Wikipedia talk:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide/Archive 1

Archive 1

Usernames

I'm not sure about the advice on usernames. First, it ought to link to the advice at WP:REALNAME. Second, I think that it overstates the actual policy. It's okay to "include" a company, client, or product name, and there are dozens of examples of this: Mark at Alcoa (talk · contribs) contains the company name and Ipodnano05 (talk · contribs) is the name of a specific consumer electronics product.

In particular, I'd like you to consider the case represented by Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK (talk · contribs): This is automatic COI disclosure with every single edit. IMO we should encourage people to consider disclosing their COIs this way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We should definitely encouarge COi disclosure through signatures, see User:Eclipsed, but i thought working on an article with the affiliated username was prohibited. Maybe there's a tension between REALNAME company and REALNAME people when it comes to autobiographies. Promotional usernames are prohibited, which along with suggesting bias, are what we tell people on IRC to avoid. You have a point that it's better to disclose the bias, but what about the promotional side? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on some of the unfounded claims made by editors, I think it's a case of every editor having a different opinion about what the actual policy is. Someone actually said last week that the apparent "policy" is to just keep asking, until you find an admin who will block anyone whose username you dislike. It's like the people who declare that if you have any connection at all to the subject, then the COI "policy" (it's a guideline) "prohibits" you from making any edits at all (it doesn't).

But think through the username thing: Wikipedia is hurt when someone promotes their business, right? User:Go buy Microsoft Windows is a problem, because we don't want Wikipedia to be used to tell people to go buy something. But how exactly is Wikipedia hurt if the person says, in his username, "My name's Bob, and I work for Microsoft, so watch out for biased editing"? Why would this be desirable in userspace, but not desirable for someone to see in a diff or page history?

(I think that Eclipsed is being too scrupulous; I wouldn't suggest a page like that unless the editor had actually shown a pattern of biased edits. While we say that other editors should be nice to people who play it straight, the fact is that they often don't.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about a Username/COI RfC about allowing company non-promotional names as a way to disclose COI, and affirming that COI is accepted as long as it's not non-neutral or disruptive? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's well-established that people with a connection to the subject are permitted to edit articles about those subjects—so long as they are not being disruptive and are meeting the core content policies. There are always a few editors who haven't gotten the memo, but the COI guideline has said this basically since it was written.

The username thing has been less clear. A few months ago, we changed the UAA policy to discourage blocking good, non-disruptive editors over names. A very small number of editors object to names like "Mark at Alcoa" (which example apparently went through a long discussion back in the day, with the conclusion that the name was acceptable). I don't pretend to understand their reasoning: It's effectively like painting a bull's eye target on anyone who might be tempted to harm Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Why wouldn't we want to permit this? (I could see not especially encouraging it, since we always hope that editors will eventually become interested in articles unrelated to their jobs, but demanding that people not do this seems silly to me.)

So I wouldn't bother with an RFC over affirming that editors with a connection to the subject may, with due care, edit articles they care about, but the username thing is a possibility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I will chip in here with my views (wearing my admin hat). Here is the basic algorithm I use:

1. Is the username a name of a company (and obviously so, like User:KlingComputersLtd)
   • If they have made no edits that are promotional, I will indef block them with the {{Uw-softerblock}} message ("Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account...")
   • If they have made promotional edits, I will indef block them with the {{Uw-spamublock}} message ("Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes")
2. Is the username including the name of a company (e.g. User:John from Kling Computers)
   • If they have made no edits that are promotional, I will not block them - but I may leave a friendly CoI message if required
   • If they have made promotional edits, I will indef block them with the {{Uw-spamublock}} message ("Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes")

As mentioned above, editing an article about a company, even if you work for that company, is not necessarily bad - if the information is sourced and neutrally worded and meet Wikipedia's expectations, there's no reason for those editors not to edit the article.

Those are my thoughts - I try to AGF (but if the username is a company name, I'm less likely to do so - although to be fair, 99% of the time I find the username is a company name after seeing a Speedy Deletion nomination for a promotional article about the company!) - obviously I can't talk for any other admins! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@WAID, you're right, basic COI policy doesn't need rehashing. For the username side, I'm interested... see below.

@Phantomsteve. Well said, I think the key which WAID and I haven't mentioned yet is appearing to represent the company. That's an issue whether or not the username is promotional. But for a hypothetical "John from Microsoft", the question is, do we want editors with a COI to be transparent about it, or do we want to eliminate the appearance of a COI? The first seems like 'accepting bias' to some and the latter seems like 'burying the problem' to others. Of course, allowing COI names only works if we're also encouraging proper COI practices, and prohibiting COI names only works if we're also prohibiting (and monitoring) bad COI practices. I think we should have an RfC about it and try to find some middle ground.

@Whomever. Weird idea. I've thought perhaps editors who want to carry a COI username should have to do some nominal upkeep--have a userbox ('This user understands conflict of interest policy and maintains neutrality at all times'); or require registration at COIN; or a verbal response that they've read COI (or PSCOI)... basically something to leverage the fact that if they want to walk around with a gun in their holster they need to show they've been to the safety class. Is that too nanny state? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is the fundamental point of disagreement: I don't see the company name as a visible "gun in a holster". I see it as a leper's bell: something meant to warn other people of risks.

Think about what actually happens in the typical article: the editor with a disclosed connection to the subject is usually dismissed, insulted, and marginalized. Rather than "I'm with the company, so I know best", it's "You're with the company, so I'm going to have you blocked if you don't roll over and play dead when I propose trashing the company's article by spamming in every single little negative news report I can dredge up, no matter how minor."

Let me give an example: At Vector Marketing (a complicated article with a history of POV pushing and COI abuse), the current situation is basically one PR hack vs a couple of "normal" editors. The "normal" editors are, perhaps out of frustration with previous whitewashing jobs, determined to include as much criticism as possible. Some of that criticism is based on single-sentence passing comments in articles that overall are neutral or favorable. The PR person's suggestions aren't always good, but requests for the removal of obvious trivia (recent example: There's an informal group of critical former employees with maybe 80 "members" on Facebook. The "normal" editors are convinced that our readers need to know that this group exists) are dismissed out of hand, while requests to add similarly verifiable and similarly trivial—but positive—material are also dismissed out of hand. AFAICT, none of the editors (except me, naturally) are aiming for a neutral, accurate article, but only one of them gets nasty notes about bias and conflicts of interest.

Another example: Do you ever see User:James Cantor around Wikipedia? He's apparently one of the world's few academic researchers who study pedophilia. Because so few people work in that area, most of the actual research done on the subject is done by people connected to him in one way or another. And some admin blocked him a while ago... for wondering aloud whether a physician who writes occasionally about sex research is actually notable, given that three-quarters of the "sources" in the article were written by the BLP himself, and the rest contain only a single sentence about the BLP. At the time of the block, the admin also told him that he had to stop editing articles within his expertise, basically because there are no mainstream academic publications on the subject that don't have at least an indirect connection to Prof. Cantor. (Nearly all publications are by someone that Cantor has worked with, co-authored a paper with, served on a committee with, employed by the same institution, said something positive about, cited their work, etc.) A discussion at AN resulted in the community affirming that we actually do want professors and psychologists working on these articles and that WP:SELFCITING is acceptable, but the whole thing was based on bashing someone because of a self-declared connection to the subject.

I could go on, but this is actually the typical response to a self-declared COI from a significant minority of editors. The person who declares a connection to the subject gets less respect and authority, not more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right about gun-in-holster v. leper's bell, that is the key disagreement. I don't have a strong opinion on it actually and work with both types regularly. Either way the key is to educate these editors about proper use of sources and neutrality and how to avoid bias and disruption. But should we take an affirmative stance on usernames, and does not doing so leave this ambiguity about whether or not coi editing is okay? Right now there is clearly a disagreement in principle and in practice about COI usernames, so I think we should consider the RfC. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Some specific advice for PR companies?

This is something I use when responding to unblock requests from PR companies!

I give it as a suggested part of this advice (perhaps have a section headed Some advice specifically for PR Agencies and Consultants):

If you work for a PR Agency/Consultancy, and you are considering creating/editing articles about your clients, you might want to read this advice from Rush PR News: "PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients", which concludes

Inevitably, the agency will be called to account as to why the article was removed, so it is undoubtedly the best option to be honest with the client about Wikipedia’s stance, and to wait for someone completely removed from the business to deem the business noteworthy enough to want to submit an article of their own accord.

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. We could add to that the fact that 80% of articles begun by new editors are deleted shortly after creation, and that others become magnets for negative information about the company. If I were a PR company, I wouldn't start an article on a client until I had two positive, feature-length articles in two unrelated publications that I could use as a foundation for the article—and if there were published complaints about the company (especially of the "sensational lawsuit, quietly settled later" sort), I might not risk it at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the point about biased editing being public. WAID, i'm less keen on discouraging creating articles about companies. I think we should encourage a proper understanding of what happens when you make an article but not think we can dissuade editors from having a page on WP. We need to remind them that negative information and criticism are part of an encyclopedic overview. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft

• Remember this is a wiki: Wikipedia is a community-edited encyclopedia which is completely transparent: you can not control what happens to your article once you create it, anyone can see what is changed, and that includes the addition or removal of sourced negative or critical commentary and content. If your organization is revealed to be slanting sources or information to hide a scandal or unfairly promote a product it may be reported on in the media and lead to a significant backlash. Be careful with sources and follow our policies closely to avoid frustration and embarrassment.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I like that - although we have an article which can be linked to there somewhere - the Streisand effect (to save people the time of reading it, the Streisand effect is "a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to hide or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, whose attempt in 2003 to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.") PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Added link. Will wait for a comment or two and then add it to the guide. Nice suggestion. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree strongly with other editors and they're not changing their minds

Add wikibreak "Go do something else for a few days. You'll be surprised by the new perspective it gives you." Also add WP:WikiSloth "It's only Wikipedia. It's not the end of the world if you don't get everything you wanted here. Consider leaving it as is." Woz2 (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. WikiBreak is something I can slip in there. I know a good spot for it. Thanks! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"you should be" or "expect to be"?

Minor wordsmithing suggestion: Replace "you should be" in the preamble with "expect to be" (Occurs twice) Woz2 (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I find 'you should be' a little personal and direct. 'Expect to be' is also nice and very forward looking. 'Should' is always a bit of a wishy-washy word. I'm thinking about this one. If you feel strongly, go ahead and make the change. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

How about "the result will be you'll be treated with kindness and respect" and "the result will be you'll be helped and guided" ? I'm happy to make suggestions but I'd rather not edit the text itself. If I and others start hacking away at it, I fear it'll suffer the same fate as WP:COI. Feel free to use my suggestions or not. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Explicitly state target audience

I suggest the preamble should mention that the page assumes good faith and is targeted at contributors who want to help the project and are looking for clear guidance. It's not for scoundrels looking to wikilawyer around loopholes. Woz2 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was clear that good faith was not just assumed but being promoted. I'm not sure I see the difference, with the exception of not stating who the page is not for, which would set the wrong tone, in my opinion. I wanted the intro to be welcoming. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Good points. How about changing "This page will try to explain what you need to know to " to "If you follow these guidelines, you'll see how to edit pages, add neutral content, avoid obstacles, and get help along the way." Woz2 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Progress checklist

Suggest adding the progress checklist back as a subpage??? Woz2 (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That I can definitely do. I thought it was making the document a little long. Maybe I should add it back. I'm thinking about it. What do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, not on the main page, but as a separate subpage with a link on the main page. Woz2 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall this is excellent, but one nit...

It seems to me that overall this is excellent, especially compared to the impenetrable legalese of WP:COI but one hopefully constructive suggestion...

• Take time to get sources and policy right and your content will last.

...seems a bit redundant and vague??? Woz2 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I've always liked that phrasing and found its sentiment to come in handy several times in my personal advising of various COI editors. I wonder if anyone else shares your distaste for it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

OK There's nothing wrong with it. Keep it if you think it adds value. Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Simple English translation

I made a page on the Simple English Wikipedia. It is a simple conflict of interest guide. It is a translation of this essay. But, the page is too small. Please help make the page better. Thank you! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Add the teahouse template somewhere?

Wondering if this is appropriate. I'm on the fence because I don't want to add clutter. Need to fix the greeting, obviously.

Hello! Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Woz2 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

rather than dismissed or targeted.

I suggested deleting the phrase "rather than dismissed or targeted." and adding a new sentence: "If you don't do these things and instead add biased or unsourced material, don't be surprised when the community reverts your edits. In extreme cases an administrator may stop you from editing. We don't do these things to spite you or punish you but to protect the encyclopedia. It's the way we maintain the neutral point of view and support from reliable sources that our readers expect." ..it's a bit long but hopefully it's start of a discussion. Woz2 (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Individual Engagement Grant proposal

I've proposed an individual engagement grant related to improving and expanding usage of WP:PSCOI and WP:COI+ as tools for outreach to and oversight of paid editors. I'd appreciate any feedback here. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Chart suggesting steps for community review

I'd like to add this suggestion as practical guidance about receiving a response: where to go, and suggestions on how long to wait.

Steps for community review;

Wikipedia is a very busy, free-form place and officially has no deadline. COI editors should use the following timeline as a guide. If one of these steps does not lead to resolution by the given timeline, go to the next step:

Step	Communication	Suggested wait for resolution
Step 1	Talk page messages with edit requests, help desk, and/or help chat	1 week
Step 2	Paid Editor Help board, COI noticeboard, Administrator noticeboard, and/or other noticeboards (check back at step 1 as well)	1 week
Step 3	Contact Wikipedia's volunteer response team via info@wikipedia.org (check back at steps 1 and 2 as well)	1 month

Tips

• Move through the steps in sequence, but continue to check the forums where you previously posted even as you advance to a new step. OTRS can often only direct you back to the forums in steps 1 and 2, so it's best to invest your energies in those options as much as possible. If after 1 month no one has replied to your requests, feel free to leave a message on Jimmy Wales' talk page as he has requested.
• Exceptions to the above timeline should only be for uncontroversial edits, specifically including removing outright vandalism, removing blatant lies or glaring misinformation, fixing spelling, or fixing grammatical errors.
• Negative information about your company or client that is well-sourced should never be removed by you.
• If other editors have responded to your requests but not implemented them because they disagreed with what you are requesting, you should never implement changes by editing the article yourself. Instead, engage those editors in civil discussion and try to reach consensus about wording that is acceptable to all. If necessary, invite other uninvolved editors to participate.

Comments on proposal

• The final "1 month" is meaningless, because there isn't any step after that (unless you want to add formal complaint to the Foundation, legal action, etc), so that should be removed. The other suggestions are too short. I would say a month to both, unless it's an emergency, in which case go straight to OTRS.

  The bit about removing negative information should also go, because paid advocates shouldn't edit articles directly, whether adding positive or removing negative. The exceptions sentence should be tightened: exceptions are really only for uncontroversial factual errors (e.g. that something happened in 2012 not 2013), or emergencies such as defamation (but even then, best to wait for OTRS). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Question: What to do if there's no timely community response?

What should we suggest a PR professional or corporate representative do if they follow all appropriate avenues for getting a response to their suggestions but still do not get one. What guidance do we provide then? A controversial idea I had was to permit direct editing at that point provided COI noticeboard was notified. I don't think that's amenable to some of community is receptive to that. Another idea was to suggest editors go to Jimmy Wales' talk page and leave a comment there, as he suggested any editor could do should they want an unbiased response. Any other ideas? If we are guiding these editors to the talk pages to seek community review (rather than directly editing themselves), what should they do if the community doesn't reply?Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Anything that would contradict the COI guideline has to be proposed on that talk page. This page can't say anything that would allow direct-editing by paid advocates after a certain period of waiting.

If the community doesn't reply despite all efforts, it's because it doesn't want to reply, and most likely because it disagrees. We can't force volunteers to respond to paid advocates, or blackmail them into responding, or penalize the project (by allowing advocacy to be added to articles) because they didn't respond within a certain timeframe. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Essay tag

Hi, I've added the essay tag to this to make clear that it may not have consensus. It was created with the information tag on it without discussion, [1] and it's clear that the advice to companies to create drafts is contentious, and may be damaging both to the companies and to Wikipedia. I've swapped some of the drafts language for "suggestions on talk" instead, but to do that entirely would involve rewriting this page, so for now I think the essay tag is more appropriate. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Slim, this is a very highly used page, linked from Help:Contents and reflecting consensus about talk page engagement. I won't argue with the essay tag if you want to cast doubt about this page's consenus, but if that's the case, and in any case, I'm going to undo the changes about drafts. Creating drafts is standard practice at WP:AfC and there is nothing anywhere in the talk page guidelines which suggests that COI editors can't propose drafts. Discussion is underway at WT:COI to change that: it was proposed to reject drafts, and there was no consensus for that rejection. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I can accept your addition about drafts being controversial in some quarters. I've also incorporated some language about appropriate review.

I'd like to have a broader discussion, involving editors besides us about whether or not this page qualifies for Template:Information page. My understanding was that the guidance on this page was generally uncontroversial and in line with WP:COI. How do you think it's best to go about that? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Ocaasi, you're presenting a very one-sided view here, and I think it led to this recent problem. Companies creating drafts (ghostwriting, in effect) is highly controversial. The fact that some Wikipedians can't see this doesn't make it less so. The media understands why this is unethical. So this page (which I see you're linking to on and offwiki, rather than to the COI guideline) has to make clear that this is potentially problematic.

Where is the discussion that gained consensus for article subjects to create drafts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well there's no consensus to prohibit it and no guideline or policy which prohibits it, therefore by default its permitted. Whether we should encourage it is a fair question and I'm happy to present both views on this page as you have done. I've added some language about editorial independence and proportionate scrutiny to improve the process where it happens.

With these changes do you accept the information page status being restored? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghostwriting may not be prohibited, but it's presented here as though it's encouraged, and that there's consensus for it. The problem is that the page was written as an essay, but tagged as though it simply expanded on the COI guideline (this is what happened at COI+ too). It actually goes quite a bit further than the guideline, or even off in a different direction, apparently encouraging COI involvement. It's clear that some people do support that, but it's equally clear that others don't. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well we do disagree on that point. I feel this page reflects best practices about appropriate engagement, at talk pages, presenting suggestions. Is the draft section your main objection? Do you think this page doesn't reflect the variety of views with the current 'two perspectives' introduction? Are you aware that this page has been a default guide for over a year now. COI+ was a proposal that never caught on, but PSCOI was well received from the outset and has been broadly used in the irc channel, at AfC, through OTRS, and with many different new editors who come to us with a COI. Basically, I think you're overstating the contentiousness of this page. It is in line with WP:COI and even Brightline. What specifically are your remaining objections, and how would you see fit to address them? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Mistitled?

Hi. Looking at the current version of this page, it's neither plain nor simple. Perhaps it should be renamed? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi MZ, point taken ;) It's a comprehensive, one page guide which aims to be clear and instructive. Compare it to WP:COI, for example. I think (or hope) that the 'plain and simple' phrase has acquired some recognition and would be hesitant to change it. Are there areas of the page you can point to that aside from being long are either not plain or not simple? I'm very open to refining the content. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know what this refers to?

Consultants for mission-aligned organizations: When an organization like an educational non-profit – one that largely shares our mission of sharing knowledge – seeks someone to help facilitate an informal collaborative relationship, that is often a mutually beneficial situation. These positions may be for-profit. Be careful of areas where missions are not aligned. Avoid even the appearance of impropriety by limiting scope to mission-aligned areas and using full disclosure for any potential areas of concerns.

It's not employees at academic or cultural institutions, Wikipedians in residence, or paid contract editors, all of which have their own entry. Can someone give an example? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Synthesize

I call attention to the use of the word "synthesize" in the 2nd sentence of item 6 ("Sources...") in the "Advice" section of the essay.

It would be better, probably, to use a different word, or simply to remove "synthesize", since "synthesis" has a specific meaning under NPOV policy. Use of "synthesize" in this essay seems to be a clear, even if unintended, contradiction to that policy, and could be used as a justification for making problematic edits. Comment? DonFB (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Broken link? Advice section - example of COI declaration

Hi there - I noticed that in the Advice section, under point 3. an example, (numbered 2), no longer seems to link to a COI Declaration http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Eclipsed/COI_Declaration&redirect=no - am not sure how to fix this - ? find the archived page? delete and re-number the examples? - i think it might be beyond my baby editing skills. Can someone help? BTW - am just learning about WP policies - and just gotta say THANK YOU Wikipedians for all the amazing work creating policy and help! - it is an incredible world community project. Depthdiver (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

@Ocaasi: Suggestions for the above? This is the old content. It's linked as example "2" at Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Advice. Thanks :) –Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

OTRS and edit requests

The Steps for engagement section of this page includes as Step 4: "Contact Wikipedia's OTRS volunteer response team via info@wikipedia.org". Earlier this summer, I had made some suggestions for a client article, however I'd had poor luck finding an editor to review them. Following the steps, eventually I came to the point where OTRS seemed the best option. But here's the reply I received: Your request is beyond the scope of the volunteer response team. Content issues are dealt with "on wiki". You will have to be patient and wait for someone to respond to your edit request.

Fortunately, I did find an editor to review my changes, and the issue is settled now. However, I still wonder: if the OTRS VRT doesn't see this kind of thing as being within their scope, should it even be listed as an available step? WP:OTRS describes the team's scope, and a few are relevant here: reporting errors, BLP issues, vandalism (essentially, the same kinds of edits COI editors are supposedly allowed to make anyway). In my case, while I had errors to correct, I also had editorial suggestions to go with them. Methinks most who would follow PSCOI would have suggestions of this sort as well. My question for anyone watching this page: should PSCOI clarify OTRS's role, or perhaps even remove it from the list of steps? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WWB Too, this is a fair point. OTRS volunteers may edit as editors just like anyone else, but their real function is to explain existing policies and facilitate appropriate interaction with the community. The reason the step is listed is twofold: 1) some issues involve legal complaints and OTRS is the only appropriate place to handle them (although we encourage going through the community first, if at all possible), 2) OTRS volunteers are sometimes better able to help direct editors to appropriate forums, assist them in posting to talk pages, use help me/edit requests, and ping uninvolved editors who may be of assistance etc. So, I can see the argument either way. I think the experience you had suggests removing the step, however I'm not sure all COI editors have the same issues you did or would receive the same response. I'd like to get a better sense of what general kind of assistance you were asking for so that I can post to the OTRS mailing list and get some input. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 05:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, so if that's what they're good for, I think all of that needs to be explained—and most likely separate from this progression of steps, because I think these should be about "how to get action on a specific issue" rather than "how to get more information about your issue". You can see the specifics of my request on the article's Talk page (here) but I'll go ahead and paste my email to OTRS in this box:

Email to OTRS

Greetings, OTRS. I work with a firm called Winton Capital Management (enwp.org/Winton_Capital_Management) and this spring and early summer I've been working through volunteer editors to gain consensus for updates to the article about it. While I realize WP:COI allows uncontroversial edits to Wikipedia articles, this conflicts with Jimbo's "bright line" advisory that paid advocates never edit article space. Meanwhile, I've had a last few requests on the article's Talk page since late May without any reply whatever. I did speak with a recent editor of the page who thought the edits were fine but insisted that I implement them—which I will not do for fear of running afoul of Jimbo's advice. I am interested to see if someone watching this inbox is willing to review my suggestion and, if the edits are OK, move them into place?

In reply, I got the message that I posted in my first message here. I'm interested to hear what you think—or anyone else recently involved here, including but not limited to User:SlimVirgin, User:MZMcBride, or User:Woz2. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice section and PR firms

@Guy Macon: In October, I added a point of advice against using PR firms. IIRC this was in the middle of a breaking scandal about a particular PR firm misbehaving, and perhaps wasn't the wisest time to put it up. It was reverted [2] in November because of "consensus." I would greatly appreciate seeing the discussion in which that consensus developed (because it's clearly not on this page), or alternatively some argument for why this is bad advice. Thank you. --NYKevin 21:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I get a bit long-winded in this response. It is very likely that this discussion will attract a number of editors with strong opinions, so me covering a bit more now will, I hope, reduce the length of the discussion later.

You (NYKevin) already know this, but for those following along, that revert had this in the edit summary: "Disagree? WP:BRD explains what to do about it" and NYKevin is doing the right thing by opening a discussion here. Now it is my responsibility to show a reason for undoing the change, then we both discuss it and see if we can find a compromise that we both like.

Getting back to the question at hand, the obvious question is how Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" applies to this. I would argue that this is one of the "pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy" described in that page. In other words, In my opinion Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide should expand on and clarify (but not contradict) pages such as Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and should reflect the results of any RfCs and other discussions on paid editing. And there has been a lot of discussion. For example:

Essays:

Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations

Wikipedia:Commercial editing

Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide (this page)

Wikipedia:Public relations (essay)

RfCs and proposals:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#User:Cla68 advertising his services as a paid Wikipedia editor

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive749#Why not let the WMF handle paid editing?

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Paid editing

Wikipedia:No paid advocacy

Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline)

Wikipedia:Paid editing (policy)

Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/COI

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry/Employees

Wikipedia talk:No paid advocacy#RfC: Should WP:BRIGHTLINE become policy?

Noticeboard/Village Pump Discussions:

Wikipedia talk:Commercial editing#New draft

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Closing votes and discussions on paid editing

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#WP:Paid, witch-hunts, Wikipedia review and general moral panic

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625#Paid Editing

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Paid advocacy

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Paid editing

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Paid editing

Wikipedia:Content noticeboard/Archive1#Paid editing

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 78#Paid Editing

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 81#Paid editing

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 82#What policy governs paid editing?

Other:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal/Workshop#Paid Editing

Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Paid editing

Wikipedia talk:Editing with a conflict of interest (Talk page left over after merge)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-10-09/MyWikiBiz

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-06-15/News and notes#Paid editing (talk page left over from merge)

So, finally getting to the point, should we add the following text to this article?

"Don't use a PR firm. PR firms distance you from the Wikipedia community, making it harder for us to understand the relationship between the editor and the subject. Some PR firms have abused this distance in the past, using it to mask their numerous conflicts of interest. This kind of behavior reflects badly on you, and you may not know about it until we discover it. There is no rule against hiring a PR firm in and of itself, but it's probably not a great idea, and especially so if that firm makes a practice of editing articles directly."[3]

I say no. Again and again, proposals to restrict PR firms that follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations have resoundingly failed, and I am pretty sure that if we posted an RfC on whether to include the "Don't use a PR firm" language above the consensus would be a clear "no". Do we really want one Wikipedia page to encourage PR firms to not edit articles directly but instead, make suggestions on article talk pages and let others decide whether to implement them, and then have another Wikipedia page tell the PR firm's customers to not hire them anyway?.

In particular I dislike the claim that "PR firms distance you from the Wikipedia community, making it harder for us to understand the relationship between the editor and the subject". Where is the evidence that assigning the task to an inexperienced employee is in any way better than hiring a PR firm? How does a PR firm that fully discloses its COI make it harder for us to understand the relationship between the editor and the subject?

I have an alternative proposal:

"Don't pay a PR firm or instruct an employee to violates Wikipedia's rules. Doing that reflects badly on you, the changes made will be removed when we discover them, and you may receive negative press. The best way to avoid such problems is to insure that anyone you hire -- internally or externally -- follows the advice on our best practices for editors with close associations page.

I think that we should encourage paid editors who follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations and discourage those who do not. I think that a large majority of those who have commented on the various proposals and RfCs would agree with me on that. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can agree with you that there is strong consensus against this particular issue. Restricting something is not the same as discouraging it. As for "evidence," one common theme of PR-firm-scandals I've noticed is the business owners expressing surprise that rules were broken. This strikes me as a symptom of insufficient communication between the firms and their clients. If there is no firm, such a problem cannot exist. Remember, the "advice" section is just that: advice. Nothing in there is mandatory, nor is it presented as such. --NYKevin 20:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Controversial edits

Elvey has made some rather controversial edits[4] that do not appear to be supported by Wikipedia policy. In particular:

"and require that they follow US law": WP:COVERT does not require anything. It is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

"has published administrative interpretations of the law it enforces": The document cited is "Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising". It has not been established that Wikipedia articles are advertising.

"do not create a userspace draft." There is no policy against creating a userspace draft, and it is a common way of making it easier for a non-COI editor to review and accept/reject the proposed version.

"is regarded by some Wikipedians as illegal": We do not give legal advice.

"drafted promotional content that is incorporated into an article falls afoul of FTC-enforced law": We do not give legal advice.

I encourage Elvey to discuss such controversial changes on the article talk page before attempting to make such a radical change in a widely-read page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've discussed the change already, e.g. here. You just won't listen. I have little expectation a reasonable debate partly because I have seen Guy make edits on behalf of the powerful credit reporting agency Moody's that I think only a paid advocate would make, that is, I strongly suspect I've witnessed Guy's involvement in criminal activity- the kind I'm trying to discourage by informing editors of the law. Guy is trying to keep me from doing that. Would someone please (review the law and) restore my edit? Here are the facts: The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides

"apply to “any advertising message . . . that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser . . . .” ⁹ The Guides refer to advertising without limiting the media in which it is disseminated.:⁹ 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b)."

So, said Wikipedia article edits Guy made, for example, are advertisements, and everyone ought to know that such edits are advertisements. My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)

Furthermore, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure in the CRA article as long as it contains such advertising is a legal requirement, but there is no such disclosure. (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.) --Elvey (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't want to make any legal threats on the page.
• Adding «The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed,» into the guideline discussed on this talk page should be a good idea. Disclosing conflict of interest is a good practice.
• Nobody is liable for false statements made on Wikipedia. (Neither the contributor nor the WMF itself.)

• To quote, Wikipedia:General disclaimer: Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity. Gryllida (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• If there is one specific thing you want to get added, go ahead and say so here. Or split them into a few. It will make discussion easier to follow. Gryllida (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

To Elvey: Jimbo's talk page is not an acceptable substitute for discussion on the article talk page. See WP:CONSENSUS. This is the page that editors who are interested in the this article have on their watch list. Also, your accusations of illegal activity are a clear violation of WP:NPA.

To Gryllida: I was with you 100% until the part where you wrote "Adding «The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed,» into the guideline discussed on this talk page should be a good idea. Disclosing conflict of interest is a good practice." (Emphasis added.)

We recently had three RfCs on that very question:

Wikipedia:No paid advocacy

Wikipedia:Paid editing policy proposal

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest limit

All three failed, and if I were to post an RfC about using the phrase "must be" (implying a requirement or policy) as you did above, that RfC would fail as well. Disclosing conflict of interest is a good practice, and this page should encourage it. This page should not, however, imply that it is required by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. We have a clear consensus on that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Elvey Guy MaconI would encourage disclosing it too. I agree "must" may be too strong. Gryllida (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut to Advice section

I would like to create a global shortcut redirect to the Advice section anchor, but I'm not coming up with a decent name. WP:COIADVICE already points to a section in the standard COI page, but this summary is much better. Would someone object to WP:COIHOW? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Broken link. Advice section. Number 5. "Dot Com Disclosures"

"Page not found":
http://www.business.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/bus41-dot-com-disclosures-information-about-online-advertising.pdf

Possible replacements:
https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines/130312dotcomdisclosures.pdf
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2013/03/ftc-staff-revises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.231.101.103 (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Plain and simple

"Plain and simple"? This is some kind of parody, right? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Example articles

I changed the example article for the website category and was reverted. I don't think Google is a good example for readers of this page particularly given its length. Most people writing COI articles would be advised to write very short articles sticking to the facts; other sample articles listed on this page are generally short and simple (I assume for this reason?). I don't think we should indicate that a COI editor writing about their marginally notable website should draft anything similar to the Google article. I suggested an alternative that I saw in the website GA list. I don't care enough about this page to pursue this issue further, but wanted to provide this feedback here in case other interested editors can think of a better alternative. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

DeSmogBlog is terribly promotional. I don't know why it is still GA but it shouldn't be. I am sympathetic with choosing a shorter article but not a page that has obviously been hijacked by fans or employees. Not the kind of example we want to give conflicted editors intentionally. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Current video should be deleted

The current video (Great_Feeling.ogv) really doesn't belong here. First, it's unrelated to the topic at hand. Even worse, it's spam -- an advert for Wikipedia, but spam nonetheless. Since I've never edited an essay before, I thought I'd check on the talk page before proceeding. -- Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. i don't know when that was added. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Redirect?

It has been suggested to convert this essay into a redirect to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, for reasons explained at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Redirect?. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are academics treated differently?

I propose deleting this line from this advice article:

"Employees at cultural and academic institutions: We want experts editing Wikipedia articles. Merely being employed by an institution is not a conflict of interest."

It doesn't matter who you are or where you work: If you edit your employer's article, it's an inherent conflict of interest. It may be less problematic if you're a faculty member than if you're an employee in the organization's public relations office but it's still a conflict. ElKevbo (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that it's still a conflict of interest: it's very much a matter of judgement in the case at hand (and perhaps academics are better at that than the average). I've made quite a number of (uncontested) edits to the page for my college, being in a good position to know if an item of information needs correction (and information present on the page can be wrong, even if supported by an RS). I can't afford the time to go via the talk page and wait for general agreement. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It can be a problem when academics are editing biographies of their direct colleagues, something that I advise academic friends to avoid unless what they are changing are obvious corrections (like a verifiable job title, or a retirement). However all academics I know are highly unlikely to make 'promotional' edits to articles about their institution. --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger of COI guides

There is a discussion about a merger of COI guides at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest#Merger of COI guides that involves this page. Trialpears (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Content Control of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. on Wikipedia

Hi

I am the Communication Officer for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL), India. There is a page in the company’s name on Wikipedia.

We have observed that there are a lot of inaccuracies with respect to BHEL’s information on Wikipedia’s page. Besides, the page requires a lot of updating. Please let us know how to proceed.

For BHEL Jaya Mitra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.218.231.38 (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited would be the right place to post requests. —PaleoNeonate – 16:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Plain and simple?

I was looking for the plain and simple conflict of interest guide, but have landed here instead. Can anyone tell me where to find it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If you are referring to the fact that this the fact that this guideline is of significant length and are looking for something a little bit shorter I would recommend looking at Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. If you have any further questions about the rules and recommendations regarding editor's with conflicts of interest on English Wikipedia, I should be able to point you in the right direction. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I almost always refer COI editors who seem like they want to do the right thing to WP:BPCA instead of WP:PSCOI. I think it is less overwhelming. For those who seem to want to get into a fight, I use Template:Uw-coi and if they continue breaking our rules, I go straight to WP:ANI. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, The Editor's Apprentice, and Guy Macon: I agree that it's absurd to have a "plain and simple" page that's nearly as long as WP:COI itself. Some serious trimming is needed to strip this page down to the essentials relevant to COI to remove the WP:KUDZU. It should probably be done alongside some WP:CONSOLIDATION, since there's no separate use case for this page vs. WP:BPCA, etc. I see that there was some previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Archive_31#Merger_of_COI_guides; did that ever lead to anything, or did it just peter out? Pinging Trialpears — I see a consensus from that conversation to make some serious changes, which may require some WP:TNT. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sdkb: First off, I want to thank you for doing something a lot of people are unwilling to do and replying to a thread that has long gone quite, particularly because the topic of this thread continues to be relevant and important. The only thing that the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 31#Merger of COI guides resulted in, as far as I know, is some initial drafting work done at my third sandbox. As for what to do next, consensus on simplifying things into easier to handle and fewer pages seems close to universal and I think starting new pages from the ground up instead of trying to modify preexisting pages is probably the best way to move forward. It seems that Guy Macon has started a process in the section § Preliminary Proposal: Unified set of COI pages which would probably be a good way to start the process of improving things. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary Proposal: Unified set of COI pages

This will most likely require an official RfC, and will not be decided by an informal discussion here.

• Step one: create an exhaustive list of every page that and section -- policies, essays, supplements -- that deal with COI editing. Place your suggested additions to the list below this comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Step two: have a discussion (suggestions on where to have it are welcome) as to how many COI pages we need.

In my opinion we need as a minimum:

1. One page that use to reply to a well-meaning good-faith person who wants to add to Wikipedia but has a COI,
2. Another for a person who wants to fight about how evil we are to suppress his wonderful COI contributions,
3. Another page for someone who keeps spamming COI-related material and never discusses his behavior or responds to warnings,
4. A page for non-COI editors explaining step by step how to deal with the three types of COI editors I just described.

We may need short and long versions of some of the above or perhaps we can use collapsible sections with a title like "details". Place your preliminary discussions about how many pages we need below this comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

So we'll want to keep WP:COI as an established guideline that lays out our specific rules about COI editing; it's the place to point to if there are disputes about what constitutes COI editing, but not the place to point most COI editors. It can also include a bit of advice for established editors about dealing with COI editing, perhaps as an excerpt of the lead of (4). (1) would be the place to point COI editors; it should be concise, highly practical, and linked prominently from the top of WP:COI (since some editors will mistakenly point COI editors to there) but not replicated there. I don't see a need for (3) — (2) should be enough, and if it's disregarded, just use warnings. Most other pages in this realm should be turned into redirects to one of these, unless they can make a compelling argument that they have a clearly distinct purpose. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Step three: decide on a consistent naming convention and create a header that guides the reader as to which page to go to. Then put everything together as a series of suppages to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and turn the existing pages to redirects. Place your preliminary discussions about the naming convention below this comment. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

General discussion about this proposal This is the right place to discuss this proposal as a whole, as opposed to the specific questions asked above. Place your preliminary discussions about this proposal as a whole below this comment, and move any comments here that don't belong in the sections above. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I'd be alright with an RFC, just to be safe given that these are large-scale changes. But pinging WhatamIdoing, who has expressed concerns about RfC overuse — we have a large-scale but (so far) pretty much universally agreed-upon set of changes; in your view, is there a better way to establish consensus than an RfC? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure whether WhatamIdoing is concerned about RfC overuse overall or just RfC overuse at WP:RSN. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about RFC overuse at the COVID-related articles at the moment, and at e-cig articles in the past. I have no concerns about this. Guy, I'd suggest that you do Step One before the RFC (you don't need consensus to make a list), and then start a discussion (or a series of small discussions, to merge two little pages together, and then two others, etc., until there are fewer). In general, I think that merging up pages to have fewer of them, and to have them shorter and more pointful, would be a very, very good idea. I am pessimistic that editors will agree to do so, especially since the process of merging them will doubtless remove someone's favorite sentence (every sentence will be someone's favorite). Managing documentation is historically something that we've been very bad at. That said, if you want to have a go at it, then I'd suggest asking User:SlimVirgin for help, as she's got a clear idea of what COI means in the real world, and she has been successful in getting the COI guideline to move in that direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Another page to add to the merge pile once we get around to consolidating

See Wikipedia:COI in 5W. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)