Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 166

Brigham Young University
These are three paid editors who have disclosed their status on their user pages, and even in their usernames, but aren't disclosing at the articles they create or edit. Rachel Helps according to her user page is the program coordinator; she was asked to also disclose and have her students disclose at article talks but has said she doesn't think it's necessary, and from a quick check of the most recent article creation of each, they aren't doing so.
 * the great grandson of BYU namesake Brigham Young
 * , a professor at BYU,
 * , parent organization of BYU
 * former BYU Professor
 * former BYU Professor
 * successful BYU alumni
 * former BYU Professor
 * BYU Professor emeritus
 * successful BYU alumni
 * former BYU Professor
 * BYU Professor emeritus

They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced. I think the work they're doing is valuable. But I do think they probably need to disclose at article talk, and since there's already been discussion at Rachels Helps' talk, I thought I'd bring it here and see if others had concerns. —valereee (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Should definitely be noted on the article talk pages. Other editors can add them with a ref to the disclosure. (I agree that they should be doing so themselves.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would just like to echo what was said above by, are writing quality, well researched and sourced articles, which are neutrally written. They have added "BYU" to their sigs, perhaps a slight change to "Username (PE from BYU)" would solve the disclosure issue.   // Timothy ::  talk  13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that solves the problem. The article talk pages need to note COI creations, not just the usernames. Usernames can change -- once these editors are no longer with BYU, will they prefer to change them? Readers and editors need to know the COI history of an article with something permanently in the article talk page history, IMO. —valereee (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I disagree with the idea that all pages I edit are COI. My job doesn't depend on showing people in a positive light. You have yourself acknowledged that our edits are generally NPOV and well-researched. Maybe this is a discussion more relevant to paid editors in general? Why do you want to require that I and my students tag every talk page we edit when it isn't required? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm sorry to bring this up, it just concerns me when anyone is paid for editing without doing full disclosure (which means something permanently on the talk, IMO), and in this case, it could have the appearance of BYU paying people to edit in their own interest. It's not that I think you and your students aren't doing good work; I do. But whenever an entity pays someone to edit, it's concerning.
 * I want this because it seems like a service to readers who investigate to easily find this information. Please know I'm not trying to be aggressive here, but may I flip the question: why do you want not to do this? It seems like a pretty minor addition to your/your students' workload to add a notification to a talk page: a person being paid by BYU created this article. Why would that be a big deal? —valereee (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned on my talk page, it sets a precedent for other WiRs. Some WiRs don't edit Wikipedia itself, but some do. If there is consensus on Wikipedia for WiRs or paid editors to make talk page notifications, I will happily comply, but I don't want to let my people-pleasing desires make other people's jobs harder. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , perhaps we can compromise: place the notice for articles which there's an apparent potential COI? For instance, A Little Lower Than the Angels (novel), Death in 19th-century Mormonism, I Don't Want to Kill You, etc. If there's no connection to BYU/Mormonism, no COI tag? —valereee (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that you change the rules, which I would then comply with. "Strongly encourage" does not mean the same as "require." Why should my case be special? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not. I'd have the same concerns if Notre Dame hired editors to edit about ND alum/Catholicism. "Strongly encourage" means "Best practices." 3RR is a rule; 1RR is best practices: the best editors go to talk after the first revert rather than the third. BYU -- IMO, any academic institution -- should be striving for best practices, not minimum requirements. —valereee (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. In my opinion, best practices should be defined by the people doing the job. Are there very many editors who disclose a a COI on every page (or every page related to a religious institution) they edit? What do other editors who frequent COIN think? I confess that I've rarely seen other editors do this. I'm going on wikibreak next week but should respond to the discussion on Nov. 30th. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, no deadlines. :) —valereee (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , if it helps assuage any concerns, I found my way to this discussion because I think I need to ask the same thing (disclose at least on related pages) of an editor affiliated with a non-religious institution of higher ed. So yes it does happen elsewhere/it’s not only about BYU. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've asked my students to create different accounts for their personal accounts and link them to their work account. After they stop working for me, I don't have any power to enforce my preference, but I hope that will assuage concerns about usernames changing in this specific instance. I feel like disclosing my paid library job on my userpage is sufficient to fulfill policy and ethical obligations, and I don't plan to change my username or userpage disclosures in the event of a change in job status. I have edited a non-trivial amount of pages that would require talkpage disclosures if I included all BYU alums and members of the LDS church. Honestly, the pages I feel a true "conflict of interest" on aren't those. I don't consider BYU professors to be my coworkers, let alone other church employees. There was a bit of a discussion when I discovered a copyright violation on the Harold B. Lee Library page and ended up rewriting the page. Two or three other editors edited the page to help me remove some peacock language that was a holdover from previous editing and to explore topics like banned media that I hadn't thought to research. Basically, I think the current system is working for catching potential COIs from me regarding my employer. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the three of you are required to abide by the WMF terms of use. See WP:PAID: "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation." The terms of use also say: "community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure" (bold added). You are being asked here to abide by WP:COI, including WP:COIDISCLOSE.The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work, and if you were writing about historical events and figures, it's unlikely there would be a problem. But you're not doing that. You're engaged in PR, writing about living people who are BYU staff and alumni, including creating articles. The COI is not (as you implied above) that you have a relationship with those people; it's that BYU has a relationship with them and is paying you. SarahSV (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add something here. I hope it doesn't sound harsh.
 * If other people are telling me ethically I should do something, and I’m reluctant to do it, but if someone else did it I wouldn’t object, maybe I should examine why I’m reluctant to do it myself. What exactly is my objection?
 * I could go through all the articles created by BYU paid editors and insert a COI template for any that had a potential COI. That’s a lot of work for me because I have to first find, then investigate each article, assess it for its connection with BYU, etc. Oh, yep, the book this article is about…click to the author, yep, the author’s an alum, so yes, this book’s article should be tagged. Tag it. Why are you putting me through this when you knew when you created this article that the author was an alum and that was how you became interested in creating this article? You could have just tagged the talk page, done. Why would you object to doing that? It’s not a lot of extra work for you. It’s a work-saving for me.
 * So as someone who wants to move the project forward, why object? To me, objecting to making this part of the normal operating procedure is a symptom of the underlying COI. A contributor who wouldn’t object to that addition as a problem, who isn’t being asked to do significant extra work to add it, but objected to adding it themselves, is maybe opening themselves to assumptions that they were hoping it never got added. Which inevitably means we have to ask: Why? Why would you be hoping this wouldn't be added? It’s troublesome. And I would have thought it would be troublesome to BYU, too.
 * I reject the premise that this is “setting a precedent”. We examine each case on its own merits. The fact BYU voluntarily decided to do this would set no precedent other than to show what a best-practices approach would be. We have a strong tradition here of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So why not simply comply with the strong recommendations rather than requiring an actual rule? It’s so easy. Why not just do it? —valereee (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SarahSV says: "The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work" That is a dreadful slur on Wikimedians in Residence; the community does not "turn a blind eye" (viz: "To ignore or deliberately overlook, especially with respect to something unpleasant or improper"), it positively and actively encourages Wikimedians in Residence; and the good work they do - and rightly so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just do it? I am abiding by WP:COI and WP:COIDISCLOSE. What you are asking me to do, add tags to talk pages, is not required. I personally don't think it's all that useful (see the comment a bit below about talk pages receiving many fewer views than the actual page). I don't mind if someone else wants to add it! I'm not secretly hoping to "get away" with anything. I could similarly ask you why you want me to do this so much. Why are you trying to guilt me into going back and adding talk page tags to a bunch of pages I worked on instead of working to change the rule for everyone, if it's so important to you? You are singling me out, and it feels unfair. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I reject the premise that this is “setting a precedent”. We examine each case on its own merits. The fact BYU voluntarily decided to do this would set no precedent other than to show what a best-practices approach would be. We have a strong tradition here of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So why not simply comply with the strong recommendations rather than requiring an actual rule? It’s so easy. Why not just do it? —valereee (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * SarahSV says: "The community turns a blind eye to WiRs doing mission-aligned work" That is a dreadful slur on Wikimedians in Residence; the community does not "turn a blind eye" (viz: "To ignore or deliberately overlook, especially with respect to something unpleasant or improper"), it positively and actively encourages Wikimedians in Residence; and the good work they do - and rightly so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just do it? I am abiding by WP:COI and WP:COIDISCLOSE. What you are asking me to do, add tags to talk pages, is not required. I personally don't think it's all that useful (see the comment a bit below about talk pages receiving many fewer views than the actual page). I don't mind if someone else wants to add it! I'm not secretly hoping to "get away" with anything. I could similarly ask you why you want me to do this so much. Why are you trying to guilt me into going back and adding talk page tags to a bunch of pages I worked on instead of working to change the rule for everyone, if it's so important to you? You are singling me out, and it feels unfair. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just do it? I am abiding by WP:COI and WP:COIDISCLOSE. What you are asking me to do, add tags to talk pages, is not required. I personally don't think it's all that useful (see the comment a bit below about talk pages receiving many fewer views than the actual page). I don't mind if someone else wants to add it! I'm not secretly hoping to "get away" with anything. I could similarly ask you why you want me to do this so much. Why are you trying to guilt me into going back and adding talk page tags to a bunch of pages I worked on instead of working to change the rule for everyone, if it's so important to you? You are singling me out, and it feels unfair. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I know Rachel from the Orson Scott Card article. I peeked at a few of her contributions, and based on the most recent one, I don't see any COIs there. She edits BYU alumni and Mormon-related articles, so what? No COI with BYU itself. A COI is from a direct affiliation and not a tangential topic relationship. Elizium23 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , it's paid editing. IMO this should be disclosed on talk. I know it isn't required, but it is recommended. It's fine if the community disagrees with me, but I think paid editing needs disclosure that can't go away. How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it? —valereee (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is editing BYU alumni articles not a COI with BYU paying for it? I concur. That's really a pretty cut and dried case - David Gerard (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The relevant section of WP:PAID, which is a Wikipedia policy, says: "Editors who are or expect to be compensated for their contributions must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any paid contributions. They must do this on their main user page, or on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or in edit summaries.". Note the use of "or", not "and". Also note that WP:CURATOR applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with what David Gerard and Andy Mabbett have said. While BYU is a reputable and noteworthy subject, and the edits are being made in an NPOV way, the edits are nevertheless being made in clear violation of WP:PAID rules. It is disappointing that editor Rachel Helps (BYU) does not seem to accept the need to follow these rules when making even NPOV edits. She and other COI editors should simply disclose their PAID and/or COI relationship on the article talk page and make an open edit request. That would solve the problem. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said; in fact it's directly contradictory to what I said, in which you will note, I quoted policy. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest. More specifically, I fear that this editor's interpretation of the guidance that is provided to WiR participants is an accurate description of that guidance that says that WiRs are not subject to our COI policies and practices. I don't know if this has ever been addressed head on but it's a big problem that is only going to grow until a resolution is forced. ElKevbo (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been a Wikimedian in Residence several times (at more instiutions, I believe, than any other editor), and no-one has ever suggested to me, verbally or in written guidance, that "WiRs are not subject to our COI policies and practices". Quite the contrary, every WiR I have discussed the matter with has been clear that CoI is an issue that must be considered when undertaking the role. However, "our COI policies and practices" are not as limiting as some people (especially, but not only, on this page) either think or wish, or pretend, them to be. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , re: I fear there is a large disconnect between the (a) Wikipedians in Residence project and its participants and (b) editors concerned about conflicts of interest. I agree and I don’t think it’s a new problem. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No action needed - There is nothing in our policy that requires every page that has been edited with an "apparent potential COI" (whatever that means) to contain a declaration and we should absolutely not pursue this as a norm. I do not understand why is being singled out here and being treated unfairly by folks who are veterans and should know better. A disclosure by a possible COI editor is not a requirement as stated in the Terms of Use, as the TOU covers paid editing only and it provides for three different options for disclosure. Disclosure of "apparent potential COI" is not a best practice of the Wiki Education Foundation and the hundreds of classes and thousands of students it has supported over the years. This impractical and misguided dragnet taken to its logical extremes would make for talk pages megabytes long as people would need to declare apparent potential COI for their hometown, their alma mater, their relatives, their vacation spots, their favorite foods, their pet preferences, their phobias, their medical conditions, their dislike of horror movies, et al. With all due respect  and other commenters here, stop the intimidation of  and her peers for what you have already pointed out are productive and non-problematic behavior that operate within our policy. Paid editing does not automatically equate to problematic editing. Similarly, volunteer, unpaid editing is not all virtuous and pure, as we see from sports/scifi fandom, school alums editing the articles of their alma mater, and thousands of other edits we see everyday, especially from those of us on the front lines of Recent Changes patrol. This has the hallmarks of a solution looking for a problem that has very serious downsides and terrible cascading effects if implemented. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 15:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC) (Full disclosure: I work on a paid basis for The Metropolitan Museum of Art as a Wikimedia strategist and, as I have declared on my user page, I have made contributions to Wikidata, Commons, and Wikipedia related to content related to that institution, as well as developing documentation, best practices, training and software for the Wikimedia environment. I am open to any discussion or audit of any edits and contributions made with regard to my position as a Wikimedian in that paid capacity.)
 * I object to the characterization that anyone is being treated unfairly here by someone "who should know better". I object to the characterization that I am intimidating anyone. Students in classes are not being paid. I am not paid by my hometown or my phobias. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree completely with you that User:Rachel Helps (BYU) has fully disclosed this on her User page, fulfilling requirements of discloser for WP:PAID, especially considering editing related to GLAM. FULBERT (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , as far as I know, it isn't required that editors with a (potential) COI need to place connected contributor or connected contributor (paid) themselves – you (or anyone else) can just do that yourself and link to a diff where the connection has been disclosed. Regarding the rest, I think it's generally a good thing to disclose paid/COI editing in as many places as possible, though I'm not sure we should make requiring talk page notices a matter of policy. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, I know anyone can do so. And clearly we shouldn't even try to require every paid editor to template every article they create or add to; obviously there'd be vociferous objections just like we're seeing here. But I guess I kind of do feel it would be best practices for editors paid by cultural/educational institutions to do it voluntarily for any article they could be perceived to have a COI for. I guess I don't understand why there's such passion against doing something that seems like it represents the most transparent rather than simply doing the minimum required. Honestly I would think museums and universities would want to do this to make it absolutely clear that they're behaving ethically. I'm honestly kind of surprised that a place like BYU wouldn't make this a requirement all on their own. My general feeling about Mormons is that they work very hard to behave ethically. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I for one am not objecting to anyone making open and transparent disclosures; I'm objecting to you - or anyone else - pretending or implying that a certain form of disclosure are a requirement, when they are not; and I object very strongly to people who are acting in good faith and complying with all applicable policies being dragged to this noticeboard, which exists - as stated at its head - for cases where "you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality", and which should only be used - again, as stated at the top of the page - for issues "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , if there's a better place to discuss this, I'm happy to go there instead. I tried to figure out what would be a better place. I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions. I only want to discuss this issue. —valereee (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What issue? You've been told that the policy you apparently thought applied, does not. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether paid editors editing articles for which they/their institution could be considered to have a COI even when they're completely free to decide what to edit/create. The issue of whether we need clarification on that. For BYU, I say articles about BYU and its faculty/alums and Mormonism could be considered to represent an apparent COI. For articles on Utah, probably not. For a museum, the museum itself and its staff, certainly, but probably not the items in its collections. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

There is certainly merit to what Valereee is asking. The problem is that our policies are not entirely clear. There is a difference between what has been said about paid editing above (which has been properly disclosed on the user's page) and our WP:COI guideline, which says "Editors with a COI, including paid editors, are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to change an affected article's content." The PAID guideline is saying you only need to disclose once, and the COI guideline is saying you need to disclose for each article edited, presumably on the article page. Following that intent, it certainly does make sense that a user would disclose a conflict on the talk page of the article in question.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making the presumption that the editors listed above have a CoI in the articles in question. And again, the edits do not meet the requirements (as evidenced by "I want to clarify that I don't think anyone has broken any rules or deserves any sanctions") for a report on this page. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, Andy. This is a discussion noticeboard. Queries like Valereee's are entirely welcome, whether you like it or not. It says above that Rachel Help (BYU) is an employee of Brigham Young University. They would therefore have at least connected contributor status on these pages where they have edited:
 * Orson Scott Card, the great grandson of her employer's namesake Brigham Young,
 * Patrick Madden (essayist), a professor at BYU,
 * Church Educational System, the parent organization of her employer, BYU.
 * I agree that Rachel Helps' contributions are very positive. That does not change the fact that she has an apparent COI in some articles that should be declared on the repective talk pages, per WP:COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I invite you to read and consider the large panel at the top of this page, headed "Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)" and including the part headed "Additional notes", which incudes the parts I quoted, has been there for a considerable time, and remains so by consensus. You are, of course, at liberty to raise an RfC to rewrite or remove it.
 * But thank you for confirming that the required "using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality" and "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period do not apply. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sigh. The fact that one's contributions to an article are minor, uncontested and neutral do es not release one from the obligation to declare their connection on the article talk page. I've added a few more articles for which there is COI to the the list at top. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Obligation"? What was it I was saying about how "our COI policies and practices are not as limiting as some people (especially, but not only, on this page) either think or wish, or pretend, them to be"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I feel like I'm missing something here, but don't these accounts have the name of an institution in their WP:USERNAMEs, hence constituting WP:ORGNAME? This seems like a circumstance in which someone is going to be unable to get very firmly below the level of WP:APPARENTCOI.So, while it sounds like there's no cause for sanction or even criticism of the users themselves, it seems strange to me that what appears to be a suggestion that article talk pages be marked with possible-apparent-coi templates is getting indifference and pushback. (Or why anyone would be, at COIN of all places, acting as though APPARENTCOI and WP:POTENTIALCOI are anything other than familiar terms that not only appear in the COI guideline repeatedly but have their own shortcuts, and are hardly exclusive categories.) -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 23:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I think is the short answer. WP:ORGNAME was designed to prevent company or corporate branding or sponsoring. I think everybody in the know, knew that WP could be subverted by business types in the beginning and that was one way to to prevent it, by making identification easier. The majority of folk above are academics for the most part. Its a completely different domain. These are straight up folk. I don't think you can't get better. I think we should close this immediately.   scope_creep Talk  12:51, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There really was no need to shorten the answer to a two-paragraph comment down to just one word. WP:APPARENTCOI does not have an exception for "...unless you totally know that they're the super bestest people ever—in that case you should immediately shut down any discussion of COI." (Also, btw, paid editing policy was not here ; IIRC it was the product of more than a decade of work and debate in the community.)As our community experience has shown, even though it's important to keep an eye on where content is coming from, highlighting an apparent COI is not an accusation of terrible dishonor and malfeasance—it's simply a statement of fact, which is why I am bewildered by the Sturm und Drang over noting in article talk pages that declared paid editors with WP:ORGNAME usernames related to the article topic have edited... as Valereee notes,  and WP:PAID declarations can be removed once the user is no longer an employee. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 08:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've added Connected contributor to Talk:Orson Scott Card. Please take a look to see how it's filled in. That should be added to any articles or drafts you're paid to work on (or that you regard as part of the compensation package you have with the university), including when you're active only on the talk page. Any articles you create can be taken through WP:AfC and you can use edit request for longer sections you want to add to articles; anything short and harmless can probably be done directly. Using the template makes disclosure pretty straightforward. There should also be something about your status on your user pages. Hope this helps. SarahSV (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As noted above, none of the things you ask for here are required. In particular, a recent proposal seeking to force WiRs and others to go though AfC when creating articles has failed to gain consensus (and rightly so). Suggesting edit request is facile, when reasonable requests can remain unanswered for several months. All of the users named above already have the appropriate declarations on their user pages. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No action needed. She has met all requirements for COI and PAID. She's had a COI statement on her user page since January 2016, and a PAID notice since April 2016. She solicits feedback on her userpage from anyone who questions any edit she's made, at the same time acknowledging that she may have some biases that she can't see. SlimVirgin added a notice to the Card article on November 30. She's working with, a respected editor who apparently has no problems with what she's doing in the GAN. No one here has provided a diff showing even one problematic edit. Unless someone can provide evidence she's making bad edits, there's no reason for her to stop or limit her editing. As far as I can tell, she hasn't violated any of our policies and guidelines, and has made every effort to act above the board and completely within policy and guidelines here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 21:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How can you say she has made very effort to act within the COI guideline, when that is so manifestly false? If you want to nominate COI for deletion, please go ahead, because that's what this amounts to, that people can just do whatever they want. If that's the case, we can all look for paid-editing positions. See my response to you on Rachel's talk page and my post to her about some of the POV issues in the article. One reason having policies and guidelines is a good idea is that everything doesn't have to be discussed from first principles every single time it happens, with the enormous waste of other people's time that entails. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest bringing up your concerns on the GAN. I've looked at your concerns, and they are really minor in comparison to how much the article has improved. Some of what you discuss there is even discussed already at the GAN, as well as reasons some things were done. It is not "manifestly false". Rather, you appear upset that she's not doing things the way you want them done. Card is a very controversial topic, and there are many ways things can be worded in the article. Take the concerns to the GAN so they can be discussed there. Rachel is working very well with Barkeep49 at addressing concerns he's brought up, and that seems a more productive place to discuss the issues with that article. As I wrote on her talk page, she's already jumped through all the hoops (COI and PAID disclosures). She's got not affiliation with Card beyond them both having attended the same university 40 years apart. She's shown over and over and over again that her edits are clearly within policy and guidelines, and she's shown a willingness to make changes if someone brings up a legitmate concern. How about trying to work with her on the GAN rather than wasting her time here? ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the proposal to require posting on article talk pages.  This is not required by WP:PCD and so would be a creepy sanction.  It is not justified because the edits being made to those articles are acceptable.  And it would not be proportionate because article talk pages are not read by our readership.  For example, consider Orson Scott Card.  The readership for that page is high — about 950/day — but the readership of the talk page is negligible — about 1/day.  So that's three orders of magnitude different and it seems likely that this is typical.
 * And consider the top editors of Orson Scott Card. For the current version, two of them are the editors in question. But consider the third  — .  I have no objection to any of their editing but notice that, while they seem to be likewise interested in LDS topics, their user page is blank.  I see no evidence that being paid makes such editors more disreputable or dangerous.  The effect might well be the opposite — that the professional editors act with greater care and diligence as they are more accountable and have an interest in being seen to act properly.
 * So, as there's no evidence that there's a problem and no evidence that the proposed sanction would be appropriate or effective, we should just thank Rachel and her colleagues for their good work and wish them well.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew, no one has suggested a sanction. What is being requested is that WP:PAID and WP:COI be respected. Note, from the former:""Paid editing is further regulated by a community guideline, Conflict of interest. This advises that those with a conflict of interest, including paid editors, are very strongly discouraged from directly editing affected articles, but should post content proposals on the talk pages of existing articles, and should put new articles through the articles for creation process, so they can be reviewed prior to being published.""


 * That's not consistent with WP:PCD and so we see that the creep is out of control, creating a hostile environment in which competent contributions are censured while bureaucratic rules and regulations proliferate. Whatever one calls these proceedings, I remain opposed to the OP's proposal. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is WP:PCD. WP:PCD and WP:PAID are shortcuts to the same policy. That policy is based on the WMF terms of use, which state: "community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure." SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks SV, of course they are the same *policy*. There something else that is missing from this discussion. People seem to think that just because WP:COI is a guideline, they can ignore it, that our only rules are policies. That's just not true, e.g. WP:Notability is one of our most important rules on a day-to-day level.  But you need to follow the guideline, with occasional exceptions, or face up to the fact that you're causing disruption that could have been avoided simply by following the guideline.  We're not about to say that we're going to throw out all our guidelines just because occasional exceptions are to be expected. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can ignore your guidance because there's a core policy which says exactly this. Such dead letters and inconsistencies are routine.  I was lately at WP:ITN where I pointed out that WP:NOTNEWS forbids coverage of routine sporting events but WP:ITN/R is dominated by a long list of routine sporting events and so the comparatively obscure Japan Series was the lead headline at ITN for a week while more prominent news such as the Chinese moon landing was ignored.  But, even though this is policy, the sports fans are likely to have their way and keep filling ITN with their favourite horse races and ball games.  So it goes.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly tangential?
Can anyone clue me in on why this issue is apparently seen as a major problem by Wikipedians in Residence? Or point me on where to look? For me, one institution/institution's participants voluntarily deciding to declare COI at potentially-perceivable-as-COI article talk doesn't seem like it "sets precedent" that other editors similarly paid by institutions would be therefore required to follow, but editors here who have been WiR are disagreeing. I'm not trying to fuck with WiR and similar programs here. What am I missing? —valereee (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My guess is that you're seeing a disagreement between those who believe that (a) a COI is inherently bad so declarations of a COI must therefore have a stigma and should thus only be used in circumstances where we believe that someone is "deserving" of bearing that stigma and (b) there is nothing inherently wrong with having a COI or declaring one. This doesn't ever appear to have been definitively worked out project-wide so disagreements continue to fester. I also suspect that many editors are not familiar with conflicts of interest in their personal or professional lives so they have a different view or little experience with this concept compared to editors who have some experience with the concept and how it's addressed in other contexts. The WiR project explicitly works with editors who are clearly connected with specific organizations so it's unsurprising that this broader lack of agreement and understanding directly impacts that project. ElKevbo (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , for the record, I often work with well-intentioned COI editors (am actually actively doing so now; just came from some of that work) and occasionally even straight-up work-for-hire editors. I don't like working with the work-for-hires much, but I'm quite sympathetic to well-intentioned COIs and don't consider them inherently bad. Thank you for the explanation of the disagreement. —valereee (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You have brought a group of good-faith users, who are, in your own words, "writing good, well-researched articles which appear... to be neutrally-written and -sourced", to a noticeboard which is for cases where "you are concerned that an editor ... is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality", and which should only be used for issues "such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period, and having had that pointed out to you, you still want to know why anyone would see your actions as a "major problem"? Beats me. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , and I'm doing it in good faith because I have a concern I think is valid and that maybe we should consider how to/whether to address. If BYU is hiring editors who write about BYU alums, which they are, they have an apparent or potential COI. I've offered to take this to a more appropriate forum. Maybe VP (Policy)? Maybe we need to tweak policy specifically for well-intentioned institutions that have hired well-intentioned writers to edit on topics that institution is connected to? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Valereee: No, I think this is best handled here rather than at the Village Pump.Pigsonthewing: If we're going to split hairs about whether or not this is the board upon which notice concerning issues connected to conflict of interest ought to be discussed, then I would say yes in response to your last quote from the header: the editors in question have ; material which is not necessarily problematic due to their own actions—as it is not, so far, conclusively clear what multidimensional eigenpolicyguideline state would have previously held sway from the combination of, as ThatMontrealIP puts it, —hence until this discussion is concluded in a consensus-establishing way, the problematicness of the material derives with certainty only from a confluence of external factors rather than from anything these editors have done.Overall, I share the sentiments valereee expresses above: The simple matter of fact is that, the way the MediaWiki software and administrative processes presently work, as pointed out above, if at some future point a user page paid disclosure were to be removed for legitimate reasons, and the user name changed for likewise legitimate reasons, it would be very difficult to discover the apparent-COI connections to the material.I'll go a tad further than valereee though: while I don't think that a WP:PAID and/or WP:ORGNAME editor failing to place a talk page template COI notice on an article they've edited where an apparent COI could reasonably be said to exist, should be taken as prima facie evidence of the violation of any policy or guideline, I think it should be valid to regard failure to do so as an aggravating factor should concrete COI or substantial NPOV concerns arise. (Which, again, I have seen no evidence of in this particular case.) I mean, there's a reason why the basic uw-coi warning template advises the receiving user to simply avoid editing connected articles, and coi-stern says,  (emphasis mine.)I'd also highlight that, although Scope creep made it sound as though paid editing and conflicts of interest are all about companies and brands and filthy capitalist lucre, which academics are above, in matter of fact there's a vintage 2004 essay Avoid academic boosterism all about this kind of behavior in the noble Academy—also edited as recently as  ago, and with a specific talk page notice template, Academic booster, which grew out of it, though that doesn't appear to have gotten much use. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 09:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to raise an RfC to attempt to turn the fantasy version of policy you express above into reality, but this is not the place to do so, and pointing out that it is not reality is not "splitting hairs". [I also note that your comment includes an age in weeks and days template, that means the visible content will change, even though it is timestamped today and has been replied to.] Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The syntax highlighting button in the standard editor looks like this: (Codemirror-icon.png) if you're having trouble seeing the template and hence think using it is sneaky malfeasance or something. You yourself used tl in your own comment here, displaying a Template namespace pagename which could be renamed/moved at any point in the future and consequently change; using templates in talk page comments violates no policy nor guideline.Odd that your entire argument here is that technically following a specific selection of P&G to-the-letter makes one blameless regardless of actions, yet you casually, fallaciously try to imply fault when it serves your purposes. I just today ran across our article on the term “eristic”, and thought of you, so I came back to look at this thread...In keeping with that, I have no idea whatsoever what it is you're saying would require an RfC, but I suppose the vagueness is probably intentional. The text in the header of this page which you quoted above in support of your arguments, and I responded to, is no policy nor guideline either, of course. -- ‿Ꞅ truthious 𝔹 andersnatch ͡ &#124;℡&#124; 23:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Defining the scope of any conflict
For me there is a qualitative difference between a WIR writing an article about someone else employed by their organization or about a department of their organization and someone more tangentially connected - for instance an alumni of a university. So in this instance I specifically bring up Orson Scott Card which I'm interested in as I'm currently doing a GA review of that article. There's been a second claim of a COI for Rachel which is that BYU, which she works for, is named after Card's great-great-grandfather; that's way too indirect for me. However, to the extent that there is a COI do Alumni for a sponsoring organization qualify? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep, it makes no difference whether it's staff or alumni or anyone else. The issue is that Rachel is doing PR on behalf of BLP subjects at the request of an organization that is paying her to do it. That means WP:PAID and WP:COI apply. There are also POV issues with the Card article. I'm about to leave a note about this for her. I'll ping you when I do. SarahSV (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians-in-Residents have generally been considered, in my experience, to be considered mission aligned with Wikipedia. This is certainly my view on them. You seem to be suggesting that there's no way for a WiR to write, without declaring a COI, about any BLP. I'm not quite there myself. This is why I wanted to have a specific discussion about the potential of alumni. I get from your POV that alumni aren't OK because no BLP would be OK but I'm not sure myself how widely that view is held and hence why I started this more focused subsection. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about the argument here. Wikipedians-in-Residents are mission aligned when doing mission-aligned work for mission-aligned organizations. Being paid to do PR on behalf of a living science-fiction writer by the university he attended isn't remotely mission aligned. The argument seems to be that if the BLP subject were to pay for the editing himself, COI and PAID would apply, but if someone else pays, the policies and guidelines somehow don't apply. SarahSV (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. So if someone at BYU were to edit Shannon Hale, to pick another Latter-Day Saint young adult author, would you have the same concerns? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For me the concern is whether, unintentionally but because of their inherent COI, a well-intentioned paid editor will focus on some things and not on others, and that this can affect the article. If the COI is disclosed at article talk, other editors know they should be aware they may need to assess that. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, WP:NOPAY currently says that editors are strongly discouraged from editing directly. (When I last checked, that said "very strongly discouraged", so someone has changed the guideline.) Paid editors should put new articles through WP:AfC unless it really is "mission aligned" (e.g. writing about ancient Egypt based on access to a museum or library archive), or post it on talk for other editors to judge. The paid promotion of living people is unlikely ever to be mission-aligned work. SarahSV (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * AfC is already bogged down, with articles waiting several months for anyone to get around to looking at them. Adding even more to AfC would only bog things down even more. Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake is bad for everyone involved. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 23:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No action needed: Thanks for raising those points. The discussion that came up was enlightening. As you have rightly pointed out at the start, "They're writing good, well-researched articles which appear again from a quick check to be neutrally-written and -sourced." These aspects are essential for Wikipedia. Thus, I think bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy rather than for attaining the objectives of Wikipedia is not healthy. Vikram Vincent 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What is a Wikipedian in residence?
I've always understood this to refer to volunteer editors who form relationships with universities, libraries, museums and archives, and who help to upload and write about material to which those institutions have access, perhaps exclusive access. They may or may not be paid to do this.

But in the cases we're dealing with here, the WiRs have never been volunteer editors. and appear to have no non-paid edits. has made six non-paid edits with that account and 41 with. Otherwise it's all paid. A recent example of their work is Draft:Patrick Madden (essayist) (moved today by Barkeep to draft space), a professor that one of them knows, which includes:


 * "Quotidian" is an important word in Madden's creative nonfiction philosophy. The word, which deals with everyday occurrences, is not only the title of his 2010 essay collection but the driving principle for Madden's writing, with his focus on small, thought-provoking events ..."

This is PR. And yet it's being supported on COIN, of all places. If the community has decided to support this kind of editing, then we can all get paid-editing jobs. That will include Christian Scientists writing about faith healing with information from the Mary Baker Eddy Library and drug-company reps with special access to the GlaxoSmithKline archives. Is that what the community wants? SarahSV (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a very important point, I believe. In my eyes, a WIR is someone who has significant previous unpaid experience. If you don't have that, you're simply a paid editor, and need to follow WP:PAID and WP:COI. Even then, I'd still support requiring WIRs to note their association to any topic related to their "employer" if they're being paid to make the edits. Note: It may be possible these folks do have previous volunteer experience. If they do, they should declare so, with links to previous account(s). —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 21:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The page you're quoting from is a new page from a new student editor of mine. Because of COVID restrictions, I haven't been able to train her in-person, and I haven't has as many hours to edit. I agree that the writing comes across as promotional, and she is still learning. However, plenty of WiRs are hired without previous Wikipedia editing experience. You're right, I didn't have much experience before becoming a WiR. I had made one page back when I was an undergrad. You don't think I and other editors can learn? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rachel, this misses the point, which is that you and your colleagues are here as paid editors. You're not here as volunteers who managed to find a way to be paid while continuing to do work for Wikipedia. SarahSV (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , as I posted at your talk page WiR should not be creating articles about professors at institutions that employee them, under our COI guidelines, in mainspace. While organizationally you might be responsible for that student's edits, from a Wikipedia perspective, they're responsible for their own edits including being aware of the guidelines and policies that apply to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To answer the question posted in the section heading, there is nothing better than WP:COI in the section Wikipedians in residence, reward board

"There are forms of paid editing that the Wikimedia community regards as acceptable. These include Wikipedians in residence (WiRs)—Wikipedians who may be paid to collaborate with mission-aligned organizations, such as galleries, libraries, archives, and museums. WiRs must not engage in on-Wikipedia public relations or marketing for their organization, and they should operate within the bounds defined by Core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence at Wikimedia Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community, and are expected to identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they post there."

That really answers all the questions in this whole thread especially the last sentence. More particularly about what is a WiR. At the redirect from the link above and at several other places aimed at GLAMers and WiRs there are informal definitions and guidance but I can't find a formal definition, and there is not an organization that says "You are officially a W-i-R" or that can say "You've broken the W-i-R rules, so you are no longer a W-i-R." (If anybody finds those offcial requirements please let us all know.) I personally think some W-i-Rs or GLAMers should come up with some sort of official definition of who is or who isn't a Wikipedian-in-Residence. Otherwise the enWiki community needs to do it, if we give them any exemptions from the WP:PAID rules, and I'd rather not have to do that.

More general background W-i-Rs started trying to get people to work with us if they represented a "mission-aligned organization." I was never aware that people wanted to get paid for this until about the 3rd or 4th W-i-R (from the Catalonian Wiki) announced his new position and that he would be getting paid. AS long as they were from "mission-aligned organization" it didn't make a lot of difference to me, but I do think it's time to clarify that we don't mean that W-i-Rs can come from General Motors or the Teamster Union. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 22:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I would agree that making sure WiR come from places like university archives and not a large corporation is worth doing to the extent that our current guidelines/policies are not clear. We do have a problem because the core characteristics that are linked to in COI no longer exist (Outreach links to meta and that section doesn't exist there) so we might need to solve this on enwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Barkeep49: I've been following this over the past few days—and I honestly wasn't aware that there were no hard-and-fast rules on the matter of Wikipedians-in-Residence, and it's long past time to define those rules (and roles). &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 23:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49, large corporations aren't the only issue. The other example I gave above was Christian Scientists paid to write about their faith healers based on material in the Mary Baker Eddy Library. I assume we would never allow that, yet it seems there's nothing to stop them calling themselves Wikipedians in residence with the freedoms that seems to entail. SarahSV (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure large corporations aren't the only issue here. I just was trying to use two extremes. I think we're in agreement that we';re not currently defining who qualifies as a WiR and that this is a problem. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible resolution?
I don't see that there is any reason to keep this open, IF we all agree to work together, without rushing it, to get a mutually agreeable position. seems to feel that she and BYU are being singled out unfairly, but I think that the Wikipedians in residence, reward board section of WP:PAID lays it out that declaring on the talk pages is the normal expectation of WiRs. Perhaps this hasn't been well enforced in the past. I also believe that the Card article is more controversial than Rachel realizes. Maybe we can put the GA nomination for Card on hold for awhile until Sarah, Rachel, Barkeep and others come up with something acceptable in the article. I'd also like to ask everybody to come up with suggestions on how
 * We can make sure that WiRs are meeting the expectations laid down in WP:COI and WP:PAID. I'd hope WiRs handle this themselves, but we can do it on enWiki if they prefer.
 * Figure out any tweaks we can make to the wording of WP:COI and WP:PAID that makes it clear that declaring on user pages and article talk pages is generally the only way to go, e.g. finally get rid of the "very highly discouraged" style of language and just put in "should not" at the right places.
 * In general just getting WiRs and people who oppose commercial paid editing working together. If commercial paid editing can't be controlled adequately, then stronger forms of control will likely spill over onto WiR territory. Thus it makes sense for both groups to work together. Paid editing gets controlled and WiRs get special recognition for the help they give Wikipedia providing information and articles that only GLAMS working as "mission-aligned organizations" can provide. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , these are very good suggestions, thank you. I have no idea how to start a discussion involving the WiR community and where best to have it, but we don't have to rush anything. SarahSV (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

There is some grumbling above about corporations such as pharmaceutical companies like GSK. Here in London, our most effective and productive WiR has been based at the Wellcome Library which derives its resources from a large pharmaceutical business which now forms part of GSK. Sir Henry Wellcome was a collector of curios and so his collection includes much quirky material about topics such as alchemy and witchcraft. This is all grist to our mill as we cover them alongside more modern modes of medicine. The Wellcome Library is a wonderful resource and I have attended many events there organised by their WiR and, during the lockdowns, still use their online facilities. For example, I wrote the topical article fever hospital using illustrations uploaded by Wellcome and put this on the main page as a DYK. It would be quite foolish to erect barriers to prevent cooperation and partnership with such a well-endowed institution and so we should not do so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , It would. However, we don't want, say, Hellomouse Ltd. ( which I'm personally related to ) coming along, and declaring an editor a WiR without the good faith intents behind it. So some rules about which groups can't have WiRs need made. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Might've not been clear, but this is an example. Hellomouse wouldn't actually do this. It barely counts as a company. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 13:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to Smallbones's point, I think that's an acceptable resolution, yes. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 16:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been looking around to see how "Wikipedian in residence" is defined. Wikipedian in residence states that it's a Wikipedian, but other pages suggest the title may be taken by someone who works for the institution. They all stress that the WiR should generally not write about the institution. For example, Wikimedian in residence:


 * "The Wikimedia community distinguishes branding and marketing from expertise and knowledge. In this context, there is a custom that Wikimedians in Residence do not edit about their institution, but rather share the knowledge of their institution."

Wikimedian in residence/Creating a Wikimedian in Residence position: "Typically WIR positions should not be writing content, such as Wikipedia articles, for the institution as their main activity." And: "Wikimedia platforms ... should be seen as scholarly communications platforms where the knowledge of the institution is shared, rather than marketing platforms, which focuses on improving the reputation of the institution."

GLAM/About says: "GLAM editors should be mindful of the conflict of interest guideline, and should not use their editing privileges to promote, but rather to bring the institution's resources into Wikipedia, in order to further Wikipedia's mission of providing articles summarizing accepted knowledge to the public."

That seems pretty conclusive. SarahSV (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Tatar Wikipedia experience
This is to share on the evolving experience in Tatar Wikipedia, previously reported on by in The SignPost's coverage of government-paid editing for Tatarstan. P.S. Happy to have woken up at 2:30 am, start from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Transition/Global Conversations to slowly end up here to enjoy reading whole of this non-stop from down & greatful to all contributors to the discussion. --Frhdkazan (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was the driving force behind it as a defacto non-paid & non-employed WiR for the Republic (just gave a press-conference in Tatar yesterday afternoon at the government-controlled regional information agency on the topic of Wiki-contests we are launching with another quasi-government partner, covered in some detail by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's Tatar-Bashkir Service), so this might qualify as an example of WiR & Paid editors working in tandem
 * As a Wikipedian and a local taxpayer, I made sure that TIDA, the regional government agency that agreed to partner with me in making Tatarstan better described onwiki (my personal COI) & made an effort to obtain permissions to incentivize content creation with public money, understands well the importance of its contractors following local disclosure and other related policies/guidelines of every Wikipedia language community project & was happy to see this being included this into the tender language. Public tenders are sometimes unpredictable, so Tatarstan is lucky to have end up having a contractor who is an experienced Wikipedian and a diligently disclosing paid-editor herself.
 * Anna is linking the list of articles for editing (originally developed in Russian and offered for translation into Tatar) from the table in the subsection of ttWP's Village Pump (miscelaneous), which is also the place where subcontractors from among experienced ttWP editors sign up for doing content translation & localization (formatting) work. The dates the developed/translated material ends up onwiki are published in the table at Wikimedia Russia's WikiProject.
 * I am now thinking about aggregating, recreating & linking to the same table in English, as well as the project description and prospective multilingual general and topic-specific lists at/from on Wiki-Tatarstan@Meta and possibly somewhere here on enWP as well
 * Developing a detailed WP:COI and WP:PAID, templates and, especially, enforcing those is likely to be outside of Tatar Wikipedia's not just current, but even future community capacity, so we will probably formally adopt Commons style alternative policies.
 * I would be grateful for advice, suggestions and recommendations from your community members.

I am told that first published translation is this into the article on Sabinsky District. Frhdkazan (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Gleam Futures Paid Editing Operation


All of these above people are on the Gleam Futures client roster. https://www.gleamfutures.com/uk-roster. I also have off-wiki evidence depicting a conversation between a Gleam Futures employee and a Wikipedia editor where she confesses that User:DarkGlow is operated by one of her colleagues at Gleam Futures. If you would like to see the evidence, get your email address to me.

User:Iamthecheese

and

user:reddirector also seemed to be involved at some point but it looks like their edit histories got oversighted.147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never spoken to a Gleam employee in my life. These claims are clearly fake considering Love Island (a television series) and Max Bowden are not signed to Gleam... I do Wikipedia as a hobby, and have done for over two years. Does anyone really think I'd have done nearly 18,000 total edits for a few pennies from Gleam? That's laughable. What a ridiculous and malicious attack of my character. I don't have the time for this. – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 19:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was a quick response. Why do so many of your clients overlap with the Gleam Futures client roster and why are your contributions to Gleam Future clients more hagiographic than your contributions to other pages?147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quick as I was online when notified. I don't have "clients", and if the articles I edit "overlap" with Gleam's roster, that's because it's a familiar subject for me, so I know what I'm editing. I've watched the videos of these people, so I know enough about them to edit their page. Similarly with how I edit articles relating to soaps and musicians. Does that mean EastEnders or Little Mix hired me to improve their articles? No. And as for your claim of my edits being "more hagiographic" for these people, I only add sourced information per WP:BLP. And that will be found on every article I've edited. – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 19:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wonder what a CU report might reveal about your little operation.147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I still refute all of these ridiculous claims. It's also worth mentioning that Iamthecheese, who you claim to be involved, was last active in 2003, before Zoella's career even began. Did you draw our users from a hat? – DarkGlow ( ✉ ) 19:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If there is off-wiki evidence, it should be sent to paid-en-wp wikipedia.org. MER-C 19:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do, are you on the OTRS desk now are you?147.78.5.79 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, but that email address is monitored by many checkusers. MER-C 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The "off-wiki evidence" says the opposite of what 147.78.5.79 claims above. They contacted a representative of Gleam Futures, who said that neither of these editors have any connection to the company. This accusation is seems entirely baseless and certainly not ground for a CheckUser. And since 147.78.5.79 expressly has no interest in contributing to Wikipedia and is apparently only here to harass, I've blocked them. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Robbie Blackwell


Robbie Blackwell has repeatedly created unsourced autobiographies of themself. They don't appear to have responded to any of the many warnings or speedy deletion templates. There was an IP editor, who I can estimate is probably Robbie Blackwell themself who had simply logged out, who has removed the speedy deletion tag from the most recent article. In full disclosure, I restored it in a somewhat |"ignore the rules" fashion (technically, only article creators are disallowed from removing CSD tags).I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 05:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * noting that the user in question has now been blocked. Blablubbs | talk 12:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Saša Toperić


Howdy. I ran across the article Saša Toperić today. It basically reads like a resume. Can I get a second opinion on what to do with it? Some of the problems I see are...


 * At least one COI editor. You can see in the article's edit history.
 * Notability problems. Most or all of the sources are primary/poor. Lots of dead links too.
 * NPOV/undue weight problems. The article talks about (imo) non notable things.

I was wondering if I should nominate it for deletion, but then I noticed he's a published author with 8 books. They're all from the "Brookings Institute". The books do appear to have ISBN's.

I guess I could slap some tags on it. Which tag(s) do you recommend? Any other actions? Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi,, the first thing to note is that as is this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard, it is made clear (in red letters at the top of this page and as a warning when you edit this page), that you must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion here. You should do that now. I would also suggest the first step prior to that would be to leave the editor a WP:COI warning on their talk page and see if they respond, which is what I have just done. Thanks Melcous (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * . Ok. According to edit summaries, looks like the following 4 editors have COI. I've left a COIN notice on their talk pages.
 * - Indef blocked in June. Block summary is "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: COI editing and socking (User:Yadalloc)"
 * Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added two maintenance templates to the article, because it contains a lot of unsourced content, and because of the apparent conflicts of interest. It needs someone to take the time to work through it and find third-party sourcing. Melcous (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - Indef blocked in June. Block summary is "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia: COI editing and socking (User:Yadalloc)"
 * Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added two maintenance templates to the article, because it contains a lot of unsourced content, and because of the apparent conflicts of interest. It needs someone to take the time to work through it and find third-party sourcing. Melcous (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added two maintenance templates to the article, because it contains a lot of unsourced content, and because of the apparent conflicts of interest. It needs someone to take the time to work through it and find third-party sourcing. Melcous (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

TheRedundancy -- possible COI
I filed this action for an editor that I believe might have a WP:COI. I mention that in the filing. Please comment there: --David Tornheim (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents (permalink)

Dragon Group


I recently edited the article for Dragon Group when I came across the old versions of the article edited by User:Mqsobhan. Check for example this version: All unsourced. The account also created an article for Dragon Sweater, a subsidiary of Dragon Group, with some sentences the same word-for-word. The connection of the editor to the group can be checked fairly easily by reading the article itself. The article has been nominated for deletion before, but I think its now in a state worth keeping. However, I'm not familiar with CoI and so unsure what to do with User:Mqsobhan. I've notified him of the potential CoI on his talk page, but got no reply. His last edit was in 2016. Zarasophos (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Group's Chairman [...] is widely known as the Father of Bangladesh's sweater industry."
 * "The group is among the world's largest sweater suppliers and is the largest sweater industry in south and southeast Asia."
 * "[...] which produces most supple and excellent yarns and the quality is among the best in South And South east Asia ."
 * Zarasophos, no trace of those edits is left in the article and the editor has not edited in four years, as you note. Your note here and on the user talk page serve to note the potential COI, but your diligence was probably unnecessary. Admin action is preventative, so no action is needed. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer! Just to make sure, this is in fact a case of CoI editing, right? And while I agree that it's unlikely the user will cause any further harm, I'd like to note that the account already returned from a long hiatus once (from 2009 to 2016). It's also true that there's no trace of its editing left now, but that's only after my recent rewrite of the article - until then, most of the article was left as written, since Bangladesh hardly gets any attention. Thanks again! Zarasophos (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Mqsobhan has just become active again and deleted most of the Dragon Group article. The same revert was also done by User:119.30.41.228 and a newly created account, User:Mqs2020, who deleted the same contents three times over. Pinging User:CLCStudent, User:Viewmont Viking, User:Materialscientist and User:DoubleGrazing since they were also active on the page (thanks for that!). Zarasophos (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since both accounts are now banned for sockpuppeting, it seems this discussion can be considered closed. Zarasophos (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. Two new IP accounts, User:37.111.192.130 and User:123.200.10.190 have edited the article today, deleting negative information. Zarasophos (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to laugh when I saw that the sockpuppeteer had accidentally described their own work as a quakity edit. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just for context - in the article's immediately preceding edit, 11 minutes before, he started his edit summary with the word "Quality" (I often hit a "k" instead of an "l"). Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected the page for a month. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, let's hope that's the end of it. Zarasophos (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Sameer Charegaonkar


This user has been adding to pages for a lot of different Punjabi films the claim that a person with the same name as their username mastered and mixed the music for the film. This seems to be the exclusive purpose of the account, and the user is unresponsive on their talk page. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 00:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just about to report after reverting their WP:UNSOURCED edits.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Their unsourced edits continued despite these talk page messages, , , .  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 00:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reverted two more instances of this and have issued a stern warning on their talk page. If it continues, please let me know and I will take appropriate action per WP:NOTHERE, as they seem to only be here to self-promote. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also note that is also involved in this, so I'm going through articles and removing the content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

MutualArt.com
User has disclosed their affiliation (i.e., employee of MutualArt.com) here. Now it seems they need some guidance on WP:COI issues (which is rather behavioural than content-related, hence less suitable for WP:DRN). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a look at this,and in particular the AfD and the sourcing. The article itself is fine at the moment and contains no promotion. Possibly (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

John Olsen (Australian artist)


Almost sole intent is promoting members of the Olsen family. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Village Roadshow Entertainment Group


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC) The editor submitted Draft:Village Roadshow Entertainment Group for AFC review. This is the parent company of Village Roadshow Pictures. The draft was declined, both with a question about conflict of interest and a question about why separate articles were needed for the holding company and the production company. The draft was resubmitted with an edit summary stating that a separate article was needed, but with no explanation in AFC comments or a talk page as to why, and no answer about conflict of interest. Resubmitted draft has been declined again. Persistently asking for separate articles for divisions of a company or affiliated companies is sometimes a sign of paid editing, which should be declared. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hawley, Minnesota


User:Leetwice stated here: "I am a contracted employee of the City of Hawley. I made edits today that were twice reversed to the page. All of the images added were contracted for and paid for by the City of Hawley. We have full permission to use them any way we please. Thank you for allowing these edits. Lee/City of Hawley (Leetwice)". Their edits to Hawley were unsourced and included: "Hawley welcomes new families and new businesses and has a strong business community"; "Hawley is home to great outdoor activities"; and "Hawley features safe neighborhoods and wide streets". As well, the edit summary here said: "Again changed the skyline photo. Again--all photos posted by me were contracted with a photographer, paid for, and we have their full permission to share them as we wish." The photos uploaded to the commons, and subsequently added to the Hawley article, which stated the photo is "Copyrighted" by "www.fatcatstudiosonline.com". Magnolia677 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

D'Youville College


Publicreferenceguide is an employee of the college. He or she began making edit requests in the article's Talk page which is great but now he or she is also approving those same requests and implementing them as if he or she is also an impartial editor with no connection to the subject. ElKevbo (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest


Gazal288 was registered back in 2018 and they are only here to promote Ram Awana. Their first edit was to create Ram Awana and as of today, they made 173 edits so far and more than 150 edits are related to the same subject. Also, the subject appears to have played some minor roles in major production as I'm unable to find anything online. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 17:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

User:MrsSnoozyTurtle


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Kentuckian in NY (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

December 19th, MrsSnoozyTurtle deleted an approved article about a female author (Tiffany Reisz) that contained multiple sources and had been edited by multiple users. She gave no reason for her deletion. I originally created the article (first one ever!) so I went to her talk page to ask why. Instead of answering, she deleted the question. I reverted it and asked again. She said she didn't have to answer. Per conflict of interest guidelines, I created a new section on her talk page asking if she had deleted the article for COI reasons. Instead of responding, she went to my talk page and threatened to report me for harassment. I have zero interest in getting in some sort of weird tit-for-tat here. I just genuinely want to make sure articles about women aren't deleted for COI reasons and prevent this user, whose talk page shows there have been COI misunderstandings before, from vandalizing (which yes I know is different from COI, but I'm posting here because I think it's COI driven) anything else moving forward. Constant reverts are just a time suck for everybody, y'all.

Thank you! Kentuckian in NY (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything here that suggests COI. Also, I note that the page has not been deleted; instead, it has been moved to Draft:Tiffany Reisz. If you think it's ready for mainspace, you can submit it for approval. —C.Fred (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Actually, the page is already submitted for review. —C.Fred (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred. Appreciate your taking a look. This is the first time I've posted to the noticeboard, so I apologize for leaving out critical information. To me, personally, if you delete an article, you should explain why. If you don't explain and someone asks on your talk page "is there a COI" and there's not one, you say no. Instead, this user deleted the question. If there's no COI, why is it so hard to say no? Instead she deleted the question then went to my talk page and threatened to report me for harassment because I asked. That's weird. Now, weird does not equate to COI. But if there's no COI, just say so. And in the meantime, I still have no idea why she deleted the article and the draft is still waiting. Hope this addt'l information helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kentuckian in NY (talk • contribs) 22:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the log message is abundantly clear: "Draftification reverted by article's author- given Praxidicae's concern, please allow this article to be independently reviewed at AfC before it is moved from draftspace." —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, were it "abundantly clear" this whole debacle would have never began. As I mentioned, I am a newer user. This was the first article I ever created. She does cite an earlier user's concern, but that concern had been long addressed. I'm happy to get into this further on a talk page, but don't want to clog up the COI board with non-COI matters. If there's no COI, just say there's no COI. But when a user asks "did you delete this for COI" and your immediate response is to delete the question then threaten to submit that user for harassment, and archive all prior COI-related convos from your page (which I see below you say is normal), well, it seems a little suspicious, so as I understood the guidelines, when the question wasn't answered in talk, I took it here. And you'll note we still don't have an answer.Kentuckian in NY (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Speaking as an administrator, I see little to no evidence of a COI, so there is no need to discuss this further here. Take your concerns about the status of the draft to Draft talk:Tiffany Reisz. —C.Fred (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

OF INTEREST: Since I posted this, MrsSnoozyTurtle has removed mult conversations with other users surrounding COI from her talk page. You will need to look in the history to read them. Kentuckian in NY (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the archiving of an old discussion is perfectly normal, and the discussion had nothing to do with whether MST had a COI—rather, she had tagged an article because of another editor's apparent COI. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle here... wow, this is all quite perplexing. I have no COI regarding Tiffany Reisz. I was not aware that the question was even being asked of me.

(Also, there was no notification given to me about being investigated here at COIN, despite the prominent red message on this page, which also appears every time one posts a message here)

Peace. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:1st.One


Philippinesfan has suggested in their edits that they are multiple people somehow connected to First One Entertainment. I placed a general note on their talkpage, but received no response. Their edits are completely promotional, relating to Philippine music groups, and they are now recreating (XOXO (Girl Group)) articles that have been moved to draft space (Draft:XOXO (group)). CMD (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Another statement that this is a staff account. CMD (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor is now creating havoc with List of Philippine-based music groups, P-Pop and Pinoy pop, including moving pages by copy & pasting so making history confusing. They have also created List of P-Pop Artist, which seems to be purely to promote their bands, recreated BABY BLUE hours after it was deleted under A7. --John B123 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Gordon (businessman)
Multi-way finger-pointing contest regarding alleged UPE at Benjamin Gordon (businessman).

See by Krutapidla2,  by Martinvince, and  by Bengee123.

When I first heard about this matter, I put indefinite full protection on the article; however, I will be lifting that protection shortly; anyone else is welcome to do whatever they deem appropriate. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gordon invested money in a company that later went bankrupt. Someone kept adding what is said to be misinformation to the article regarding Gordon's role in the failure. That material has now been oversighted. So if editing continues on this article (i.e. if the page isn't deleted per the current AfD) people will need to keep an eye on the BLP issues. (See WP:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Gordon (businessman) for some of the issues. The AfD includes references). From what remains in the history, it appears that the negative info may have originally come from Special:Contributions/128.8.127.130. User:Bengee123 was taking out the negative information and Krutapidla2 was putting it back. User:Krutapidla2 may not have been aware that some of the text was claimed to be misinformation. EdJohnston (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have disclosed that I am a paid editor already and described the issue. Please note editor User:Kolma8 has vote against this page to be deleted and made some edits. At first look it would seem he is removing promotional language, but he also removed 2 references to make the page look less credible. His arguments in the delete page don't stand. I have a good feeling that is the same Pakastani UPE from freelancer site using multiple accounts. I am adding him to the investigation list above. His edit history shows that he is editor for one year. Could you please also lock the page maybe for 2 more weeks until the dust settles. Martinvince (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One more suspect user has showed up in the AFD voting of Gordon's page. User:Bettydaisies has only been doing edits since Oct 2020. She has no prior AFD voting and out of nowhere, she placed a DELETE vote. It would appear it is another sockpuppet of the same user:Krutapidla2 and user:Kolma8. Please investigate this. Martinvince (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your accusations are absolutely baseless. First of all, per WP policy, you must notify me on my talk page, which you did not do. Second of all, you have consistently and aggressively reported almost every single person who voted "Delete" on the nomination for sockpuppeting. My edits have nothing in common with any of these contributors. This is ridiculous.--Bettydaisies (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I posted on your talk page, but I'll reiterate in this forum: you have accused several editors of being sockpuppets and/or editing for pay with very little evidence. Your status as a disclosed paid editor does not give you free rein to engage in personal attacks. Speaking as a sockpuppet investigations clerk, your evidence that they're working together consists of "they !voted the same in a deletion discussion" and "Bettydaisies has never !voted before in an AfD," neither of which is strong evidence of sockpuppetry. is, in my unprofessional opinion, an SPA and suspicious as heck, but that does not justify you accusing two other editors of sockpuppetry. Keep it up and you'll end up with a block for personal attacks and harassment. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Nupur Mehta


User claims to be the subject of the article, is adding unsourced information of a partially self-promoting nature, and is unresponsive on their talk page. Have already reverted twice, and they have restored the unsourced information.Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 01:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me the bigger problem here is the WP:BLP violations. I have removed the unsourced contentious material. I suggest if this continues to be a problem, the right place to take it is WP:BLPN. GA-RT-22 (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed even more poorly-sourced material from the article and have pblocked the IP from the article. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

T.H. Tse


The above users engaged in long term WP:CITESPAM in T.H. Tse and Metamorphic testing, namely inserting papers of Tse. Those users also showed interests in University of Hong Kong, where Tse is employed. Despite User:Laiwoonsiu denying any conflict of interests when questioned in 2019, the CoI is apparent. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Tsunhimtse and Abottchow have not made any edits in two and a half years, and the proper first step would be to put a notice on their talk pages pointing them to the COI policy, rather than dragging them here. Laiwoonsiu has denied having a COI, and I think you need a bit more evidence than "the CoI is apparent." There does seem to be a problem with sourcing, the use of primary sources (research papers) in particular, but I don't see the COI. GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Laiwoonsiu intentionally modify the article for SEO purpose in 2015 (Special:Diff/693218559). They spamed new papers within a month of the publication (Special:Diff/889266656, Special:Diff/900796373, Special:Diff/900892080, Special:Diff/900893046). It could not be done without insider knowledge since citation monitoring service such Semantic Scholars that takes two months to index a new publication. -Mys_721tx (talk) 16:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well that's interesting. Also I just noticed that Laiwoonsiu did not in fact declare that he has no COI, just that he is not the author of the paper and not a sock. And six years of history has been removed from Tse's article! There must be a back story here somewhere. Has this been discussed at ANI or anywhere else? GA-RT-22 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that Tse himself, edited under User:Thtse2020, requested the suppression of his full name over OTRS, for the same SEO reason (Special:Diff/935881569). Perhaps can confirm it? -Mys_721tx (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am greatly interested in metamorphic testing (MT). But this is not the same as a CoI. The following explains:


 * (1) Originally, most of the references that I cited were by Australian authors. According to a survey published in IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, the Australians have published 30% of the MT papers. Yet, almost all of the citations involving Australian authors were immediately deleted by other editors. I had no time and energy to continue with the edit war. Hence, I had to concentrate mainly on the Hong Kong author, who is the most productive next to the Australians. This may give you the impression of a CoI.


 * (2) The article for T.H. Tse was my first Wikipedia entry. Originally, I was planning to follow up with other MT authors, who are most likely in Australia. Because of the edit war, I had to give up my plan. Thus, the article for T.H. Tse was also my last Wikipedia entry This adds to the impression of a CoI.


 * (3) When preparing my first Wikipedia entry, I followed the style for well-known computer scientists like Lenore Blum, Robert W. Floyd, John L. Hennessy, John Hopcroft, Stephen Cole Kleene, Robin Milner, and Herbert A. Simon. Their Wikipedia entries contain a section entitled “Selected Publications”.


 * (4) I find all the citations from the Web. I do not have insider information.


 * Laiwoonsiu (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * forgive the weird indenting, want to keep it separate from Laiwoonsiu's post above There is nothing suppressed on that page: everything hidden is under WP:RD1 (copyvios). Primefac (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I am adding a missing reply to the issue of “User:Laiwoonsiu intentionally modify the article for SEO purpose in 2015”:


 * (5) The first 2 sentences in the original Wikipedia entry for T.H. Tse was corrupted when displayed in the Google Knowledge Panel. I repaired the Wiki code by moving the citations in the middle of the 2nd sentence to the end of the sentence. My bug repair was paved with good intentions, but was unfortunately misinterpreted by Mys_721tx as CoI and SOE.


 * Laiwoonsiu (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

There must be some misunderstanding here. User:Laiwoonsiu, did you create this 2012 photograph of the subject of the article yourself: File:Photo_of_T.H._Tse.jpg? That's what you said when you uploaded it to Commons in 2014. Seems like there must be some personal connection here, which indicates a potential COI. Please be up-front about this. - Bri.public (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I took a portrait photo for T.H. Tse. I declared this explicitly when I created the Wikipedia article. This was well accepted by Wiki administrators. I have also taken portrait photos for other professors in different countries. These photos have appeared in various journals such as IEEE Transactions. If these actions mean CoI, I declare them here.


 * My natural question is, why do administrators go after somebody who tries to help Wikipedia? Shouldn't we spend some time finding out why certain editors delete nearly every citation by Australian authors?


 * Laiwoonsiu (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking for advice
This is not about a conflict of interest in an existing article, more looking for advice through this thicket.

I have been a Wikipedia editor for 17 years and an admin for most of that. Since maybe 2006, I've been more focused on Commons, and am also an admin there. As of December 2020, I am in the process of retiring from a career in software development, and am returning to performing music professionally, something I left somewhat behind circa 1980 when I went into software, and more so since 1990, when my career took a turn that required more focus.

I may be going into a partnership on creating a performance venue with two people who cannot yet be named, one of whom has a (quite solid) Wikipedia article, the other of whom deserves one almost as much, but does not have one. The latter person is about my age, and their heyday was pre-Internet. I'm in the process of gathering clippings, etc. but this may be tricky. I can't yet reveal their identity and my connection because the deal isn't yet solid, and in any case will not be announced until deals are made, papers are signed, etc, probably late January but it could take longer.

Obviously, I am the dead wrong person to write the article. I assume that the way through this is to pass the "clippings file" to some other editor and let them write the article; if this were to happen soon, I'd need some way to have confidentiality, at least the next 4-6 weeks and possibly longer, about even my connection to this person. And how do I make arrangements with that other editor? Even on-wiki discussion would let the cat out of the bag, since people would see who took this on and it would be obvious what article they then wrote.

Can someone tell me how best to proceed? - Jmabel &#124; Talk 05:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This might be stating the obvious, but... just don't do anything? Making elaborate arrangements to have the article written without your involvement being known is going to look a lot like commissioning someone to make COI edits on your behalf. And aside from your real-life business deals with them, there doesn't seem to be any reason why we need to have an article on this person now as opposed to in six weeks, six months, etc... –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's right. Wait until we announce the deal, and then I can openly pass the clipping file to someone else. Really, this is a case of a surprising omission. If you'll promise me confidentiality, I'll pass you a biographical article on him from 1979 (yes, he and I are not young) and you'll see what I mean. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 16:29, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just like all COI and UPE are asked, do an AFC and disclose your relation. Wait 2-3 months for an Admin to approve or deny.Martinvince (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I recommend adding them to a list of redlink bios and requested bio articles. Those often get picked up during editathons and by occasionally by individuals looking for something to work on. I'm talking about lists like the many, many WiR lists, but there are even more for other areas. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's beginning to look like one of them can be named soon (week or two); the other is less certain but already has an article as long as my arm. I'll just wait a while. - Jmabel &#124; Talk 08:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Flix


On [ https://www.reddit.com/user/jorkadeen/ ] Reddit user jorkadeen wrote:


 * "I work on the Flix programming language. We are small community on Gitter: https://gitter.im/flix/Lobby If you (or anyone else for that matter) write a comment there, I will reach out to you and we can talk about an interesting project."

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The creator went through AFC which is what a COI editor should do and they already declared their COI on the talk page. SL93 (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I saw 160 edits by JorKadeen in the history of the Flix (programming_language) page. I didn't catch the fact that those were done in userspace and then the history was moved. I believe that this can be closed with no action required. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The article left AFC at 01:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC).
 * Since then JorKadeen has made to following COI edits:
 * Added Flix to the "See Also" at Datalog
 * Added Flix to List of JVM languages.
 * Added Flix to List of programming languages.
 * Edited the Flix (programming language) page, adding two YouTube videos by one of the authers of Flix as citations:
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the fact it went through AFC, the creator has not bothered to respond to queries (correct me if I am wrong) about their COI. Given the level of effort they are expending, and based on some searches,I suspect this is WP:PAID by someone on the FLIX team, and also that there is a lot of WP:SELFCITE going on. I've asked on their user page if this is paid editing. Possibly (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The answer is sure to be "I am an unpaid volunteer" Most of these open source projects don't pay anyone specifically to work on the software.  It is however very common to for that person to be a student who gets rewarded with grades or a teacher who get rewarded with a greater chance of tenure.  COI does NOT only cover paid editors.  That is why WP:COI says "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.  Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest."  The User:JorKadeen page says that they have a COI.  10:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)2600:1700:D0A0:21B0:B8DC:7259:2A76:B1CD (talk)

James A. Lindsay


This user has been trying to add material cited to her personal blog, Pinkerite.com, in the James A. Lindsay article. On the talk page of the Steven Pinker article, she confirmed that she is the owner of this blog: She also has previously attempted to add similar material in at least one other article about a living person. 

In her comment here, she is arguing that blogs are allowed as sources in articles about living people. So aside from the conflict of interest, this user also appears to not understand BLP policy. 2600:1004:B14D:1C:D028:4D88:3BB7:81A (talk) 16:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is incorrect to say "user has been trying" - I did it once, it was removed and I did not do it again. The correct expression is "user tried." Why is this even considered an issue any more? The actual issue is that Wikipedia editors seem determined to keep any reference to the connection between James Lindsay, a prominent atheist, and Michael O'Fallon, a "Christian nationalist" out of his article, when this is an important piece of information and the source of controversy involving prominent atheists.Nancymc (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Pinging, as he has recently commented on this issue also. 2600:1004:B11A:44F6:AD6E:538:EFC:2BCD (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment this seem pretty open and shut. You cannot self-publish a blog, then use that self-published material as a source in your own Wikipedia editing. If it was a well-respected blog, other editors might be able to use it, but it would have to be pretty reputable stuff. In summary: can I edit Wikipedia articles to cite my own blog? Of course not. Possibly (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, using your own blog as a source is problematic in multiple ways. We use blogs in extremely limited cases, we don't use original research, anything controversial in a BLP requires multiple reliable sources, and citing your own work can be considered spamming. —valereee (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Why do you all keep harping on the personal blog issue??? I only did it once, I questioned it once and then I let it go yesterday! Why are you all dog piling on this issue? Don't you have anything better to do with your lives? Nancymc (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Mark D. Siljander


The newly registered user in question (first edit today) asserted in an edit summary that he/she is a "paid employee of the nonprofit (Trac5, Inc.) associated with the work of Mark Siljander." Edit-warring to reinstate challenged (promotional) content. Needs more eyes. Neutralitytalk 18:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a strong possibility that the Gwaldron88 account is related to Trac5btcg, who added the promotional content in the first place. gobonobo  + c 04:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you need to place the COIN notice on the user's talk page when you mention them here. I'll do that for you. Possibly (talk)


 * Can we get some admin attention here? The COI user is actively edit-warring to restore challenged content. Neutralitytalk 17:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GWaldron88, which is the same user as Trac5btcg, is here for nakedly promotional reasons and persists in edit warring even after multiple warnings. Melanie has protected the page but the user is largely WP:NOTHERE. Possibly (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Jenn Gotzon


The IP editor has claimed that they are the subject of this page here and has continued to edit the page despite NPOV and COI notices being given. The second editor seems to be a continuation of the third account, which was primarily responsible for the creation of the page. That individual has links to Gotzon, which I won't post here for fears of violating WP:OUTING; I will be happy to email such information to concerned administrators. Nearly 80% of the page's contents was made by these editors.

Sdrqaz (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Ragueneau


Ragueneau appears to have a conflict of interest with Oswaldo Salas and/or his work. Over the course of 3 years editing Wikipedia, Ragueneau's edits have focused almost exclusively on Salas or films that Salas has been involved with. In addition to this single-purpose approach, Ragueneau has had a tendency to fill the Awards sections of articles that they have contributed, such as Holestepper and Extirpator of Idolatries, with dozens of non-notable entries, mostly cited to primary sources. When I asked Ragueneau about their edits on their talk page, I was met with flat denial, and the ultimate explanation for their focus on Salas's oeuvre was Because unfortunately in the Peruvian artistic environment there are very few artists, to say almost no one, who have obtained the recognitions that he has obtained. If there were more relevant Peruvian artists to be able to publish on wikipedia, with reliable sources, I would., which I find unpersuasive. While Peru is not a country with a particularly active film industry, there's nevertheless many blue-linked names and films at List of Peruvian films and Cinema of Peru, and presumably even more for which sources are available. As we appear to be at an impasse at Ragueneau's talk page, I'm asking for additional input to see whether additional measures are appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 23:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Rageneau has been actively uploading image at Commons since 2008. (Commons contribs). There are many images of Salas, and several other related film people. A  number  of them have been deleted though, and at one point Ragueneau replied on their talk that "Hola, todas esas fotos son mías, no veo razón para que se pida que sean borradas. ragueneau" (translation: "Hello, all those photos are mine, I see no reason to ask them to be deleted. ragueneau"). So, the many images they have uploaded of Oswaldo Salas means they have already admitted to knowing Salas, at least as a phiotographer. I think a partial block would solve this problem.  Possibly (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how well a partial block would work, as we can't predict what future articles may contain content about Salas. A topic-ban may be more appropriate, although given the additional evidence you provided that suggest a COI I'm not opposed to just blocking outright on suspicion of UPE. signed,Rosguill talk 20:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a look at es.wikipedia, where they have contributed almost 100 edits to the Oswaldo Salas article. Their explanation about not being involved is... not plausible. Possibly (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , as this has been open for about a week and seems unlikely to get any additional participation, any opposition to me indef blocking Ragueneau for UPE? signed,Rosguill talk 17:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * that sounds like the proper thing to do, especially given all the cross-wiki evidence. Possibly (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ signed,Rosguill talk 18:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Marieblw


This is a single-purpose account who wholly replaced an acceptable stub at Wavin, including references, with a promotional page. I suspect undisclosed paid editing. FalconK (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Michael Briguglio


Long term ownership, using multiple accounts. Molds the content as an autobiography. 2601:188:180:B8E0:C9AC:A0C:6F13:582C (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The eponymous account really needs a pblock on editing Michael Briguglio. They have been editing the article despite COI warnings on their talk page that began on 19 June 2016. Possibly (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Editor has been blocked for 72 hours for disruptive editing. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Palma School


User is edit-warring WP:PEACOCKery regarding non-Wiki-notable Ed Dowd (who appears to be himself given the initials at the beginning of the username) into the "notable alumni" section. I've already reverted twice today and left a templated-but-with-substantive-addendum on Emdinc123's talk page. I'll be notifying him on his talk page immediately. Thanks, folks.  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  01:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He's still at it. I think I'm at 3RR for the rest of today. I've left a further COI message with personal addendum now, but I suspect this user doesn't realize he has a talk page. User:Melcous has jumped into the fray; thanks! -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  17:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Venkatesh Gattem


The user was quick enough to give me an intimidating "Final Warning" on my talk page following my SD attempt was declined. He also seems to be wiki-hounding me. It was followed by ad hominem attack in an attempt to deter me. User has admitted COI only after I raised suspicions[]. However, he has continued to edit the article directly. RationalPuff (talk) 17:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the user you mention (IM3847) has been editing for five years and has 16,000 edits. Could you point out exactly where the COI issues are, with diffs? The ANI thread above only says that IM3847 went to the same university, which is not a COI unless they know eachother. Also, if you you are experiencing harassment or wikihounding, this is not the board to report it. Possibly (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Notes related to personal attack was only meant to give some background. I will report if required, although my intention here to improve Wiki articles and would avoid any conflicts of personal nature unless absolutely necessary. He did admit that he was in the "same university and studied along with". This is a clear CoI violation and regardless of bias. I would expect a senior wiki editor would be more mindful and respect the policies. Now, I do think bias happened. 1. including information that has not been appropriately sourced; whitewashing the article which is against the Wiki policies. More details in the AFD. 2. trying to deter an editor who challenged the contents of the article, rather than objectively discussing it. RationalPuff (talk) 19:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No COI. IM3847 has admitted to attending the same university and personally knowing the article subject. Big deal. RationalPuff seems to have run here in direct response to IM3847 opening an ANI thread. The conduct complaints about IM3847 are also unimpressive. A single warning template, no matter how incorrectly used, is not "bullying". And there was nothing in the reply that was an ad hominem—expressing surprise at someone's inexperience or ineptitude in carrying out some task when the subject of that discussion is that person's performance of said task is frankly the opposite of an ad hominem. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ANI was opened by IM3847 not by me. CoI was only admitted subsequent to my whistleblowing. Interstingly, the discussions now seemed to have unconvincingly swayed away from the article and the CoI.RationalPuff (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My userpage clearly shows the university I've studied in till May 2020. I don't see what whistle blowing you are talking about. CoI comes in when the article is used for advertisement purpose and with false claims on unpopular works. Can you please explain the spam I've contributed to this article. I've already given some info at the article's deletion discussion.--iMahesh ( talk )
 * I'm horrified that an experienced editor who has been creating multiple wiki articles has no clue about the CoI and how to disclose it. No. Simply giving some clue on your userpage and shift the burden on others to decipher it is not acceptable. There is specific guidance on how to WP:DISCLOSE it. RationalPuff (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would I even read about CoI, when none of my contributions are linked to BLPs (out of my scope) except this article? Didn’t I just mention my lack of knowledge on Wikipedia rules and regulations? Its the only reason why I confine myself to housekeeping tasks. And as I stated at AfD, this could be my last BLP article and any further discussion on this topic moves nowhere. I rarely contribute to Wiki now a days. It’s definitely not a prime time for me on Wiki, and my editing trends do prove it. Sorry, you may not have any further answers from me. I have many important works to do at my prime career stage than editing Wikipedia, see you later. Please proceed as per AfD and try to close the discussion. If I find any relevant data about the article/subject it can always be retrieved inline with the Wikipedia guidelines.—iMahesh ( talk )  20:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * With respect, IP, that's slightly contradictory. You cannot personally know the subject and contribute to that page without a conflict of interest. That is patently the definition of COI editing: contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Question for : Do you know Gattem personally? "Studied along with" is rather vague. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first contact was made to achieve his images via OTRS after having an long debate on local language Wikimedians about the Notability of his article on Telugu Wikipedia.--iMahesh ( talk ) 16:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're a more experienced editor than I, but given that you have an external relationship with the subject you probably shouldn't have created the page or continued editing. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, experience never comes with number of edits but with context and understanding Wikipedia's rules which i seriously lack at. Its the first time me seeing existence of CoI on Wiki. From all I know, I tried to restrict any sort of peacock words and only used information from reliable sources rather than WP:OR.--iMahesh ( talk ) 17:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

and the Encyclopædia Britannica
GoogleMeNowPlease is an editor who has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. I came here to ask for your comments on if he had a COI with the EB, as a large portion of the edits made by his suspected sockpuppets were made with the intent of discrediting Wikipedia and crediting the Encyclopedia Britannica. See also: Sockpuppet investigations/GoogleMeNowPlease. JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 17:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , given that they've been blocked indefinitely, it's probably moot and there's not much point in establishing whether they have a conflict of interest. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Li Chen (artist)


Promotional edit histories at artists' biographies. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Miss India Australia


This user edits in the area of Miss India Australia articles, beginning with removing mostly references from Miss India Australia (Raj Suri). Afterwards going to merging, copy-paste moving. This is a conflict of interest issue, as based on their username they seem to be affiliated with a competitor beauty pageant (Miss India Australia (Touch the Soul))/being the founder of it. There has not been a reaction to the concerns raised on the user's talkpage. NJD-DE (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I correct: there now has been a reaction by removing this report here and blanking the talk page. Doesn't really reduce the concerns though. NJD-DE (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Shenanigans have been going on at those articles for years. An account User:Reenakoak originally wrote it in 2015 and after much reverting and fixing by various editors, back in June 2018 - a couple of now dead spa accounts  (note Hindi Guarav is the name of an Australian Indian newspaper that sponsors an event called "Opera miss/mrs/mr india global - no idea if its either one of these pageants) and  were trying to take over the "touch the soul." pageant article. There is some weird stuff going on that I cant quite understand...
 * User:Nephelae "recreated?" the article in 2018, and made a disambiguation page for both articles called "Miss India Australia" . Renakoav MIA then tried to take over the "Miss India Australia" page on 29th December. Nephelae then redirected both articles, copy pasting them both together onto the Miss India disambiguation page. So its all a bit confusing. Curdle (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is quite confusing indeed! Also, unclear who has been trying to hijack which article and might've wanted to discredit the other. Definitely, this copy-paste merge is not ideal. I think either should be reverted to the original stage, or at least copied the full version of each article and then cleaned up. The Raj Suri/not Reena Koak section lost some content in the "merge". And one might also ask the question why the two sections are not ordered alphabetically .. NJD-DE (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

As per your concerns. The content not copied over was more ad-based and irrelevant to the encyclopaedic nature, references were to self and not external sources (the page had a history of unreferenced/poorly referenced content). However, if you think the information is relevant and should be added then this is something that should occur. I simply copied & pasted the information as per the previous disambiguation page which listed Koak then Suri in last name alphabetical order. When I copied the table over, I copied the table that had been edited and not the most updated table - hence the references. Which have now been readded from a previous copy. However, if the alphabetical issue is a major concern, you may re-list on first name alphabetical basis. I did find 3 more pageants in Australia named 'Miss India Australia' however, they were not notable enough to add to the disambiguation page. Furthermore, I suspect editing & hijacking will continue occurring, I personally agree with NJD-DE in copying the article over in full and cleaning up, but keeping both in the same page.User talk:Nephelae  — Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Episteme
On November 28, 2020 an anonymous person added a section "Episteme according to Giano Rocca" to the end of the article on Episteme. The section is a very long, very poorly-written screed of apparently personal opinion, citing no references. It does, however, leave a link to Giano Rocca's personal web page (https://independent.academia.edu/GianoRocca).

I think that this section should be removed as (1) useless and (2) almost certainly a case of blatant self-promotion. Stephen.R.Ferg (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit which you also could have done without issue. Also note that this noticeboard requires you to notify any editor who you bring as the subject of discussion here. Thank you Melcous (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The edits were made over a month ago, so I don't suppose there's much point in alerting the IP now. Still, I've blocked it for a week pour encourager les autres. Thank you for the alert, Stephen.R.Ferg. Bishonen &#124; tålk 16:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC).