The Wikipedia conflict of interest tag

What are the conflict of interest notices on Wikipedia?

Wikipedia uses a small family of notices to record that people connected to a subject have worked on its article. Three matter most. Two sit on the article itself and are read by everyone. The third sits on the talk page and is mainly read by editors.

Two relatives also turn up. Template:Autobiography is used where the article reads as written largely by its subject or a person connected to them, and the COI tag's documentation says it is the more specific choice in that case. Template:Paid contributions marks an article whose paid edits were disclosed but still need cleanup, as distinct from undisclosed ones.

Both article banners end with a link to Wikipedia's advice for people who find an article about themselves, and a link to its scam warning in case someone asks for money to edit the article.

Why does a conflict of interest tag appear on an article?

A COI tag appears when an editor believes that someone close to the subject has edited the article and that the editing has left a real neutrality problem. Both halves are needed. The template's documentation says the article should have a specific, articulable, fixable problem, and that the tag should not be used simply because someone suspects COI editing, or because there is or was a connected editor. Suspected connections without a content problem belong on the talk page, in the connected contributor template.

The usual triggers are visible in the edit history:

• an account whose name matches the subject, the company or its agency;
• an account that has edited nothing but this article and closely related ones;
• edits that add praise, remove criticism or replace sourced text with the subject's own wording;
• references that are mostly the subject's own website, press releases or interviews.

Editors may not reveal another editor's identity, under the policy against outing, so a tag does not mean anyone has been named. It means the pattern of edits made the connection apparent. The conflict of interest guideline calls this an apparent COI, and says it should be resolved through discussion where possible.

The documentation also says that whoever adds the tag should promptly start a talk-page discussion explaining what is non-neutral. If they do not, any editor is justified in removing it.

What does the undisclosed paid tag mean?

The undisclosed paid tag means an editor believes a significant part of the article was written by someone paid to do so who did not declare it. The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use make disclosure of every employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation a condition of any paid contribution, and the English Wikipedia's paid-contribution disclosure policy adds that editors who fail to disclose paid contributions are prohibited from editing.

The tag is therefore more serious than the COI tag. The COI banner describes a connection. This one describes a breach of the Terms of Use, and it can be accompanied by action against the accounts involved and by the paid version of the connected contributor template on the talk page, which the tag's documentation asks editors to add at the same time.

There is a variant for content added before 16 June 2014, when the paid disclosure requirement came into effect, which omits the reference to the Terms of Use. Articles carrying the tag are listed in Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content, which editors who specialise in paid editing problems watch.

For a subject, the hard part is that the tag concerns the people who were paid, but it sits on the subject's article. Even if the agency responsible has gone, the banner stays until the content it produced has been checked by someone independent.

What is the connected contributor template?

The connected contributor template is a box at the top of the talk page listing accounts that are, or appear to be, connected to the article's subject. It can hold up to ten accounts. For each one it can record whether the connection has been declared, with a link to the declaration, and whether the account has edited the article.

The paid version adds who is paying and on whose behalf. The conflict of interest guideline explains the two fields: the employer is whoever pays the editor, such as a PR company, and the client is the person or organisation the payment is made for, usually the subject. Disclosure is a requirement for paid editors, and the guideline expects it on the affected talk pages.

The template also has a field for the date on which a neutral editor last checked the connected contributors' edits, and the name of that editor. That field is the closest thing Wikipedia has to a formal sign-off that a connected editor's work has been reviewed.

Because it is a record rather than a complaint, the template is not something to be cleared. A declared, current entry with a recent neutral check is the healthy state for an article that connected editors have worked on.

What do these tags signal to readers and editors?

To readers, the article banners say that the article may not be neutral and may have been shaped by the people it describes. That is the damage subjects feel most, because the banner sits above the opening paragraph that journalists, investors and employers read first.

To editors, the tags say more:

• the article is listed in a tracking category, such as Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest, that volunteers work through;
• the talk page should explain the concern, so the next editor knows what to check;
• edit requests from connected editors on this article will be read with that history in mind;
• repeated problems may be raised at the conflict of interest noticeboard, where editors discuss specific connected editors and articles in public.

The tags themselves do not delete anything or block anyone. They mark the article for attention, and attention from experienced editors is often how a promotional article is cut back to a short, neutral one.

How is a conflict of interest tag properly resolved?

A COI tag is resolved when the content it questions has been reviewed and fixed, and an editor without a conflict of interest is satisfied that it now meets the neutral point of view policy. The steps are:

1. Read the talk page. Find the discussion the tagging editor started, and note what they said was wrong. If there is no discussion and none has been started, that is relevant too.
2. Disclose. Anyone connected to the subject, and anyone working for them, declares the connection on their user page and on the talk page, using the connected contributor template. Paid editors must state the employer and the client.
3. Identify the problem passages. Usually these are promotional wording, missing criticism that reliable sources report, or claims resting only on the subject's own material.
4. Propose the fix by edit request. Post specific, sourced changes on the talk page under Template:Edit COI, quoting the current text and the proposed replacement.
5. Ask for a neutral assessment. Once the content is fixed, ask on the talk page whether the tag is still needed. If the article has few active editors, the guideline suggests asking at a related WikiProject or the conflict of interest noticeboard.
6. Let an uninvolved editor remove the tag. The COI tag's documentation says it may be removed by editors who do not have a conflict of interest once the problem is resolved.

Edit requests need patience. The Edit COI template itself warns that the backlog is very high, and in late October 2026 it showed more than 1,100 requests waiting for review. A short, specific request with good sources is far more likely to be picked up than a long rewrite.

The undisclosed paid tag follows the same route, with one extra element: the paid editing has to come into the open. Its documentation sets no separate removal test, so the general rule applies and an independent editor removes it once the content has been checked and cleaned up.

Why does removing the tag yourself make things worse?

Because the removal is a conflict of interest edit about the conflict of interest, and Wikipedia is set up to notice it. The help page on maintenance templates says editors who have been paid to edit an article, or have some other conflict of interest, should not remove its maintenance templates. The conflict of interest guideline lists the few edits connected editors may make directly, such as removing vandalism or fixing a broken link, and removing a COI tag is not among them.

It is also detected automatically. Wikipedia runs a public edit filter, number 878, named "New user removing COI template". It labels any edit to an article or draft in which an account that is not extended confirmed removes the COI, undisclosed paid, paid contributions, advert or promotional templates. The label appears in the page history and in recent changes, where any editor can filter for it. The filter had recorded more than 53,000 hits by October 2026.

What usually follows is predictable. The tag is restored. The account receives a warning about removing maintenance templates or about conflict of interest editing. If the edits continue, the guideline says single-purpose accounts that keep editing promotionally after a warning may be blocked. A suspected but undisclosed paid connection can lead to the undisclosed paid tag being added on top, and to a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. Each of those steps is recorded and stays with the article.

Can a COI tag be removed if the article was never a problem?

Yes, but not by the subject. If the tag was added without any explanation on the talk page, the COI template's documentation says any editor is justified in removing it. The help page also allows removal where a tag clearly did not belong, or where the supporting discussion has gone dormant with no other support for the tag.

A connected editor's part is to make that case, not act on it. A short talk-page post works best: say that you are connected, note that no specific neutrality problem has been identified, or that the passages raised have since been fixed, and ask an uninvolved editor to review the tag. If nobody responds, the conflict of interest noticeboard or a related WikiProject can be asked to look.

It is worth being honest with yourself about the article first. Editors are good at recognising neutral writing, and if the article reads like the subject's own website, the tag is probably right, whoever added it.

Is it worth handling a COI tag on your own?

It can be, if the problem is narrow. A subject who discloses their connection on the talk page and posts a precise, well-sourced edit request correcting a few promotional sentences is doing what the guideline asks, and volunteers often respond well to that.

It is harder where the tag reflects years of connected editing, an agency that worked without disclosure, or a dispute with the editor who placed it. Then the job involves reading the full history, separating text that can stay from text that cannot, finding independent sources for what remains, and presenting it to volunteers who have seen many such requests. The subject is also the person least likely to see their own article as others do.

The decision to remove a tag rests with an uninvolved editor. If your article carries one of these notices, our page health check will tell you what lies behind it and what a proper resolution would involve.