csloat 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And the final score is... Isarig - 1, csloat - 0.

I'd be interested to see how csloat would answer the following challenge: "Explain how a Granny Smith apple is less tasty than a Golden Delicious apple." I predict that the answer would be, "Come on, you KNOW that a Granny Smith is WAY different than a Golden Delicious -- stop HARASSING me!" --JossBuckle Swami 16:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to explain this on the talk page in question? I have tried to make this point and have been accused of "threatening" and of "personal attacks" as a result (you can read through the discussion in the last section of that page if you have the stomach for it). Obviously, I have had negative interactions with that user in the past; I just don't think he's willing to listen to anything I have to say about the issue, so it would be helpful if an admin confirmed the view that paid editors ought to identify themselves. csloat 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

explain what? as he wrote - "Edits by the subject or paid representative are not inherently invalid, but we need to check them for compliance with our policies, especially WP:NPOV. " If th edits are POV, the can (and should) be eliminated, regardless of who the editor is or what his motivation is. If the edit conforms to NPOV - then as Night Gyr wrote, there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Please stop your witch hunt. Isarig 03:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What witch hunt? I am not asking that any edit be changed. All I am asking is that editors acting as the equivalent of paid meatpuppets identify themselves - a point Night Gyr agreed with in the part you didn't quote: "COI needs identification so we can watch for bias, and likely biases should be identified, so I'd support encouraging them to identify themselves, and treating them as if they were the subject for the sake of COI." csloat 04:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The witch hunt that prompted you to appear on a page where no contentious or problematic edits have been made for over 7 months, to revisit a long-dead issue of edits made there in April by editors working for Kramer, who was new to WP, apologized if he violated any principles , and said he'd instruct his editors to self identify if they edit agian. Night Gyr agreed that he'd like identification so we can watch for bias, but failed to explain how the bias of paid contributors is any different from the bias of any other editor that we need to watch for. Isarig 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no witch hunt. I responded "7 months" late because that is when I read that material on the talk page. All I said was that people who are paid to edit wikipedia by the subject of a BLP ought to identify themselves. Kramer said he would instruct editors to get Wikipedia accounts; not that they would identify themselves as paid assistants - I believe my question was fair. It certainly was not a "witch hunt," nor was it a valid basis for the tirade of abuse from you that followed. The distinction between someone who is paid to be biased (or who is ordered to edit by an employer) vs. someone who has political leanings is an obvious one, with a long tradition in laws and philosophies covering conflict of interest, bribery, etc. -- but if you are unfamiliar with those issues, you can read up about them on WP:COI. By the way, you might consider how you would respond if Juan Cole posted a note to Talk:Juan Cole claiming that he had paid assistants adding material to Wikipedia, and I posted a note indicating that I thought such assistants ought to identify themselves. csloat 05:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

what is it that you hope to accomplish by revisiting a long dead issue? Other than stirring up controversy, that is. I again urge to stop condescending, and answer question f you are able to. I have read WP:COI, and it clearly states that COI is not limited to financial relationships, but occurs in any close relationship, including ideological ones. I have addressed your false equivalence of bribed politicians on the Talk page - and I ask you again to address my questions. You are not in a classroom here directing your students to do research for you - you need to answer for yourself. Isarig 05:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem, BTW, with Cole paying his assistants to edit (for all I know, he's doing so, without bothering to even acknowledge the practice as Kramer has done), or with him editing WP himself. And if you demanded that his assistants identify themselves, I'd accuse you of the same things I'm accusing you of now. Isarig 05:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not "long dead" if anyone is editing under the direction of a subject of an article. All I did was suggest it was a good idea if such editors identify themselves. I am not condescending. I have answered your questions. I have responded to your comments about bribery on that page; they were evasive of the actual issue. Please do not use my occupation as a professor to insult me -- I have not asked any students to do research. There is no need to personalize this; it was a simple suggestion, and your remarks have become abusive. And, just to be clear, I have no problem with Kramer or Cole editing themselves either, or asking assistants to edit, as long as they are identified as such -- otherwise, it is simple meatpuppetry. That's all this discussion is about, and I'd like to ask you again to not be abusive. csloat 05:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

When there have been no POV or controversial edits on the page for 7 months, I think we can safely say the issue is dead, at least as far as Martin Kramer is concerned. If you are referring to a hypothetical case, and to a general request that editors with potential COI identify themselves - it brings us right back to the question you've been avoiding: why should paid editors identify themselves, but not ideologically motivated ones? You have not answered this question, neither here nor on the Kramer Talk page, you have just asserted that the cases are different. Isarig 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not "dead" to you, clearly, since you have expended a lot of energy and pixels on it. I am making a simple request - that editors who are editing as paid assistants of BLP subjects identify themselves as such. I have explained why, and WP policies on meatpuppets are pretty clear to me. As for ideologically motivated editors, you are the only one bringing that up. I have not said they shouldn't identify themselves, nor do I see how it is relevant. They usually do. The difference between that and someone paid to write is something I have explained at least 5 times by now. But that's not the issue. The only issue is the one I asked about at the top of this section, whether a paid assistant of a BLP subject should identify themselves when making edits that they were asked by their boss to make. One admin has agreed that it is a good idea, and has indicated that such edits should be treated as if they came from the subject him or herself. I agree with that very sensible statement. csloat 06:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that issue (paid contributors editing teh Kramer page) is dead to me, and everyone else on WP but you. What is not dead to me is a new issue, which is your demand that paid contribuotrs identify themseleves, while ideologically motivated contributiors who could be just as biased do not. You have not explaine dthe differnce ven once, let alobne 5 times, you merely keep asserting that there is a iffernce, and when pressed for an explantion you reply that the differnce is that one is paid, the other is not - which is non-responsive. Isarig 18:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just explained it above for the 7th time now; my response is not "non-responsive"; the problem appears to be a refusal on your part to understand it. I have not "demanded" anything; I have made a suggestion that everyone else who has entered the dispute seems to think is quite reasonable, and which you have been alone in resisting extremely vehemently for some reason. My suggestion is also completely in keeping with Wikipedia policy as outlined in WP:COI as well as Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. You are advocating paid meatpuppetry and you're acting like I'm the one being unreasonable. It's just bizarre. csloat 20:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you have re-asserted your non-response for a 7th time, not explained it. Contrary to what you wrote, most editors who entered the dispute did not think it was a good idea to have paid editors identify themseleves - the other editors suggested that they not edit articles directly, but contribute to the Talk page, whioch is what WP:COI recommends - for any kind of COI, not just paid editing. You ahve yet to explain why COI as a result of payment for editing is any different from COI resulting from ideology. This has been noted not jut sby myself. Additionaly, I am not advocating anything - I am asking you to explain your position that paid editors self-identify, while unpaid biased editors remain anonymous. You are being unreasonable in your repeated refusal to explain yourself. Isarig 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have bent over backwards to try to explain myself and you simply ignore my explanations. I will not interact with you anymore as you have conceded my arguments here and simply repeated that they are "nonresponsive." I also feel you have been extremely abusive in this conversation over what should have been a relatively noncontroversial suggestion. csloat 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(mercy de-intentation) Actually this whole exchange is bizarre. I'd also like to see why you feel paid conflicts of interest differ significantly from ideological ones (Abortion), political ones (George W. Bush), or interest ones (Gundam Wing). The fact that this entire dialog between the two of you has gone on three screens with no forward movement is what I find bizarre. -- nae'blis 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues are the same as those raised by Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. One writer believes what they say, the other is editing under instructions. This is covered under basic Wikipedia policies. I have explained this more extensively above; allow me to quote myself again: "the distinction between someone who genuinely believes what they write and someone who disingenuously writes as if they believe because they have been instructed to do so." What is it you don't understand?-csloat 21:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Naeblis, and to use your own examples -- are you saying you would see no problem with George W. Bush establishing a Ministry of Wiki-truth and hiring assistants to edit the George W. Bush page without letting anyone know that they were paid by the Bush Administration to do so? This is exactly what happened with the Congressional staffers fiasco, and it was considered an abuse of Wikipedia. I am not saying a paid assistant is intrinsically more biased than anyone else; what I am saying is that there is something intrinsically more deceptive about such an assistant editing without letting anyone know that they are doing so under instructions from an employer. If you think meatpuppets violate the spirit of Wikipedia, it seems bizarre to me that you would support paid meatpuppets. csloat 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. I'm opposed to editing without disclosing a conflict of interest in general, whether you are being paid to do so, love the topic, or believe strongly in The Truth of what you write. Hence, my userpage discloses some of my major interests/biases so that people will know where I'm coming from. I'm not saying I support paid editing; I'm saying I don't see a big difference between paid and ideological/political shilling. -- nae'blis 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The issues are the same as those regarding meatpuppetry; I am only suggesting that paid meatpuppets identify themselves as such. I don't see why that suggestion is so controversial. I agree with you that all conflicts of interest ought to be disclosed. I really don't think that is at issue at all. csloat 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of going on for another screen, allow me to introduce a third point here -- that is that Wikipedia discussions should result in articles that are improved in terms of the truth. Disputes will occur, and the assumption is that all disputants are arguing in good faith, motivated by their belief in what is true. If some disputants are instead motivated by their employer's demands, this cripples that assumption of good faith, and in fact the end result is that whoever has the most money to spend on this endeavor will win disputes -- I can simply pay a staff of assistants to revert three times apiece every twenty-four hours, ensuring that my version of a disputed page stays current. Disputes should be guided by concern for truth, not by who has the most money. csloat 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I firmly believe that the statement "someone who disingenuously writes as if they believe because they have been instructed to do so" is the disagreement we have here. Like the man said in A Few Good Men, "it doesn't matter what we know, it only matters what we can prove!". My personal beliefs on an issue are irrelevant if I cannot back them up with reliable sources. And if I can back them up and add them as a neutrally worded edit, what's the dispute, exactly? -- nae'blis 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Our COI policy helps us with minimizing bias. Who is to say if a given edit is neutral or not. Concensus makes that decision. Consensus among who exactly? Twelve paid editors? We need this policy to minimize bias. WAS 4.250 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about consensus among 12 unpaid but organized activists? How is that different? Isarig 17:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is bad too. Care to help draft a guideline proposal to help minimize bias from organized activists? WAS 4.250 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible. Unless we have a policy that requires every editor to disclose potential COI, we should just let things continue as they are - and count on the community to ferret out POV edits, regardless of origin. Isarig 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It's possible and quite simple. A WP rule requiring people who are making edits as paid representatives of another party to disclose that connection would do the trick fine. Count on the community to ferret out rule violations just as we ferret out POV edits regardless of origin. csloat 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

(<---) I believe he was refering to "bias from organized activists" and not "paid representatives of another party". We are better able to deal with the one bias source than the other. WAS 4.250 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, that is a similar problem too - and I don't think money is the key issue (though it is a factor); the issue is really (to me) the extension of meatpuppetry. How about "representatives of another party"? The thing is, you shouldn't have to disclose every organization you belong to, but you should have to disclose if you belong to an organization that has specifically instructed you to edit Wikipedia as part of your duties to that organization. I realize there will be grey areas, but something like that would help deal with obvious abuses (like when a subject of a BLP orders his assistants to edit his biography, or the biographies of people he knows). csloat 22:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think WP is equipped to deal with either bias source. My example was of course extreme, in order to clearly establish the obvious parallel between paid editing and organized unpaid editing (which has eluded csloat for a few days now). But it is of course not required that an organization instruct or encourage its members to edit WP to advance its cause. As far as the existence of COI, and the likelihood of editing in a POV manner, it does not matter at all if an employer instructs an employee to edit, if an organization instructs its (unpaid) members to edit WP to forward its cause, or if the members decide, on their own initiative, to edit WP to forward the organization's cause. In all of these cases, the same COI exists, with the same predictable results. The monetary compensation or the existence of a direct instruction to edit not enter into it at all. Short of requiring all editors to disclose any and all potential COI, and putting in place effective mechanisms to police it (which is , quite obviously , impossible) - WP has no solution for this, other than to politely ask that editors edit in a neutral way, and relying on the community to remove POV edits. Isarig 22:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll thank you to stop condescending and hurling insults at me. You are correct that my solution will not solve all POV issues but I never said it would. All it would do is deal with obvious deception and abuse of the wikipedia process. Isarig is just wrong that "it doesn't matter" if an employer explicitly instructs his/her employees to edit wikipedia or if they do so on their own. Again, this distinction is obvious and it is the root of Wikipedia's rules against sock- and meat-puppetry. Yes there may be COIs if someone edits of their own initiative but that is not the issue. The issue is when someone deceptively edits as if it were their own initiative but they are actually acting as a representative of someone else. This is particularly troubling when they are acting as an agent of the subject of a biography. I really don't understand why my position on this is controversial at all. csloat 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me repeat the examples I gave you on the Talk:Martin Kramer page, which illustrate why the distinction between editing under instructions vs. editing of your own initiative is meaningless from the POV of COI: Consider the following 2 cases: An employer does NOT instruct his employee to edit articles about the the employer (personally) or the employer's business - but the employee does so anyway, under his own initiative (either becuase he thinks this will benefit him in some way, or because he really believes the employer is helping make the world a better place) - surely a COI exist here, even without the employer's instruction. It is so obvious that the COI exists, that it is one of the first things mentioned on WP:COI: "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors". Now, consider a scenario where a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving goes to his MADD chapter meeting, hears explicit instructions from his chapter leader NOT to edit WP in a POV view, but since he recently lost a child in a DUI-related accident, he does edit WP related to drinking, from a predictable POV. Clearly, a COI exists, despite the fact that he was instructed by MADD leaders not to edit that way, and despite the fact that he is unpaid, and truly believes in his position. The end result is the same: WP is edited in a non-neutral way. The only way to avoid this is to require all editors to disclose any and all actual and potential COIs, and to create an effective monitoring and policing mechanism for this policy. This is of course impossible, so we have to rely on the community to ferret out POV edits, without bowing to demands from the likes of you that specific subsets of editors disclose potential COI, while others are under no obligation to do so. Isarig 23:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say there wouldn't be bizarre special cases (I acknowledged there would be "grey areas"); I only proposed a simple rule of thumb to avoid the obvious abuses. There will always be POV issues on Wikipedia, as you well know; I don't think we need to add to them by licensing meatpuppetry. csloat 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything bizarre about these cases. In fact, I believe a not insignificant amount (if not the majority) of WP edits are being made by just such interested/partisan editors. As another editor pointed out, you are unlikely to contribute to Pet Skunks unless you have a pet skunk, sell pet skunks, or have been the victim of a pet skunk "accident" - all of which lead to COI. I am not asking to license puppetry, I am pointing out that your request, if it were to be applied in a non-discriminatory way, is impossible to fulfill. Isarig

Fine, there may be non-bizarre cases in the grey area, but there are nonetheless black-and-white areas that can be simply and easily accounted for with a simple rule of thumb. The request that people who are explicitly instructed by their employer or organization to edit wikipedia be asked to identify themselves and/or treated as meatpuppets has nothing to do with skunks. It's a simple rule of thumb and, all sophistry aside, you haven't shown what is wrong with it. I've got better things to do that continue belaboring this point. csloat 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it is that it is discriminatory. It requires something of one class of people (editors under instruction) which it does not require of other classes (equally biased, equally conflicted). There's no reason to require a paid editor to disclose he's editing on behalf of a payer, if we do not require a partisan for a certain cause to do the same. Isarig 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

When someone has his wife murdered by a third party, we discriminate as well -- we treat the person who ordered the murder as a party to the act. Because they are. When someone has a third party edit wikipedia, we treat the person who ordered the edit as a party to the edit (see meatpuppetry). Hope you see it now; if not, someone else can help you out. Bye. csloat 00:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You are really over the top. No one here agrees with you, that's enough for me. Isarig 01:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Strict enforcement of COI may lead to biased POV articles

Disclaimer:I'm writing here from being in a position of COI, so I have a COI in writing this :-).

Some topics are naturally controversial with both supporters and critics, but by their very nature virtually all supporters will be in a position of COI. This means that under strict enforcement of WP:COI only editors with a critical viewpoint are able to edit the articles. A current example - I am an Amway Independent Business Owner in Europe. Amway and affiliated companies such as Quixtar, along with other MLM have always had an element of polarizing controversy about them. By their very nature however, if you are an active enough supporter of them to be interested in editing wikipedia, then you are likely to have some sort of potential COI with them. In MLM and direct selling, even people who just like the products register with reseller rights for the sake of cheaper pricing. This also gives them the right to promote the products, producing a potential COI. In addition of course, people active in such businesses, by their very nature, are far more limited in time to police such articles for inaccuracies. This results in the majority of edits being made by one POV, and people with a different POV effectively being excluded from contributing (yes, it can be done via talk but this is very burdensome).

The predictable result? Biased articles.

Furthermore, such a restriction also prevents those who are likely to have the greatest knowledge about a particular topic from contributing to Wikipedia. The end result is to the detriment of the quality of information provided on Wikipedia. As has been noted above by others, if edits are made that pass other guidelines, primarily WP:RS, then any effect of a COI should be significantly mediated. I would also note that scientific journals operate under guidelines of accepting submissions from people with COI, but those COI must be declared. This is equivalent to a Wikipedia editor declaring his interests and editing under WP:RS, with the addition of the unparalleled peer review process that is an inherent part of Wikipedia. In fact I would argue the peer review process of Wikipedia is significantly stronger than much of that for scientific journalist (I am a published scientist so have knowledge in this area). As it stands, Wikipedia will happily accept published, sourced, peer-reviewed journal articles with declared COI as primary sources, but will not accept the same standard for itself. I believe this is to the detriment of Wikipedia and needs to be addressed. --Insider201283 01:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You say "This means that under strict enforcement of WP:COI only editors with a critical viewpoint are able to edit the articles". I am not sure I agree with that. You are welcome to edit articles, just you need to be extra cautious with your edits so that they conform to WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Same applies to active critics. Critics do not have carte blanche to add critical viewpoints only. As WP editors, we need to be able to add material from both sides of the dispute, including adding material that opposes our POVs. A good article, after all, is one that presents all viewpoints fairly. One issue that comes up quite a lot is the misunderstanding that we need to balance the POVs of editors in an article. That is incorrect. What we need to do is describe the significant viewpoints as published in reliable sources, and attribute these views to those that hold them. That will create the necessary balance. So, as long as you have your research straight, and you add material that is backed up by such sources, you will be OK. Just note that by disclosing your possible COI, your edits will be naturally looked at with extra scrutinity. And that is not a bad thing IMO. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for the feedback. While that was my interpretation of WP:COI and I think is sensible and reasonable, an administrator has explictly directed me more than once, and I quote, "to follow the WP:COI guideline by not editing the articles" (see my talk page). In general I have been taking care to follow WP:RS and NPOV and when the "opposition" case has been WP:RS sourced I have not challenged or edited it, even if I disagree with the sourcing. If I have felt major changes are necessary I have explained it in Talk. I have no aim to "balance POV" per se - simply to have factual, sourced, and correct information. That in itself should provide more balance. In my review of articles in the area I mentioned the quality of sourcing is very very poor and POV is rife. In my view the admin in question has been acting unfairly and not with a NPOV and I have submitted a case request - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-28 Will Bebeck. As a relatively inexperienced Wikipedia user I have little choice but to assume admins are interpreting guidelines like WP:COI fairly, and this admin has clearly directed me on a number of occasions that WP:COI means I should not edit articles with potential COI other than to submit via talk. --Insider201283 03:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Will Beback is a respected editor and admin. I would suggest that you listen to his concerns regarding your ability of editing within our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have listened to his concerns and each time he has pointed out issues I have acted on them in good faith. Even in this last instance regarding WP:COI I have made no further edits (other than correcting some typos) said he directed me not to edit the articles - apparently contrary to the guidelines according to yourself above. I wish I could say I beleive he has acted in good faith as well. Right now for example he is editing an article and insisting on using a term for Amway and Quixtar Independent Business Owners (IBOs), "distributors" which no longer reflects how Amway IBOs operate and was officially replaced by Amway some years ago and has never been used to describe Quixtar IBOs. I have pointed this out in Talk:SA8_(detergent) (since he won't let me edit it) but he continues to resist correcting it. There is absolutely no justification for this, and he has given no justification except to claim they are interchangeable based on a court case referring to incidents a decade ago, when the claims were interchangeable with regards Amway. If he believes the terms are interchangeable, why not use the official term that is not disputed? He has quite clearly not been acting fairly and while he may in general be a "respected editor and admin" I have to question his impartiality on this particular topic. I gather you are retracting the earlier interpretation of WP:ROI ? --Insider201283 09:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to interpret our policies in general and quite another to apply them to a specific case. You should follow User:Will Beback's advice. Period. Other editors may be in a similar situation in your mind, yet be in a quite different situation in the mind of unbiased wikipedia editors. The point is that the biased person often does not see their own biases and needs to rely on others to know where the limits are. Put your proposed edits on the talk pages and not in the articles. WAS 4.250 10:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And who ensures admins are not being biased? Everyone has their biases. Admins for example will tend to be biased in support other admins. And Admins will also have their own biases with regards to particular articles. There's nothing wrong with this per se, we're all humans. I'm not going to further into the aspects of the current dispute here, I would assume that's inappropriate and better suited for the Mediation Cabal. My point regarding WP:COI stands. If WP:RS and WP:NPOV is being followed in editing, then WP:COI serves little purpose except to exclude those who may otherwise contribute positively to wikipedia. If WP:RS and WP:NPOV is not being followed, then those guidelines already address any issues that may arise. The guideline itself warns about the very situation I am in - being honest and "outing" oneself can lead to "sanctions" that would not otherwise have occurred and are not related to the factual or otherwise perspective of the article. WP:COI as it stands actually encourages a certain level of deception, and overall, in my opinion overall diminishes wikipedia, not enhances it. --Insider201283 11:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "strict." I think COI and NPOV are related, but distinct. There's a difference between a person who is pro-choice editing abortion and a user creating/editing an article about themselves. Of course we all have our biases, and as Wikipedia editors were constantly fighting these biases to write as NPOVly as possible. But it comes to a point where, no matter how NPOV and encyclopedic you think your article is, you just shouldn't be writing it.

IMHO, it's a curve: you absolutely should not create/edit an article about yourself (or yourself by extension, such as a band you're in or a company you founded); you should avoid editing articles about your friends/family, if possible (as a contrary example, the award-winning author Karin Lowachee didn't have an article for the longest time, until it was created by an editor who says she's his friend -- in this case, the need exceeds the COI); you can edit articles about organizations/movements in which you participate, but with extra caution; you should edit articles about things and people that are close to your heart, but with caution; if you care little about a subject, technical-type editing is better than content-type.

Anyway, those are my fuzzy personal guidelines about NPOV and COI. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 13:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

well that's kind of the problem isn't it? It's all very fuzzy and by definition opinionated and POV. A little difficult to explain, but I for example have been told by an admin. to not edit a article about an education company that I have no direct financial interest it, but whom I merely purchase products and services from to support my business. I have a COI because if that company is put in a positive light, others will be more likely to use or consider their advice, which put my business in a favourable light and can thus lead to a potential financial return for me. A pretty damn "fuzzy" COI if you ask me. --Insider201283 13:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Reality is fuzzy. WAS 4.250 14:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is - which returns to the question - How does WP:COI enhance Wiki past what WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and inherent peer review already does, particularly if disclosure was a requirement? I would propose that the standards applying to academic publications would better serve Wikipedia, namely, Proper sourcing ala WP:RS, NPOV writing, peer-review, and disclosure of any COI. --Insider201283 14:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mandatory disclosure and practices used in the real world are a nonstarter as we accept anon edits and must act on the basis of edit patterns and such and not claims of identity which may or may not be real. Problem editors let themselves be known by their behavior moreso than their claimed real world interests. WAS 4.250 16:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, "mandatory" is obviously not possible and was not suggested. Like everything else here it would be voluntary as it is now. As it stands there's no "mandatory" on respecting any guidelines and the guidelines actually encourage non-disclosure. Would Wikipedia not be better served by disclosure that is not "punished"? The guideline itself even mentions that as an outcome of disclosure. When a guideline itself virtually recommends you should seriously consider ignore it - well, there's something wrong with the guideline. Similarly if the guideline is widely ignored by editors, which I suspect is the case. In my opinion the guideline should encourage disclosure and encourage people with knowledge and experience in a field to contribute to wikipedia. At present it does the opposite. --Insider201283 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I disagree with the opinion of the admin involved. I would say there is no substantial conflict of interests because your interest in seeing a company you support achieve more sales is peripheral. Whereas I do strongly object to people editing articles about themselves. Even if we assume speedy deletion gets rid of most articles about non-encyclopedic people, the idea of people signing up for Wikipedia solely to promote themselves and their creations grates on me. Wikipedia is not an advertizing service. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, that's fair enough to a point, but even an article about an individual could be factually enhanced by that person. As long as you know that person is doing the editing it should have the necessary editorial oversite. Complete vanity articles are likely to be removed as quick as they are put up, and the folk likely to do it are unlikely to be respecting WP:COI now anyway. Is that therefore enough of a reason to overcome the benefits of having people "closer to the action" of an issue being able to edit it? It seems to me that people operating in bad faith are going to ignore WP:COI whereas those who could make a positive contribution are the ones most likely to abide by it. In other words, it doesn't help Wikipedia at all. --Insider201283 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the subject of an article can and sometimes should be involved in he process of the article's editing, but the COI policy outlines various ways in which the subject can get involved without directly editing an article. Supposing I sign up for Wikipedia and find out that there's an article about me that lists an incorrect year of birth, or that a quote by me is tagged as unsourced; I can comment on the article's talk page, providing the correct data or necessary sources, and request that one of Wikipedia's other editors alter the article. This allows mistakes and libel to be removed, while still leaving the editing to people without a vested interest. If I edit the article myself, however, I can remove stuff that should really be there just because it puts me in a negative light. If I comment about it on the talk page, other editors can check to see if the offending material is sourced, and if it isn't, remove it.

I could give examples of biography articles and other articles to whom no one has made significant contributions except the subject of the article, and so no neutral POV was ever introduced. If the editor in question had not gone and create the article, it would have been created when it reached a certain degree of notability that other editors are interested in and knowledgable about it. While it does strictly meet the WP:BIO criteria, tagging it as NPOV or COI is ineffectual because no one is following these tags to edit the article to an encyclopedic degree. It would be better for no article to exist than an autobiographical one (IMHO) but deletion doesn't seem to be an option.

Perhaps a WikiProject Conflict of Interest is in order? LeaHazel : talk : contribs 00:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Close relationships

Can somebody explain me why close relationship constitutes a conflict of interest? I would argue that this close relationships will make most people biased, but that is a different matter. Of course, in case you are close or dependent on this person you are writing about in Wikipedia and if you edit under your real name then I admit that you will unlikely include negative information about the person in Wikipedia. So this means that there will only be a conflict of interest in certain somewhat rare cases. Andries 17:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not rare, so your argument isn't correct. Why do you say 'bias' is a 'different matter'? Mostly bias is a term used in a rather sloppy fashion. Our term 'POV editing' is more accurate. COI is a cause of POV editing, but also of other things, such as edit warring over minor points just to shift a page very slightly, for example for prominence of one fact. Why do people act in this way? COI just means that when they edit they don't think about 'what is best for the encyclopedia?' They think of something else. Can this be 'triggered' (what the page says) by 'close relationships'? Certainly. Charles Matthews 21:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that POV editing in close relationship is in most cases not caused by COI but by bias which is a different matter. I believe that most people even in close relationships are sincerely convinced that they are helping the encyclopedia even when their edits do not follow NPOV. Andries 21:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless one is extremely cautious, close relationships will incline us not to put Wikipedia aims first. Is it impossible to edit within NPOV with a COI related to a "close relationship" (being that pro or con a subject)? No, it isn't. But it is extremely difficult. Accepting the fact that it is very difficult, may be a good staring point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

May be, it is extremely difficult, but that is in most cases not caused by a conflict of interest. Most people have the sincere intention to help the encyclopedia even if they are in close relationship. Can we either reword it or remove it? Andries 22:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Andries, please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes. As you can see, this guideline does not trump WP:AGF, that is an official policy. I do not think that this guideline doubts the sincere intentions of editors with COIs related to close relationships. It simply highlights the difficulties involved. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone may want to talk to this Brian Wasson guy

He suggests PR representatives creating names like "CompanyXrepresentative" to be transparent. A good idea (both), but aren't usernames that are or include company names regularly shot on sight? 68.39.174.238 21:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to have such usernames. If the editor wants to voluntarily disclose a COI, he/she can do that in userpage. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, so someone should Email him and suggest he update his page. 68.39.174.238 02:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable people editing their own page

If a notable person (someone about whom there already exists an article) edits their own page, is that a conflict of interest? What if some celebrity who is an infogeek like the rest of us (let's suppose, for example, Penn Jillette or Weird Al) edited their own page to eliminate rumors and falsehoods? Would NPOV be a factor too? --BlueNight 09:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is a conflict of interest to edit a page about you. One is recommended to edit the talk page instead. But if someone does edit their own talk page, wikipedians are not to bite newbies and not to revert proper edits and to treat the person with all due sensitivity (see WP:BLP). WAS 4.250 10:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. While a celebrity could fix errors on their own page, they could also add info that makes them look good but isn't true. And due to the nature of wikis, we generally have no way of being sure that an editor is who they claim to be. If someone showed up and said they were Penn Gillette, we can't verify that and shouldn't treat their edits any different from anyone else. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note that we do tend to block people who take a celebrity name as username, unless they somehow do convince us that they're genuine. >Radiant< 16:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia principal spamming WikiEN-l mailing list

Does the claim made here reveal a Conflict of Interest? If so, what might be done to counsel the offending party not to use Wikipedia as a harvesting ground for her for-profit venture? --JossBuckle Swami 02:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions by FT2

I would argue that the recent additions to an existing guideline without discussion may not be appropriate, in particular as these topics have not been explored in this or previous incarnations of this guideline. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that this guideline is being cited in several current ArbCom cases, and additions such as these made without discussion will be misleading as if there is community support for them, which I doubt. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate if rather than keeping adding material about which there is no consensus expressed in talk, that you discuss your edits as requested above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of support for the stated matters. A number of policies make completely and solidly clear that conflict of interest over administrator and other intervention in disputes is to be avoided, that powers granted are not to be used other than for the purposes given, that ArbCom members involved in a dispute are expected to, or do, recuse themselves.

I don't think that there is any disagreement that conflict of interest in editorial control is well documented in policies already, but that at present WP:COI lists only certain kinds of COI, namely those where a user wishes to POV slant an article. Other forms of COI are not explained, despite being formally and on core project pages recognised as mattering within the community at policy level and regularly coming up in disputes. These are utterly backed up by consensus in relevant policies where COI risks are noted or prohibited, through to ArbCom formal decisions.

I will reassure you, that's my sole planned correction to COI - to add the omitted forms of COI to the project page and thus ensure it is consistent with discussion of conflict of interest on Wikipedia, elsewhere. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that it would be better to provide "see also" links to to WP:BLOCK and WP:DR rather than paraphrase existing policies on these matters. That can be done in a separate sub-section titled "Administrators conflicts of interest", in which these are outlined, as the remedies/process to deal with these are quite different than what is advised in the guideline for all other cases of COIs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

See above comment. There are reasons not to 'just link' to those policies. Firstly, they are far from the only policies which cover admin COI; they're being used as examples of the several situations and policies which fall under admin COI. Secondly, its a significant COI issue, a casual read of WP:AN or WP:RFArb reveals a significant number of cases where admin COI is alleged.

In any venture, Wikipedia or otherwise, COI by those given special powers would be a serious issue, if it arises. So it should be noted as a serious aspect of COI. Remedies aren't at issue here; the point is to note that admin COI is covered in multiple policies and in ArbCom decisions. Like many other policies, COI covers more than one aspect. It isn't just about content COI, it needs to cover both and reflect both. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted - sorry, misread the point being made. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken up your suggestion, which seemed a good idea. There is now a separate section for admin COI, and the examples from the intro have been moved there together with a (non-authoritative) list of some policies where admin COI may be relevant.

I've also grouped all the existing sections together under "content COI" to distinguish the two. Finally, I've also given "consequences of ignoring" in its own section under "content COI" rather than a sub-sub section, since it's important enough to warrant it, and changed the color slightly to make it stand out a little more. In line with your above comments, pretty much no textual change outside these changes, though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits, but I still think that it is a big departure from the original formulation. I will let other editors that worked on the guideline in the recent part, to comment on these edits. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I am referring specifically about the lead. I have no problems with the Admin COI section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2's changes do not change wikipedia policy/guidelines. The changes simply express those policies/guidelines in what FT2 believes to be a better way. I agree that the changes express wikipedia policy/guidelines better than before. I especially like the addition of the continuation of the centralization of COI here on one page rather than scattered about as before. This current consolidation (old COI added to VANITY becoming the new COI) is ongoing and is in no way some old longtime formulazation preceding Arbcom cases that are now refering to it. Some of those arbcom cases originally refered to the encyclopedia article Conflict of interest before Wikipedia even had a guideline by that name. I hereby congratulate FT2 on a job well done, as I did on his userpage prior to jossi's possibly valid complaints. (I still like the first version with the Admin stuff more integrated, but I can see both sides of that argument.) WAS 4.250 16:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, WAS 4.250. I agree that the new admin COIs section is a useful addition, but I am not sure the lead is reflective of the article, as it is putting too much emphasis on admin COIs when it is actually just a small section on the guideline. Nothing major, I would say, but it would be better to have a tighter, more focused lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's COI guideline, its community's understanding of COI, and understanding the relationships between COI and various things like legal liability is significantly lacking in many areas and will grow in importance as Wikipedia grows in popularity. So I believe that this guideline will see significant editing, expansion, and discussion in 2007 to deal will issues (such as legal ones) that are on the horizon. I see this additional consolidation not as a one shot improvement but as one of a series of changes that are needed. I lack the foresight to tell you exactly what the next useful additions will be, but "it doesn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind is blowing". So all things considered, it seems inevitable that the admin section will expand to meet its importance. Thus any deletion of admin stuff from the lead will be reversed eventually anyway. WAS 4.250 15:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding balance in the intro, my thinking is, that admin COI is actually pretty important. Rightly or wrongly, it's a common or recurring theme of complaint that admin X abused some power, or at the least allowed the appearance of it. The fact that there's a lot less needing to be said on admin COI compared to content COI doesn't change that it's probably equally important, and in some ways arguably more so: - as with any abuse, abuse of internal powers is more problematic than 3rd party spam-addition, so to speak. So I think the intro may well probably be reasonably balanced on that score, don't know if that reassures you at all, just my $0.02 I guess. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I hear you. I have tightened the prose just a tad, so that it is clearer for readers. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had a go at fixing one sentence whose wording I'm not 100% happy with:

• OLD - "These editors are usually anticipated to exercise separation of powers, or consult other editors, in order to avoid acting in a way which might suggest use of these privileges for a purpose that isn't good for Wikipedia."
• NEW - "Where there could be grounds for perceiving a conflict of interest, it is usually good practice to exercise separation of powers or consult with other administrators, in order to avoid the appearance of use of these privileges for a purpose that is inappropriate or isn't good for Wikipedia."

But not 100% happy with either. can you take a look, see if you can sort this sentence out better? I think you can see what I'm trying to do. The sense I'm trying for is that where its not obvious, or could reasonably be taken as questionable due to COI, its good practice to avoid the appearance of COI by separation of powers or consulting/recusing to other administrators. Obviously not all of this goes in the intro, but thats the broad sense of it I think? Over to you? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can drop the "separation of powers" thing as it not exactly applicable. What about:

"Where there could be grounds for perceiving a conflict of interest, it is usually good practice consult with other administrators, as to avoid the appearance of use of these privileges for a purpose that is inappropriate."

Shorter?, sharper? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on that. "Separation of powers" is interesting, but in retrospect it's not necessary. For a policy, shorter and sharper are more important. So I now agree 100%. Allowing for a couple of minor omitted words, could we get away with this even shorter version?:

"Where conflict of interest concerns might arise as a result of some action, it is usually good practice to take care to avoid the appearance of use of administrative privileges for a purpose that is inappropriate."

The logic here is that almost immediately after this sentence, we state that appropriate action is usually to consult or explain carefully. So there's little benefit in duplicating that. In this sentence we can say the response is to avoid the appearance, and then in the next paragraph or so it will say how to do that.

Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Simple and to the point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Can you review, check it looks OK now overall? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: two quick fixes if comeone can work out what's best:

• The sentence "it is usually good practice to take care to avoid actions which might give the appearance of use of administrative privileges for a purpose that is inappropriate" seems to suggest that merely avoiding the appearance (not the reality) is what matters. Can this be fixed or is it just me that thinks it could be read as that?
• The other major source of content COI isn't mentioned in the intro - editing one's own bio. Simple to add to the list. At present content COI in the intro covers editing for ones business or organization. COI regarding ones own bio is a pretty big one and not mentioned (and no policy is linked). Can this be slipped into the intro list along with organizational, as a form of content COI?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A short sentence distilled from WP:AUTO, would do, FT2. As for the current wording on the lead, I would keep as is. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit tricky saying that edits to one's own autobiography (including creating an autobio) can be COI without accidentally suggesting WP:BEANS. I've thought a while, and done it this way, hope you agree.

1. Updated the list.
   Old: This includes promotion of companies you work for and their products, suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors, as well as misuse of editorial access and powers.
   New: This includes promotion of oneself and of others -- including individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for and their products -- suppression of negative information, and criticism of competitors, as well as misuse of editorial access and powers.
2. Added to the list of key points, one that covers approach and WP:AUTO without giving beans:
   avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality.

By putting it as "promotion of oneself or others", and listing relevant "others" afterwards, I am hoping that it'll work out nicely. I think that covers WP:AUTO without leaving loopholes for problems. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this formulation?

"This includes promotion or suppression of negative information or criticism of competitors, of individuals, causes, organizations, and companies you work for and their products."

We can leave the abuse of editorial powers bit out, as that may be already covered. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

'Administrator conflict of interest'

I deprecate what has been done to this page, in the name of inventing such a thing. While there may be real concern about admin powers and possible abuse, the clear outline of making edits that are against the encyclopedia's interests is not to be blurred by adding this material. Charles Matthews 13:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm taking it out for now, pending some real consensus on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, it appears to be a rehash of the rejected proposal Wikipedia:Admin neutrality. I concur with the removal. >Radiant< 15:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be unilateral additions by User:FT2, along with a number of other unilateral additions. I'm pretty sure User:FT2 isn't even an admin him/herself. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, but he's on RFA atm, so that's not unreasonable. >Radiant< 16:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2 and WAS 4.250 expanded the guideline a week ago. I challenged the addition on a similar basis, and engaged FT2 in finding a way to include some wording that would acknowledge his concerns as no other editors got involved in the discussion. I would support a removal of the new material, though, and ask FT2 and WAS 4.250 to make their case for such addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that these charges are often made carelessly or unfairly and don't see the need for all this attention. Even assuming good faith, when people are sincere about these kinds of charges they are usually assuming admins have some kind of special powers that can be abused. The way I see it admins are mostly housekeepers, and cases of real conflict of interest (e.g. my protecting a page where I am an active participant in an edit war - what other kinds of conflicts of interest are even possible?) are very very very rare. What is at stake here i not just protecting us from wikilawyering and an inflation of trivial conflicts, what is at stake is the relatively egalitarian nature of Wikipedia and this means communicating clearly what admins are - and what they aren't. Admin's are not judges or federal regulaters for goodness sake! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, if an admin has such an obvious conflict of interests that he should not edit a page, then he should not use his admin powers concerning the page either (deleting or protecting). But that's a matter for AN/I. This page is designed to prevent a specific problem, and it shouldn't be diluted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm no fan of conflicts of interest, having been in 2 RFARs over editors who were inappropriately editing their own articles, but this addition strikes me as policy creep and an undiscussed addition to boot. It needs to come out until which time there is strong community support for adding it. FeloniousMonk 15:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I firmly agree with the removal. This smells of a rather insidious attempt. Admin's are people who have already earned teh community's trust in their judgement. Further, we have a system to address admin's who have violated that trust, it is called Arbcom. Circumventing the proper avenues by sneaking in non-consensus wording strikes me more a violation of WP:POINT or WP:NCR than anything else. I am afraid that at best these people are lacking in a fundemental understanding of how wikipedia operates, and at worst, this is a targeted attempt against policies that are not appreciated by certain specific people. -- Avi 16:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Of course, all admins have a COI regarding this. I'd like to see it more broadly discussed before elevating to the level of Wikipedia guideline. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While protecting a page that you are actively editing could be seen as a conflict of interest, it's something that is covered under the blocking policy. Adding it in here distracts from the main point of this page, which is to deal with external conflicts of interest. Conflating the two makes things less clear, IMO. Guettarda 16:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur; unless actions involve the block, protect or delete functions, everyone is simply an editor. If actions do involve admins' functions, it still doesn't belong here, but is covered under the relevant guidelines and policy pages. This is muddying the waters. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment - it's clear that various individual policies do spell out the issues with conflict of interest individually. Policies and guidelines are also there as reference to the project's overall approach. A "conflict of interest" policy that addresses user conduct only, but does not address or even mention the possibility of administrative COI, however obvious that may seem to us, is bait to anyone seeking to cause disharmony and also easy to be seized upon by outside reviewers. It speaks of "one rule for content creators, another rule for administrators" if one were of a cynical mind. By contrast its inclusion makes clear that we tend to our own principles, as well as seeking to tell others to tend theirs. Since admin COI is a common theme in a number of external places and internal disputes, and is reasonable for outsiders to ask about, it seemed worth including for the long term benefit of being explicit about our view on our own responsibilities. It was done briefly, and made clear that as an overview only, the actual citable detail was in the other policies.

There was debate, and the debate was friendly, collaborative, reasonable and amicable, with points made and accepted on each side. There wasn't at the time consensus to remove; the only two other views expressed at the time (Jossi, WAS) were both ultimately supportive to the changes. Whether or not it will ultimately be consensus to note in one place that various forms of admin COI are taken seriously in policy, it is clear that the idea to add it was not unfavorably looked upon nor unreasonable in the sight of others. I think there's a good basis for doing so, not least for the clarity it gives to those who will look for such clear statements of principle as Wikipedia grows and continues to mature.

I'd urge to set aside fears of intruction creep and to look on it for what it is -- a matter that a reasonable outside person would expect referenced in a responsible policy on COI, and that some will remark adversely if it is not. That's a valid and increasingly important perspective for the project. There are more uses to policy than just internal dispute reference; they are also statements on what's considered important and what isn't. Wikipedia isn't a small or non-notable site, and given past misperceptions from outside, it may be beneficial long term to more fully inform on such matters in an appropriate reasonable manner. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this guideline is already overbroad without the "administrative COI" bit. If we get too carried away, we'll end up in a situation where no Christian is permitted to edit the article about the pope. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is wikilawyering at its "finest". The expansion of an already broad and unevenly-enforced policy is ill-advised. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why on earth should an admin avoid the topics that he knows most about? In some instances, an educated admin is worth his weight in gold, as there is no direct need to fact-check every detail. And if the admin is WP:POINT or WP:NPOV then normal dispute resolution should take place as with any other user. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

An admin shouldn't, has anyone suggested they should? I thought the point of the suggested addition is that admins shouldn't use their admin powers on articles they edit or with editors they are having conflict with. And I don't think those points need to be made here since they already appear elsewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that admins should recuse themselves from situations where they have a content involvement, etc., but I think that WP:COI, which is our protection against outside interests manipulating WP for their own special purpose ends, should not be diluted with internal WP administrative matters. I think admin recusal and behavior, while very important also, should be addressed elsewhere. Crum375 21:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI doesn't actually describe its purpose as to "protect wikipedia against outside interests". WP:COI intro says its purpose is to protect wikipedia against "an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia to produce a neutral encyclopedia and the individual agendas or aims of editors who are involved with the subject of an article". When we discuss 'editors', we're potentially discussing all kinds of editors, not just "outside interests". Administrators and their actions fall within this headline definition, and are unquestionably also capable of having conflict of interest and incompatible individual aims and agendas, as noted in many other policies.

Historically, back in 2004-05, this page was once the guideline protecting Wikipedia against vanity articles. When its title and focus is changed from "vanity guidelines" to a wide and commonly understood title such as "conflict of interest", it needs to give some mention and pointers (however brief) regarding other notable forms of COI, not just the one type it historically started with. Otherwise, the likelihood is, the title is going to mislead people as to what to expect. If that isn't desired then the intro might include a comment somewhere that "Other forms of COI are covered here" so people know.

Without attention in this area, the title, the headline description, and the intended focus, are not all in good alignment within the guideline. If it is intended that this be a tightly focussed guideline specifically on contributors with POV-style conflicts of interest, as suggested by editors above, then perhaps the intro could benefit from a note of this kind.

Otherwise the headline description continues to imply that this is the guideline covering all forms of COI on Wikipedia, and other forms of COI regulation may be perceived negatively as conspicuous by absence, to the overall (unfair) detriment of the project and the benefit of its denigrators, which is my personal concern. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that in current usage, COI on WP specifically refers to editors who are very closely associated with a subject, normally in their real life, for example current or ex employees or members of an organization, and then try to edit a related article on WP. We allow them to do so, but we also require them to be ultra careful in their edits and interactions with other editors. This does not cover a typical case where a WP editor has an internal 'conflict of interest' within WP, e.g. an admin who previously edited an article, who should recuse him/herself when assuming a judgmental administrative role in the same article. I think it essential to keep the admininstrative and other internal conflict policies separate and distinct from the external COI policy, as the challenges and issues are very different. IMO it is crucial to keep WP:COI tightly focused on the 'external' COI issues, as that appears to me to be a much more serious challenge for us, since recusal of an admin can be quickly enforced and virtually all admins will quickly agree to it. OTOH, to get a typical tenacious, tendentious COI single-issue editor to 'recuse' him/herself from an article that affects his/her livelihood and/or belief system can be very rough sailing in some cases. Having a clearly focused policy helps in defining the issues and hopefully reducing the abuse. Other forms of editing conflicts should be covered in other policies. Crum375 01:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. My concern has been essentially that that's a Wikipedia historic view on what "COI" has meant. But it's not at all what the term will be taken as by anyone who hasnt grown up in Wikipedia historic policy views as we have. To any such people, including critics, reviewers, independent media writers, it will mean what COI always means - and be lacking. Which looks bad.

I take the point that you feel a focussed policy on external COI helps us to assert when that issue is breached by an editor. I'm hoping you see my point, that to the outside world and anyone else except policy-very-familiar Wikipedians, COI is usually used to refer to COI of people in a custodial role of trust, such as editors with admin rights.

Would you be okay with either or both of the following for a simple fix: either a separate summary, on some other page (title to be decided) summarizing briefly other forms of COI and what policies they are covered by, and/or a note in the intro of WP:COI to the effect that "Other forms of COI are dealt with in other policies" that allows a user to easily see what other forms of COI are also covered under policy? I think that it's important from a "good practice" viewpoint, to be easily able to see COI policies as these exist too, and to locate them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You could write up an essay which focuses on 'internal COI', i.e. situations that call for an editor's (or admin or arb) recusal from an article, discussion, case or some other process, not due to RL but to internal WP issues. If you can get consensus of support for that, it could become a guideline, and then it could possibly be linked here. I personally feel that recusal should be interwoven into guidelines for specific WP administrative positions. Crum375 03:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's missing the point. The point is that policies and guidelines arent just for the cognoscenti. Once we create a guideline called "conflict of interest", that title itself has a pre-existing meaning, and people not of long Wikipedia standing will expect it to cover certain things because of that pre-existing meaning. The fact it gives no mention is then a Bad Thing, because it implies to those who don't check in depth and have extensive knowledge (ie most reviewers, commentators, and potential critics), that such principles either don't exist, or don't matter. When you're notable enough, as Wikipedia is, then you need to take a degree of note of the outside world's definitions, and one of those is that "conflict of interest" is not just about self-promotion, it's also about those with power not abusing it for gain (in Wikipedia this would be to silence others, win disputes, protect their preferred version, look up IPs or hide versions improperly, etc). That is status quo in the entirety of the world outside Wikipedia. The COI guideline needs to mention it in some way, even through a token nod, or by saying "yes, administrative types of COI exist and are covered in these policies and guidelines". To state simply, "Other forms of COI exist, they roughly cover misuse of editorial powers, and more can be read in the following policies" is appropriate and respect-worthy. To ignore this completely risks leaving us with a COI guideline whose first impression to any outsider might be that it's a joke, since it doesn't actually address a main form of COI that any responsible and aware organization/group/site who wishes to self-regulate maturely, would be aware of. That's the first impression that may be given, and it's unnecessary since we do have such policies and as a community we enforce them strongly. They just aren't stated as existing, even by a brief mention, in the guideline that bears their name. WP:COI needs to in some way acknowledge that they exist - by mention, by something. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise? WP:BLP lists Relevant policies: within its "See also" subsection. Perhaps this guideline could have a "Other COI policies and guidelines" subsection within its "See also" section? WAS 4.250 11:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

FT2, I really don't see any need for a major policy that applies to admins that doesn't apply to everyone else. People should not violate 3RR - that does for admins too. people should edit in good faith - that goes for admins too. People should follow NOR and NPOV - that goes for admins too. What situations really arise where our existing policies are not already more than adequate? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, FT2 did not create any new policies or guidelines. He referenced in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest existing policies/guidelines that dealt with conflict of interest. Which makes sense. WAS 4.250 12:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we need to clarify then a difference between external conflicts of interest (I shouldn't make significant edits to Peter Laurence Gordon because he's my brother), and internal conflicts of interest (I shouldn't make take administrative action involving User:Insert-name-here because I've been a principle in nasty disputes with him.) Existing policy has been entirely about the external conflict of interest, and adding the internal issues muddies, not clarifies, the actual ramifications of the policy issue. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good way of looking at the issue. This is the guideline on external conflicts of interest, not on using admin tools in internal editing conflicts. -Will Beback · † · 18:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-promotions masquerading as articles

It's easy to spot them sometimes: other times, however, a page here could look like an encyclopedic article, yet it may be written to promote the subject.

The question is, how many of them are stealthily promoting the subject??

On the Matt Lissack article the edit summary was

“ ((This is an advertisement for a presenter. I work for EMAP Radio, so watch out!) ”

but it looked like an encyclopedic article.

The question is, should you check the edit summary first before AFD'ing the article?? --SunStar Net^talk 17:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking edit summaries and edit histories is always a good idea, although from my experience a lot of the more problematic editors don't summarize their edits, or use very short, undescriptive summaries like "created article," "expanding" etc. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

avoid breaching relevant policies

Point two, a recent change near the top of this article, "avoid breaching relevant policies on autobiographies and neutrality", is technically incorrect. Neutrality is a policy; autobiographies is a guideline. To me the difference is significant, but maybe I'm being too nitpicky. Would it be better to say "avoid breaching the neutrality policy and autobiographies guideline"? It makes the distinction and places the most signicant first without greatly increasing the verbage. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 02:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is okay, right?

... to go and write neutrally on subjects that you are close to? Like if you can take the fact that you may have to admit negative things. Or could you still be busted for a percieved violation of this "guideline"? However, in the opener it says that a "conflict of interest" means that the person has some agenda that conflicts with Wikipedia's interest, namely the neutral point of view. But if one does not have that, then one should be able to write about subjects of which they have very close relationships, since they've still decided to maintain neutrality in spite of being close to them. Also, if one's proposed content is "approved" by the community, is it OK to add it themselves provided no "sneak-em-by" edits (ie. quick changes just before addition) that could counter consensus are performed? I don't see a problem with that, since if it's already approved why should the identity of the adder matter? Esp. if it stays in the community-approved form -- anything else is pure bigotry and is wrong. 74.38.35.171 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are willing to accept any random anon's claim that your edits are not "neutral" and therefore you stop editing the article, then yes. See the problem? WAS 4.250 01:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you mean because then I'd just be letting someone's random claim influence me without any critical thinking or other important things, and thus "bust" myself? 74.38.35.171 07:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to be able to accept that you're not going to be the ultimate authority on what should and shouldn't be in the article. Of course, it's always true that you don't own your contributions to Wikipedia, but when the articles you edit are about you, your family, your band, your business etc. it's ever so much more difficult. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

But if I can do that (keep neutral), then it is OK, right? I guess the thing is is that working on something like that, where you can't be the boss, requires a high level of humility. Many people's egos are too large. Basically, what I am saying is that if one makes a very good fruitful effort to stay neutal, one cannot be busted for "violating" this guideline, right? 74.38.35.171 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, of course, keep editing but make the edits neutral. 74.38.35.171 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft using hired gun to edit Wikipedia

Many of you have probably seen this, but a pretty interesting read for those who haven't: "Microsoft 'tried to doctor Wikipedia'". -- Satori Son 04:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"you should consider"

This is the first time I've run into this page and I think it is rather too strong. In particular, I have had many excellent editing sessions (such as that on FIRE or the John Templeton Foundation) that involved employees of these organizations, and I think their contributions materially improved the articles. So outright banning any "interested" party from editing is ridiculous IMO -- and it happens all the time anyway (especially when it comes to, say, a scientist writing about ideas she's worked on.) So I've changed "you must not write" to "you should consider not writing."

Secondly, the article pretty much acknoledges this later, when it lays out guidelines for how to edit wikipedia while having a COI (e.g., it suggests that you declare it.) It does, however, reference NPOV when it says "you are strongly discouraged." This is, again, rubbish. NPOV is not about who you are, but about what you do. The whole point of NPOV is to educate users on how to overcome their own biases and interests in the goal of making a better encyclopedia.

Please drop me a line on my talk page to alert me to disagreements on this. I was shocked to find this COI article and it's ambiguous statements that COI==automatic recusal. It goes against everything I've learned about editing wikipedia in my 2+ years here. Sdedeo (tips) 22:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"action" box

I've deleted the action box, where it says that a "real or perceived COI" should force you to restrict yourself to the talk page or an RFC. Again, not only is this against every other policy on wikipedia -- where users are educated on NPOV, etc. -- but it is also completely disconnected from the actual practice of wikipedia. It's fine if users want to push for something new, to change how things currently happen, but to represent this as "consensus" and "how things are done" is really false. Again, of course, I'd be happy to discuss. Sdedeo (tips) 22:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read [1] WAS 4.250 22:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this page can be too strong considering how much self promotion people try to do, particularly things like adding links to their own websites. I like the page to be strong, if there are exceptional editors who are capable of editing articles they're related to with NPOV, they're the exception to the rule (and all policies do have exceptions). --Milo H Minderbinder 22:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these responses address my concerns:

1. that NPOV -- the bedrock of WP practice, and cited here -- has nothing to say about who you are, but only talks about what you do when you get here
2. that this is not how things actually work on wikipedia, so it is not consensus in any form

MHM, that you want wikipedia to be different is fine, but is irrelevant in declaring consensus. Sdedeo (tips) 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

demotion to proposal

WAS reverted my changes that I believe more accurately reflect the wikipedia consensus here. I have changed the "guideline" to a "proposal" template, because I again strongly believe that the current statements here -- for example, that employees of a company should not be allowed to edit articles -- does not reflect wikipedia consensus. Sdedeo (tips) 22:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: needless to say, I am watching the talk page here and hope that we can engage in a debate on these things. I do think we need a COI page, but I think the current version is ambiguous, self-contradictory (the intro says "you must not edit if you have a COI", some parts say "we strongly suggest do you not edit if you have a COI" and other parts say "if you have a COI here is how you edit.") and that the most strongly worded parts of the proposal contradict wikipedia practice as I understand it from at least two years of editing. Sdedeo (tips) 23:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you think there is an absence of 'consensus': consensus is not unanimity. And I don't know why you think employees of a company should not be allowed to edit articles is a fair statement of the position. WP is open to editing: but if Microsoft hires someone to edit in their interest (true story) we disapprove strongly. The page approaches the 'grey area' of when COI is serious enough to be prohibitive of sound editing from several directions. It is not prescriptive, but tries to be adequately descriptive of the nature of the COI that is of major concern here. It also describes the issue as subject to process (e.g. withdraw if others are bothered by your editing) rather than trying to be a gatekeeper for all editors adding content to which they have some connection. Charles Matthews 09:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That didn't make a whole lot of sense. If there is disagreement over a guideline, that does not mean it's suddenly not a guideline any more, and it certainly does not mean it's suddenly a new proposal. "Demoting" a page is an oxymoron. >Radiant< 10:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Charles: I believe that I am not the only one who views this article as an inaccurate depiction of how things work on the wiki. As I've said, it's not only me, but many others who've shared editing duties with employees of corporations.

As you seem to acknoledge implicitly, the guidleline is ambiguous: sometimes it forbids (as in the opening), sometimes it strongly discourages (somewhere in the middle) and sometimes it says you have to, just be careful ("defending interests"). Do you want to discuss this issue?

As for the "Microsoft hiring" thing, I know about it -- and indeed that's why I'm here, because of the confusion this COI page has generated. (Go over and look at the discussion on Open Document and see.)

Radiant: "demoting" a page makes quite a bit of sense when someone feels it's been described as a consensus before its time. Unless you believe that it is impossible to incorrectly "promote" a page. I seem to recall from reading past talk pages that you were the one who promoted it, so perhaps you believe you're an infallable judge of consensus? Sdedeo (tips) 19:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

continual reversion

WAS has reverted twice two different contributions, and MHM has reverted once. Nobody is willing to discuss any of this on the talk page substantively. I believe this is a violation of WP:OWN, and am reverting. If either wish to engage in constructive dialogue on the talk page, I will not revert further. Sdedeo (tips) 05:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting is never a useful option. Place a request at WP:VP and ask editors to come and comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody reads WP:VP; we discovered that when working on a different guideline. I'm interested in improving this article, which I believe is currently not only a bad idea, but is itself internally inconsistent. Right now the WP:COI is being interpreted by good faith editors as banning their participation, for example. As I said in my edit summary, addressed to the three reverts I've received for presenting different content each time: either engage in discussion on the talk page, or allow others to edit. I think that's the wiki way. Sdedeo (tips) 05:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I see that you don't take your own advice: you've just reverted! Are you willing to engage in discussion of the issues I have raised? If I don't hear from you within twelve hours, I will assume you're not, and will revert. Sdedeo (tips) 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I did restore to the consensus version. Please place a notice, at the village pump and attract the attention of other editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, you may want to ask editors that worked in this guideline quite extensively, such as User:Charles Matthews. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Many editors frequent the Village Pump. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's semantics, Jossi, and certaintly wouldn't stand up in a 3RR as you well know.. I'll post a note at the village pump, though, and see what happens. Sdedeo (tips) 05:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

up to five editors who are unwilling to discuss

Now there are five editors: MHM, WAS, Jossi, Radiant and Charles (sorry Charles), who are unwilling to discuss the problems with the guideline that I've raised. Just to reiterate:

1. The guideline is self-contradictory: it tells readers that those with a COI are forbidden, discouraged, and allowed to edit.
2. The guideline does not represent consensus, as it does not represent the practices of many editors on the wiki, including myself, who have shared editing with employees of corporations.

Is there anyone willing to defend what they see as the consensus? Sdedeo (tips) 19:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

To make a correction, I have discussed this. See above. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, you did post something, but left the discussion and now seem to confine yourself to metadebate, reverting, and threatening me on my talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 19:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"If you have a conflict of interest, you should:"

I think the wording above is much stronger than the numerous revisions it has gone through. The policy doesn't need to be weakened by vague, waffling, language. If you feel the policy is inconstent, propose changes to the other parts of the policy to bring it in line. For a start, you could point out the parts that you feel aren't consistent with this. The current wording smacks of WP:POINT. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)