Misplaced Pages

talk:Conflict of interest: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:06, 14 November 2024 editNthep (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators110,694 edits Undid revision 1257329562 by Knowledgeworldas (talk) rv spamTag: Undo← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:02, 13 December 2024 edit undoTryptofish (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,579 editsm Reverted edit by 23.28.7.180 (talk) to last version by CleoMeterTag: Rollback 
(9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 23: Line 23:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 35 |counter = 36
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 31: Line 31:


__TOC__ __TOC__
⚫ == COI ==
== Guideline revision version 3 ==


⚫ How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. ] (]) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
{{tqb|
To preserve the integrity, neutrality, and public trust in Misplaced Pages, it is crucial to effectively manage conflicts of interest among editors. A conflict of interest arises when an editor's personal, professional, or financial connections might compromise the objectivity of their contributions. This guideline outlines the types of conflicts and specifies the conduct required for editors who may be affected by them.


⚫ :@] your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. ] (]) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
===Financial Conflict of Interest===
::I think they were trying to make a joke. "The article on Conflict of Interest is incomplete without my username in it" being a self-depreciative way of saying "I have conflict of interest"
An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they stand to gain, or can reasonably be expected to gain, financial benefits from the coverage of a topic on Misplaced Pages. This conflict arises in various forms:
::It shouldn't be here, though, since it is irrelevant to the content of the article. ] (]) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Direct Financial Benefits:''' These include receiving direct payment for editing Misplaced Pages articles.
*'''Indirect Financial Benefits:''' Such benefits are not as overt as direct payments but are significant. Examples include:
**'''Business Exposure:''' Gaining from increased visibility when a product, service, or company is featured in an article. For example, an editor who is a major shareholder or partner in a business could materially benefit from increased sales due to enhanced visibility of their product on Misplaced Pages. Conversely, an individual who holds a inconsequential stake, such as a small fraction of a percent of shares in a publicly traded company, would not be positioned to experience noticeable financial gains from such coverage.
**'''Reputation Enhancement:''' Benefiting indirectly from an enhanced reputation due to having a personal article on Misplaced Pages or being prominently featured as an expert. This can lead to increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work.


⚫ == Threshold that should be met in order to tag an article ==
===Non-financial Conflict of Interest===
⚫ ] I tagged that article, because of substantial addition of contents by an account that was created, seemingly just for this purpose and promptly disappeared. It's a tactic commonly employed by company's marketing personnel, or external public relations editors, because they do not wish to have the account linked to their other editing activities. As long as I explain it, I feel this meets the threshold to mark it as "appears to have COI". I welcome comments. ] (]) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
An editor has a non-financial conflict of interest when their personal or professional connections may compromise their ability to present a subject objectively. This type of conflict arises in various forms:
*'''Personal Relationships:''' Editing articles about friends, colleagues, family members, romantic partners, or personal adversaries can lead to biased content, whether overly favorable or unduly negative.
*'''Professional Connections:''' Editing articles related to one's employer or competitors in the industry can introduce biases that may either unfairly promote one’s own organization or undermine others. Similarly, citing oneself or ones close acquaintances as sources can introduce bias, influencing the content to unduly favor personal or professional interests.
*'''Significant Roles''': Editing articles related to organizations in which an individual holds a significant role, or recently held a significant role, may introduce biases and a lack of objectivity in content related to the organization's interests. This is a spectrum, with whether an editor has a conflict of interest depending both on the level of authority or influence their role granted them, and the recency of the role. For example:
**A general volunteer for the Democratic Party would have no conflict of interest.
**A ] for the Democratic Party would have a conflict of interest for a few years after they hold the role.
**A ] for the Democratic Party would permanently have a conflict of interest.


⚫ *Maybe a moot point because the creator in question has been gone for 14 years. I think that almost every use of this tag is basically an educated guess and this educated guess seems as good as any and so I would say that it is not improper to place the tag. But this tag is really to help bring this to some sort of a resolution (regarding the creator or the article content) and I don't see what that would be at this point. And some would argue an undue influence on the AFD. So, IMHO OK to place the tag but probably a better idea to not do so. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
===Managing Conflicts===
⚫ *:Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. {{re|North8000}}, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. ] shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". ] (]) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Editors with a Financial Conflict:''' Must not directly edit affected articles. Instead, they should propose changes using the ], disclosing the nature of their conflict on their user page and in any location they discuss the topic.
*::I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? ] (]) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Editors with Non-financial Conflicts:''' While not strictly forbidden from directly editing affected articles, transparency is required; they must disclose their conflict in the edit summary and in any location they discuss the topic.
⚫ *:::{{re|Glman}}, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. ] (]) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
⚫ *::::I still fail to be convinced. It is entirely plausible that the editor is a fan of the label or certain releases. Nothing added to the page is POV, so again, how would one adjust the article to have the tag removed? ] (]) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)


== Is contact via email and LinkedIn considered as COI? ==
===Exceptions===
Aside from those explicitly listed here, no exceptions exist to this guideline; edits must abide by it regardless of their perceived harmlessness or quality. Editors who wish to avoid disclosing their conflict of interest may do so only be avoiding topics affected by it.


I'm involved in ] and one of the advocates for keeping the article has written ''I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop.'' Is this type of online-only contact considered as COI or would it be acceptable not to disclose it on your user page? ]<sup>]</sup> 07:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
==== General exceptions====
# Reverting '''obvious''' ]—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as ] and adding offensive language.
# Removal of clear ] or content that '''unquestionably''' violates ] (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at ] instead of relying on this exemption.
# Removal of content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as ] and ].
# Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's ] (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the ] instead of relying on this exemption.
# Reverting unambiguous ], where the content would be eligible for page deletion under criterion ] if it were a standalone page.


:If they're contacting them ''for the purpose of improving a Misplaced Pages article'' (by whatever means), then I don't see a conflict of interest. It's a longstanding if relatively uncommon practice to for example contact the subject of an article to ask for a freely-licensed image. Obviously asking them for "personal info" is not a good idea because it cannot actually be used in articles, but that's a question of ] and ] rather than ]. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
====Wikipedians in residence====
A Wikimedian in Residence (WIR) is a professional role in communications for an organization to share its knowledge within the Wikimedia platform, measure the impact of the same, and promote Misplaced Pages through training, education, and edit-a-thons. While WIRs can greatly benefit Misplaced Pages, there is a risk of edits that could unduly benefit their employers. To manage this risk, the following guidelines apply:
*'''Scope of Editing''': WIRs may edit articles related to but not directly involving their institution. They must not edit articles where their institution is the primary subject or could reasonably be seen as directly benefiting from the article's content; if they wish to make changes to such articles they must follow the instructions at ] for ''Editors with a Financial Conflict''.
*'''Disclosure Requirements''': WIRs must clearly disclose their role and association with their institution on their user page, as well as in any discussions or edits related to their role as a WIR


::Many thanks. ]<sup>]</sup> 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
===Reporting suspected violations===
When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with transparency and caution, balancing protecting the encyclopedia with respect for the editors involved. Always adhere strictly to our ]; only post personal information if the editor has disclosed it on Misplaced Pages.


== Proposal for New Article: Robinson Tesla-network ==
*'''User talk page''': Non-urgent issues can be raised on the editor's talk page, using the ] as appropriate.
*'''COI noticeboard''': If issues remain unresolved after user talk page discussions, or if the user talk page is an unsuitable venue, escalate the matter to the ]. This noticeboard also provides guidance for editors dealing with their own conflicts.
*'''Private communication''': For issues requiring confidentiality, including where posting the information on Misplaced Pages would violate our policies on the posting of personal information, email evidence to the appropriate channels: for general COI issues, contact ''functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org'', and for paid editing concerns, reach out to ''paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org''. Always consult these channels for advice before sending private information.}}


Hello, I would like to propose the creation of a new Misplaced Pages article titled Robinson Tesla-network. This network, established on June 30, 1997, focuses on affiliate marketing by promoting Tesla Inc.'s products and services. Its primary objective is to generate revenue through strategic online advertising campaigns.
Updated to incorporate suggestions from the previous discussion; I'm also notifying ] for additional input. The intention is that this will replace the current guideline; the current text will be moved to an explanatory essay where it can be adjusted as needed. ] (]) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


The draft includes the following sections:
:Big picture: I think this puts our guideline out of compliance with the global policy on paid editing and thus needs revision, to at minimum provide a useful link to what the policy requires. I also would hope that the intention is that an RfC would be held to replace the current text rather than attempting to do it as a BOLD edit. Small picture: Functionaries-en does not accept emails from non-members (with the exception of WMF emails) for the last 18-24 months. ArbCom should be announcing something on the UPE/COI private evidence side in the next day or so, so that can be updated. I also personally don't think the significant roles represents my thinking or understanding of that concept and think that we should not have an example that is so American centered. Best, ] (]) 19:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
::Arbcom's ] is live. ] (]) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Barkeep49}} Can you clarify which aspect you think is out of compliance with the global policy?
::An RfC would definitely be held; this isn't the short of change that can be done boldly. ] (]) 10:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:::The disclosure here does not meet the format of the global policy in terms of the level of disclosure required. ] (]) 19:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
:I'm still not very convinced by the presumed pipeline between being cited in a Misplaced Pages article and {{Tq|increased professional opportunities, such as book sales, speaking engagements, or consultancy work}}. This still seems like an inflated sense of Misplaced Pages readers' engagement with sources and attribution, or a misguided sense of people in charge of events at universities schedule book tours and talks. The discouragement of citing oneself in the non-financial conflict of interest section on the grounds that it may tilt content toward one's personal professional interests seems sufficient and more suitable.
:Does exception #4, {{tq|Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption}} contradict ]'s guidance?: {{tq|Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion}}. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 14:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::I also remain of the sense that the "Reporting suspected violations" section continues to unduly frame respect for editors in tension with protection of the encyclopedia. Your earlier explanation was that {{tq|the two aren't in opposition}}, but you then go on to describe them as if oppositional: {{tq|We respect editors by... while protecting the encyclopedia by...}} etc., as if the former isn't also the latter. All policies and guidelines exist for the benefit of the encyclopedia, so both identifying COI and respecting editors serve to protect the project. I would encourage a rephrase to {{tq|When violations of this policy are suspected or identified it is crucial to address them with compliance to relevant guidelines and policies, balancing concern for undisclosed COI editing with respect for the editors involved}}. This avoids implying the latter policy somehow doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. ] (] &#124; ] &#124; ]) 15:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think so; the text is same as the long standing text at ]. ] (]) 10:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


1. History – Overview of the network’s founding and development.
== Previously paid editors ==


Something came up at ] regarding editors who were previously paid (and therefore displayed a paid editor template on their User page per ]), but who are no longer paid and continue to edit in a fully volunteer basis like any other unpaid editor at Misplaced Pages. Should we say something about this at ]? Do we need a new {{tl|paid}}-like template, to say they were {{tl|previously paid}}, or do we maybe add a new parameter to the old one, with new parameter {{para|previous|yes}}? Or should those editors simply remove their {{tl|paid}} template when they are no longer editing for pay?


2. Purpose and Objectives – Details on its affiliate marketing focus.
I think I would vote for the new-param/new-template solution, as I think I would want to know that someone previously edited for pay so I would be informed, when checking earlier contributions, but I think I would also like to know that they are no longer paid editors. And it doesn't seem right to oblige them to leave the {{tl|paid}} editor template up forever, if it no longer reflects the reality of their current contributions. Would like to know what others think. ] (]) 10:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


:I think {{tl|paid}} (unlike {{tl|coi}}) is already implicitly past tense. We want to know if someone was paid for a particular set of edits, and that information remains relevant as long as those edits are in Misplaced Pages's database (i.e. forever). Perhaps we should update the template to explicitly use the past tense (e.g. "were paid" instead of "have been paid" currently), but I don't see the need a strong need to make a distinction between completed contracts and ongoing ones. They should definitely not remove the paid template, otherwise every freelancer that does one-off jobs could claim that they have nothing to disclose ''right now'', because the work was completed when they clicked save. The situation at OKA, where editors are paid a stipend for ongoing and nonspecific contributions to Misplaced Pages is not typical, and as I think we've both said elsewhere "paid editing" is probably not the most accurate description of it in the first place. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 11:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:: I see what you're saying, and I get the verb tense issue point, but it just seems like leaving it up forever is a bit of a scarlet letter. Some editors who are indeffed for serious policy violations get to come back if they manage a successful appeal, and the indef banner eventually ages off their Talk page, although you can find the evidence in the log or page history if you look. Others indeffed get to come back under ], and then you can't even find a trace at all. Why should a formerly-paid editor who has adhered to all policies and guidelines including disclosure, be obliged to retain the banner forever, when previously indeffed editors are not? That's the problem I have with it. Maybe there should be an elapsed time after which it goes from "paid" to "previously paid" and then eventually ages off? ] (]) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
:::The purpose of disclosure is to let the reader know that certain text is written under a COI and factor that, however they choose, in their reading. It's about honesty concerning relationship with the writing and not a punishment (indeed not a comment on good faith or anything else per the guideline). ] (]) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::: {{u|Alanscottwalker}}, there is already a solution for that: the {{tl|connected contributor}} template, which goes on the article talk page, and I have no objection whatever of it remaining there, for the reasons you point out. However, a COI disclosure statement or template does not tell you which article(s) is/are involved; do you see a reason why it should remain on the user's talk page forever? ] (]) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::It very much ''should'' say which articles are involved. The {{tl|paid}} template has an <code>|article=</code> parameter for that reason. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 23:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
:::For better or worse, the terms of use don't specify any conditions under which a notice can be removed. However an editor can note when their paid editing ended, or even disclose which edits were paid for, should they choose. ] (]) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::Nine years ago, another editor advised me to create a separate account for edits that are not paid (and to disclose that both accounts belong to me). I find it useful, but I'm not sure if that is a solution others would advise currently. ] (]) 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::: Not a bad solution, technically speaking, but I still don't see why a formerly indeffed user may be simply welcomed back to the fold, while a formerly paid editor who never did anything wrong has to jump through extra hoops. ] (]) 19:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well, paid editors are not excluded from the fold in the first place. They're just asked to disclose their conflict of interest, which per this guideline is supposed to be a "description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith", though I'll grant you that in practice many editors will judge them for it. &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 23:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


3. Products and Services – A description of Tesla products it promotes.
⚫ == COI ==


⚫ How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. ] (]) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)


4. Key Milestones – Notable achievements in affiliate marketing.
⚫ :@] your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. ] (]) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


⚫ == Threshold that should be met in order to tag an article ==
⚫ ] I tagged that article, because of substantial addition of contents by an account that was created, seemingly just for this purpose and promptly disappeared. It's a tactic commonly employed by company's marketing personnel, or external public relations editors, because they do not wish to have the account linked to their other editing activities. As long as I explain it, I feel this meets the threshold to mark it as "appears to have COI". I welcome comments. ] (]) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)



⚫ *Maybe a moot point because the creator in question has been gone for 14 years. I think that almost every use of this tag is basically an educated guess and this educated guess seems as good as any and so I would say that it is not improper to place the tag. But this tag is really to help bring this to some sort of a resolution (regarding the creator or the article content) and I don't see what that would be at this point. And some would argue an undue influence on the AFD. So, IMHO OK to place the tag but probably a better idea to not do so. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I have included independent references to support the draft's content, such as industry reports and marketing insights. I acknowledge my conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the network, and welcome feedback to ensure neutrality and adherence to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. ] (]) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
⚫ *:Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. {{re|North8000}}, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. ] shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". ] (]) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? ] (]) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC) :The username for your account violates ], so you will have to change it. It is important that you carefully review and follow ] and ]. It would probably be a good idea for you to submit your proposed draft via ]. And please make sure that the draft article satisfies the requirements at ]. --] (]) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
⚫ *:::{{re|Glman}}, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. ] (]) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
⚫ *::::I still fail to be convinced. It is entirely plausible that the editor is a fan of the label or certain releases. Nothing added to the page is POV, so again, how would one adjust the article to have the tag removed? ] (]) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:02, 13 December 2024

To discuss conflict of interest problems with specific editors and articles, please go to
Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.
Users who have been paid to edit Misplaced Pages must disclose this fact when discussing proposed changes to WP:COI or related pages.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conflict of interest page.
Shortcut
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36Auto-archiving period: 18 days 
Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

COI

How do I get my name added to a description? It's incomplete without my name. LCSWV (talk) 19:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@LCSWV your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Please elaborate. Graywalls (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I think they were trying to make a joke. "The article on Conflict of Interest is incomplete without my username in it" being a self-depreciative way of saying "I have conflict of interest"
It shouldn't be here, though, since it is irrelevant to the content of the article. CleoMeter (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Threshold that should be met in order to tag an article

Talk:Tooth_&_Nail_Records_discography I tagged that article, because of substantial addition of contents by an account that was created, seemingly just for this purpose and promptly disappeared. It's a tactic commonly employed by company's marketing personnel, or external public relations editors, because they do not wish to have the account linked to their other editing activities. As long as I explain it, I feel this meets the threshold to mark it as "appears to have COI". I welcome comments. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Maybe a moot point because the creator in question has been gone for 14 years. I think that almost every use of this tag is basically an educated guess and this educated guess seems as good as any and so I would say that it is not improper to place the tag. But this tag is really to help bring this to some sort of a resolution (regarding the creator or the article content) and I don't see what that would be at this point. And some would argue an undue influence on the AFD. So, IMHO OK to place the tag but probably a better idea to not do so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Delayed discovery doesn't negate the issue of article contamination with undue contents that causes over-representation of the advocate's interest. @North8000:, that White Stag article is a great example of this. PR editing effort often creates new account as needed. The most recent suspected PR activity took place in March 2024 on the article in question. The pattern shown by account creation date, brief period of making substantial edits exclusively on this article and disappearing is indicative of brand involved page maintenance/public relations editing based on my experience observing COI edits. I would say it rises to the level of "reasonable suspicion". Graywalls (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    I see absolutely no reason for a tag. There is no way to resolve the "issue" as the user did not add any POV information. There is also no evidence that the user was paid, and I see no reason to assume they were. Tags are placed so articles can be fixed, where is the issue to fix here? glman (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Glman:, the UPE tang and COI tag are not the same. This one is a COI tag. "appears to have a COI" is not a high standard and as I said, I put this at the same level as "reasonable suspicion", so beyond a hunch, and can be articulated with a reason, such as editing pattern. Graywalls (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
    I still fail to be convinced. It is entirely plausible that the editor is a fan of the label or certain releases. Nothing added to the page is POV, so again, how would one adjust the article to have the tag removed? glman (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Is contact via email and LinkedIn considered as COI?

I'm involved in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Charles Corm II and one of the advocates for keeping the article has written I do not know Corm II personally. In the real world and among real people who don't spend their time online, that means that we have never met. I obviously got in touch with him through email (we are connected on LinkedIn) for this article. He gave me personal info as well as some personal media he had in his possession. That's it. Full stop. Is this type of online-only contact considered as COI or would it be acceptable not to disclose it on your user page? Spiderone 07:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

If they're contacting them for the purpose of improving a Misplaced Pages article (by whatever means), then I don't see a conflict of interest. It's a longstanding if relatively uncommon practice to for example contact the subject of an article to ask for a freely-licensed image. Obviously asking them for "personal info" is not a good idea because it cannot actually be used in articles, but that's a question of WP:V and WP:BLP rather than WP:COI. – Joe (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks. Spiderone 17:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for New Article: Robinson Tesla-network

Hello, I would like to propose the creation of a new Misplaced Pages article titled Robinson Tesla-network. This network, established on June 30, 1997, focuses on affiliate marketing by promoting Tesla Inc.'s products and services. Its primary objective is to generate revenue through strategic online advertising campaigns.

The draft includes the following sections:

1. History – Overview of the network’s founding and development.


2. Purpose and Objectives – Details on its affiliate marketing focus.


3. Products and Services – A description of Tesla products it promotes.


4. Key Milestones – Notable achievements in affiliate marketing.


I have included independent references to support the draft's content, such as industry reports and marketing insights. I acknowledge my conflict of interest, as I am affiliated with the network, and welcome feedback to ensure neutrality and adherence to Misplaced Pages's guidelines. Robinson-teslanetwork (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The username for your account violates our username policy, so you will have to change it. It is important that you carefully review and follow WP:COI and WP:PAID. It would probably be a good idea for you to submit your proposed draft via Articles for Creation. And please make sure that the draft article satisfies the requirements at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Category: