As a volunteer I mostly edit articles on business or marketing topics. Eventually I'd like to bring public relations and the corresponding sub-articles up to GA, starting with History of public relations. I also cleanup articles that come up in searches for promotional phrases and edit articles about PR organizations. I do a mix of AfD nominations, supporting the AfC queue, participating at ANI, commenting on RfCs and Talk page stalking as well.
The Federal Trade Commission's astroturfing laws require that participants on crowd-sourced websites with a financial connection disclose it. I encourage editors to report deceitful tactics that are commercially motivated to the attorney generals most active in astroturfing through the California consumer complaints form and New York's submit a tip.
I bring almost every article where I have a COI up to "Good Article" status eventually, except where there is not enough source material to meet the requirements, or I have abstained from a major part of the article where I don't feel I can be neutral. Although not all GA reviews are equally rigorous, I find it is a good process to weed out any COI-related bias as well as the promotional writing style that is hard to avoid when one has a background in public relations. I have created about 10-20% of our GA articles about companies. My goal is to raise that to 20, 30 or more within a year or two.
Articles where I have a COI should have a Connected Contributor tag on the Talk page to avoid any confusion between my volunteer and COI roles. I have also skimmed through 1 year's worth of contribution history to put together the Articles list below, which identifies which articles I have contributed to in a COI capacity. On articles where I have a COI, I mostly only edit Talk pages, except for grammar, fixing citation templates, addressing GA review feedback, vandalism, where other editors insist I make the edit myself or in other common sense circumstances.
For showing the community that paid editing can be done without harming the encyclopedia :) — ΛΧΣ21Call me Hahc21 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
For immense contributions to Wikipedia. From a long-time close observer, for your careful, thorough by-the-book approach to editing in potential-COI situations, providing one of the finest examples of successfully handling those in a way that provides an unequivocal benefit to Wikipedia. My apologies that if this is so late and thus sort of "out of the blue", but my resolution is to catch up long overdue much-deserved barnstars. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
This Barnstar is for being a good example of how to do things the right way, even when it isn't the easy way. Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits to Silk Road - you deserve a good whisky (or something stronger) for having become a true Wikipedian over the last year! SmartSE (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Awarded for your COI submissions board. I have long thought that there should be an equivalent to WP:BLPN for companies. I hope the board will flourish, and become a Wikipedia noticeboard in due course. AndreasJN466 23:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For long track record of improving business articles and working with new editors to explain the COI policy. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Premise: Based on my own inquiry pipeline, about 75% of organizations or BLPs looking for Wikipedia help cannot be ethically supported, because they just want something too different than Wikipedia to obtain their objectives ethically.
Premise: About half of those with reasonably aligned objectives have the perspective, skills, corporate bureaucracy, and other factors that will put them in a position to be productive/neutral.
Conclusion: About 12.5% of COI participation is useful to the encyclopedia.
Therefore: COI participation is discouraged, but about 1 in 10 cases are an exception.
Like most new editors and especially most new COI editors, I made a lot of bad contributions to Wikipedia before I made good ones. This is part of the reason I spend some time cleaning up the types of promotional edits I use to make. I continue to go back to some of the mediocre work I have done in the past to bring them up to GA or otherwise improve them.
"I'm tired of feeling like the community runs on high-octane rage and like every policy or content discussion is all that stands between us and the end of the world." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)