jf_wikipedia@mac.com wrote:
We have had a vigorous debate on these issues on the talk page, and similar concerns were voiced there. The current wording about "close relationships" makes allowances related to editing within policies. It now reads:
== Close relationships == Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing Karl Marx, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator.[1] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
There is no tidy definition of what is meant by "too close" in this context, and editors should use their common sense in deciding whether this guideline applies. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if he is deeply committed to it. As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area. Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you in that direction. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, take seriously what they say and consider withdrawing from editing the article.
There is some opposition to this wording on the basis that it is "too soft", but IMO it captures the spirit of what this guideline wants to say about editing articles in which one may have a COI based on a "close relationship".
Conflicts of interest are a fact of life, and should not in themselves bar a person from editing a subject. It's more important that potential conflicts of interest be declared so that the person's perspective is clear. While neutrality is important, and articles should clearly approach neutrality more closely with each edit, no-one can completely divorce himself from his own perspective on a controversial issue. A person directly connected with a company may very well quote from the company's PR material; that's fine because he can very well be an authority on what the company's point of view really is. Editing that should not distort what the company is trying to say. If the company's statements differ from what it actually does that needs to be expressed too, but this is in addition to rather than instead of the company's propaganda.
The contrast that you make between the band manager and the climate change crusader is interesting. There is a lot of controversy about climate change, but you seem to support a lighter application of the rules in this case than with the band manager in an article that is of more limited importance. In the absence of further information why not let the band manager's comments stand if they are not of a controversial nature?
The advice of other editors is to be considered, but a claim that someone is in a conflict of interest is often a personal attack. It can too often be used as a bullying tactic to make the opposing POV dominant.
Ec