Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 202

Paying student editors
I have a pilot project. Everyone stay cool and no one freak out.

I am a Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia. I wish that all university knowledge continually flowed into Wikipedia in a way that universities and Wikipedia editors continually discussed and improved.

Everyone at this board knows paid editing. Consider now the Education program and student editing, which is an outreach format that has been ongoing for 10+ years.

Here is the new thing - I propose to pay students to develop Wikipedia articles. I do not have all the answers or documentation to how this will look. This has rarely been done, and I think never in a way that sought attention or development of the model. Is anyone interested and available to talk me thought this a bit?
 * WikiProject University of Virginia/2023 Wiki99 for open source software
 * Talk:Open-source_software

pros: There are lots of student workers who are able to do great research, and many sponsors who could support students to engage in this way

cons: paid editing has a history of being uniformly problematic in Wikipedia

I think this situation can be different because in all of this conflict of interest noticeboard, I think every complaint is about marketing, sales, or promotion. In this case, we could mandate that editing be about academic topics, with scholarly focus, and if there is a problem then someone like me at a university would be accountable.

Thoughts? Thanks and again - no one freak out.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  15:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * How much prior experience of editing Wikipedia will these students have? How much training will they receive? How is their editing going to be monitored? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The starting point is applying the Wikipedia Education Program model, which has been in development since 2011 and which has been the target of millions of dollars of development, and combining that with the COI disclosure practices. I think you are sufficiently and highly familiar with both of these. I estimate that both are documented with the paper equivalent of hundreds of pages of guidance, and thousands of pages of talk page posts. I can be more specific - just ask if you want me to say more.   Bluerasberry   (talk)  19:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have said quite sufficient to satisfy me that this is a thoroughly bad proposal. The Wikipedia Education Program routinely results in poor quality content, not infrequently resulting in extensive cleanup work for (unpaid) contributors. Actually paying inexperienced students to increase the volume of such potentially project-damaging content is an utterly absurd suggestion. If Wikipedia needs new contributors, it needs those who are doing so for better reasons than to increase their grades, and even more so, better reasons than to churn out content to help pay off their debts or whatever. And no, your taking 'personal responsibility' for such content (as described in posts below) is in no way an appropriate solution. As a matter of policy, contributors are responsible for their own edits, and I don't consider it possible for any one individual to meaningfully take responsibility for a significant amount of edits arising in such circumstances - 'responsibility' would involve reviewing all edits, checking sources etc, if it had any worth at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The quality from wiki edu projects is something not worth paying for. There is an argument that we should stop courses as the contributions are often detrimental. Secretlondon (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific about the nature of the problem? You might be worried about Education noticeboard, where there are 22 archives (this is a lot) of problem incident reports relating to school projects. Some differences between those problems and what I am doing is that 1) I am an experienced Wikipedian, whereas perhaps all of those complaints are about new editors 2) I am here opening communication pre-emptively and 3) If you ask for promises or commitments, then I have enough understanding to be able to make those.
 * For counterarguments to general criticism, Wiki Education wrote these two pieces
 * Why student editors are good for Wikipedia, 2022
 * Changing the face of Wikipedia, 2021
 * Besides Wiki Education, the Wikimedia Foundation runs a separate program on the same model for non-English languages where they convene meetings such as meta:EduWiki Conference 2023 and encourage meta:Wikipedia & Education User Group as an organization to guide policy, investment, and fundraising for the education model.
 * What I am proposing is not connected to either of those groups, except that I want to apply the model they developed. The current state of the Wikipedia Education Model is that it has been developed over 10+ years, with millions of dollars, and taking input from 100s of people, and that it has a level of support to be recommended and piloted.
 * Yes, the model has a certain failure rate, but typically, the instructor overseeing it is a non-Wikipedian whose first Wikipedia experience is telling a class of students to edit. In the case of this project, I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, who will commission editors through my university in the Education Model, and also have them disclose COI in the paid editing model, and over all of this I commit to take personal responsibility for everything. Under what circumstances can you support me trying this out? I could say more, but what do you think?  Bluerasberry   (talk)  19:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hoo boy. Wasn't there a famously bad student paid editing program lately? Its name escapes me at the moment (edited to add: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive948). And a mismanaged grant in, I think it was Nigeria? Maybe we should study cases of what not to do. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As a brief response, yes, the education model has a failure rate, as would any repeatable process. Having documented failures is not a bad thing; many Wikimedia projects fail, but not all of them signal and report the failures. In the case of the education program, tracking includes 1) all edited articles 2) all users 3) easy access to track changes for the programs, as documented at meta:Programs and Events Dashboard. It is challenging to compare the education model to other outreach formats because most outreach formats produce no documentation to judge, but my view is that education programs have a known failure rate, reliable failure and problem detection in place, and that despite the lack of data for other kinds of programs, I think that editing in circumstances when a university's reputation is at stake results in higher quality outcomes than in the more common situation when no one's reputation is at stake.
 * I am familiar with the Vipul issue. One difference between what he did and the education model is that he designed his own system, whereas the Education Model is something tested and researched and developed by professionals over years. Another difference is that he called on his own ethics or Wikipedia's editorial policies to guide the project, when the Education Model calls on students to apply academic research practices under the supervision of academic infrastructure.
 * For the Nigeria grants - I have nothing to do with WMF grantmaking, but I can comment a bit. See meta:Community Resources/Reports/Funding Report 2022-2023. I have nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation investment policies except that I read about them. Nigeria is the WMF's #2 regional investment target for community development after the United States, and this change is sudden, and much of it goes through schools. I will just say 1) not my responsibility to make Nigeria work, talk to the WMF, who should take responsibility for going into unfamiliar cultures and doing new things at scale and 2) I can take responsibility for this program at my American university in my own culture that is familiar to me, and for which the Education Model was designed.
 * Ask more, I can answer.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  19:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I should have checked Signpost archives first – here's the other one I had rattling around in my memory: Wikipedia Signpost/2016-04-14/Arbitration report. Not that I'd expect anything like this from Bluerasberry; quite the opposite. But it is prudent to say "here's why that scenario will not/could not play out". ☆ Bri (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose the suggestion. My observation is that organised student editing is very often of poor quality and has to be cleaned up by experienced editors. The students may be better used in editing the Simple English Wikipedia as this needs improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC).
 * Oppose I echo the comment above. The mess that has been caused by student editors over the last 2 years and relatively recently, there was a case, was a real hassle. Compounding that with more of them, is a disaster waiting to happen. All of this, is the expectation of loading work onto experienced editors who need to become the cleanup squad. No thanks. And why would you say, you would post them as coi articles. coi is not something that cant handed out, or assigned in a process. Coi is a wound in our perfect vision of design, foisted on us by a mercenary masters in their grubby grasping for content. If Wikipedia was designed properly from the beginning it wouldn't have appeared. The whole idea of paid student editors is fly-by-night stuff.   scope_creep Talk  22:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of being able to have your own paid editing bloc is such a slippery slope... There are innumerable Wikipedians with the resources to hire people in a low cost country to edit wikipedia (its like 10-20k a man year, on paper most of us can afford a full time mini-me), if we can have paid minions/vassals we're going real feudal real fast. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've seen they tend to approach Wikipedia editing with their report writing approach full of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR; and often edit wars just to meet the specific assignment requirements. When you're doing report in school, personal interviews and email interviews are strongly encouraged, because that's part of the research process and often time, outcome of such research ends up bleeding into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose we shouldn't be paying people to edit wikipedia, much less both paying them *and* directing/controlling their edits (that is WP:meatpuppetry BTW). The only way I can see this sort of thing working is if they're paid for their time with no other expectations placed on them other than that they edit wikipedia and even then its plagued with pitfalls. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment Bluerasberry, first and foremost I would like to thank you for exploring and presenting ideas such as this.  Secondarily, I don't think that it is a good idea. The "anyone can edit" is a bit misleading.   In reality, this applies to beginner gnome edits and talk page contributions, and then after hundreds of edits they move a step up from that and after a few thousand edits they move a couple steps up from that including maybe a new article.  These type of programs tend to signal otherwise, resulting in problems. The "COI" aspect is secondary.  North8000 (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Number of edit count should be looked, but it's not to be relied upon without reviewing edit history. There are editors who make bot-like edits like adding short description into dozens of articles each day which do not have meaningful value in editing skill growth. Graywalls (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose if we are going to pay anyone to edit, it shouldn't be (exclusively American) newbie students. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Folks just love them some boldtext !votes in the middle of a conversation... sigh. I'm still curious what Bluerasberry has in mind. There's a massive subject of "paid student editors" and only one small part of it would be doing things how the education program does it. I would be skeptical that paying a class full of students for writing Wikipedia rather than (or in addition to) basing grades on Wikipedia work would yield much different results -- and I'm one of the people (apparently in the minority on this ever-optimistic board) who knows those results are often good. But there are lots of other possibilities: research assistantships, independent studies, wikipedian in residence gigs for students, graduate student seminars, and otherwise selecting students with the best chance to succeed rather than an assignment for everyone who happens to take a first-year survey course. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that we don't have nearly enough information to offer an informed opinion on this specific (proposed) activity. Well-trained students who are properly supervised would not be very different from a Wikimedian-in-Residence. Personally, I have severe reservations and concerns about the entire WiR project but if we've already opened the door for those people to edit for their employer I don't understand why we'd object to them working with some of their colleagues as long as there is sufficient training and oversight. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that so many people have opinions about this. It is hard for me to know where to begin a conversation, so I am starting by posting a video. Here are some possible next steps: I am a wiki person at a university, and not the Wikimedia Foundation, but I am a lot more accessible and approachable than anyone at the Wikimedia Foundation and I am an actual wiki editor. Over the past 10 years staff of the Wikimedia Foundation have done a lot of university projects in many countries. They can speak for themselves about their history, present, and future, and they are designing university policy for Wikimedia platforms. I think university partnerships are essential for long-term development of Wikimedia projects. Maybe the Wikimedia Foundation's best practices for universities are suitable, but if there is any group of people who want to explore a more grassroots, bottom-up approach, then I have freedom to speak frankly to a degree that Wikimedia Foundation staff do not. If anyone wanted to request or impose really strict restrictions on me to set a precedent for anyone who comes later, then I would accept, endorse, and normalize such rules. There may come a day when Wikimedia projects are under more pressure to adapt, and having a limited experiment sooner could be better to establish understanding as compared to trying to design new partnership models under pressure.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  16:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) If there are any conditions - however odious and strict - under which I could get some support for an experimental, demonstrative, pilot which puts some results out for consideration, then I would appreciate the opportunity to negotiate for that limited support to pay some students to edit Wikipedia under my oversight, through my university. The general prize here is that universities are a trillion-dollar annual global economy, and Wikipedia already heavily relies on access to scholarly knowledge, and also universities already invest heavily in media and communication to get knowledge out. I am not sure how better partnership looks, but I want to explore some opportunity for universities to invest in Wikipedia development instead of, for example, investing money into competing media outlets like Twitter and their own websites.
 * 2) If anyone is brave enough to either have a voice/video conversation with me which we record and post, then I offer live conversation to anyone. I think complicated conversations like this should happen in multiple formats, including on-wiki discussion forums and also in video.
 * 3) If anyone wants me to address specific questions in text or video then I would.
 * Wikipedia does not negotiate policy through 'live conversations' between individuals. And absolutely nothing you have said above constitutes an explanation as to why it should be necessary or advisable to pay inexperienced students to edit Wikipedia. If you want to make a serious proposal, do so in the same manner as any other contributor would do. In writing. In the appropriate place, where contributors can all participate collectively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the whole idea lacks vision. Why would you pay inexperienced student editors when you can pay professional writers, historians to do some of the really difficult level 3,4,5 articles hat need so much work. There is 10000's of historical articles that need attention but don't get it . The experiment with students editors has been done on here, via Wikied and we have seen the results. That idea of paying student editors is shot.   scope_creep Talk  16:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per the comment above, you should perhaps take this to WP:VPR or WP:VPI. This is the entirely the wrong venue for this type of discussion. Put a proposal up so it can be discussed in detail so the whole community can see it.   scope_creep Talk  17:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC (withdrawn)
Should paid student editing be formally banned? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes it should be banned, per the excellent arguments above. TLDR paid editing is paid editing and the best case scenario in this sort of directed group editing is light meatpuppetry. It isn't good for the student editor, it isn't good for the wikipedia in residence/employer, and it isn't good for wikipedia (as many have noted these student editing projects are generally a net negative and require significant amounts of time on the part of unpaid competent editors to fix). There does not appear to be a way to pay and direct student editors while staying within the spirit of wikipedia, as that is the case the policy/guideline of wikipedia should explicitly prohibit it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Alas, history has shown that student editing has a record of low net quality; and adding a financial incentive will attract the honest desperate, the mercenary and the greedy. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please define 'it'. The discussion above relates to a specific proposal. Not all potential (properly declared) paid editing by anyone who happens to be a student. Trying to ban the latter would seem inequitable, and unenforceable. We don't enquire into the educational status of those making paid editing declarations, and nor should we. This RfC is too ambiguous to merit a yes/no answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * what is the "it" being referred to? Most likely its "paid student editing" as in the employment of students by their institution to edit wikipedia. If you find this too ambiguous, would you like to propose an alternative proposal? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't any actual proposal here. Not anything that can meaningfully be acted upon. If you want to propose a change of policy, tell us which policy you propose to modify, and what specific changes you are proposing. Actual wording, not vague statements about unenforceable bans. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would it be unenforceable? We already require disclose for paid editing so it would be as enforceable as anything else around paid editing. I'm not sure what specifically we would modify, we already have a very clear consensus that the sort of thing that was proposed above isn't acceptable but we don't appear to have any wording which would endorse it that would need to be removed. If we have to pick a place to record that consensus WP:MEAT seems appropriate. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a clearly defined proposal - naming the policy, providing the wording - that we can have a meaningful discussion over. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not establish the formal consensus first? I'm open to policy and wording if you have suggestions but its not required. Also still interested in how it would be any more unenforceable than what we currently have. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can't have a 'formal consensus' about a vague proposal that keeps getting redefined on the fly. And with that I'm done here. This is an ill-thought-out RfC that should never have been started in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If I closed this and opened a pre-RfC discussion would you participate? I'm very interested in hearing why you think that it would be unenforceable. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and close - an RfC nobody asked for, based on a conversation rather than a proposal, with no room for any nuance whatsoever. So presumably if we throw $100 at a starving PhD candidate to use their dissertation lit review to improve some articles, that's going to just spoil everything? Please. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * would you like to propose a different wording? Also I asked for this RfC, am I nobody? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not. There's no sensible proposal here. It's a premature timesink. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you participate in a pre-RfC discussion if this RfC was withdrawn? It was never my intention to waste anyone's time, but in furtherance of that I appear to have been overly brief in constructing the proposal. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The pre-RfC discussion is just .... the discussion that started this &uarr;, before it turned into an RfC. No need for any proposal, or any pre-proposal proposal-discussion to just talk about something that is at this point 100% hypothetical. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 17:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it a hypothetical? Don't we already have paid student editors on wiki? Thats what makes the above discussion interesting... Bluerasberry is asking for permission and getting rejected, but have others bothered to ask for permission and does the consensus above apply to them? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I believe that paid student editing is going to be a bad idea in nearly all circumstances, I'm skeptical that it's actually occurring in any kind of significant capacity. In my view, the WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS issues that would result from an explicit ban would outweigh the advantages to the project. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 17:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Close per WP:RFCBEFORE. No concrete proposal to change any specific policy in any specific manner has been made, and the originator of the RfC seems to be attempting to redefine whatever it is that is being proposed on the fly. Discuss first, and leave RfCs to a time when there is a properly-defined policy change to reach agreement on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * the RfC was withdrawn minutes before you hit publish but presumably after you hit edit. Apologies for any confusion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Fbiagent010
UPE doing UPE things: editing obscure topics and doing backlinks for their clients. Can someone find their main account?
 * Draft:Mr. Vincent
 * Draft:Charles J. Ryan
 * Planet 9 Studios
 * Draft:Bernard Sarfo Twumasi
 * Draft:Igor Khudokormov


 * I find the editing behavior to be COI. However, I also find it strange that an ip with only 3 previous edits files this report. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And since the person nominating Planet 9 Studios for deletion has very few edits, looks like a competition amongst UPE to me. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A UPE face off. There is a phrase I didn't see expect to see in an encyclopeadia. Is the www.bphope.com links the problem. I've seen it in various place in the last couple of days.   scope_creep Talk  09:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A Ziff-Davis company. Not a reliable source. Some of these articles need MEDRS compliant refs.   scope_creep Talk  10:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I see there there is other links as well.   scope_creep Talk  10:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the links are fishy. I opened up a discussion on one source that is used 200+ times. Frankly, I am not surprised about the conduct. I have seen this more and more in AfD discussions with both SPA and newish users attacking likely paid articles (infighting over projects). I personally hope the hole UPE industry implodes. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sockmaster that immediately comes to mind is Expertwikiguy. They've been active lately (see my block log). It's missing a telltale sign, though. MER-C 19:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Genozip
The user is the self described author of a genomic and general purpose compression tool, and uses this single-purpose COI account to add his tool to all kinds of bioinformatics related pages, along with dodgy compression values or on pages where it does not make sense. The compression claim of 99% in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data&diff=prev&oldid=1128724464 is in fact not for the data types described in the article and adding it to the list of software to build phylogenetic trees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phylogenetics_software) does not make any sense either. The user also has basically no other contributions to Wikipedia than the promotion of his tool. So I suggest reverting his edits and banning the account from editing bioinformatics related pages. Also FYI, this is an IP of my university, where I work as a bioinformatician, I will monitor this discussion page, but if I write again, it might be from a different IP. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you leave a notice tell the editor that an entry has been made here.  scope_creep Talk  13:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did it now. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, the two specific pages mentioned:
 * On https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data, Genozip is listed as capable of compressing FASTQ, SAM/BAM/CRAM, VCF/BCF, FASTA, GVF, Phylip and 23andMe files and this is indeed correct. This is exactly the topic of the page.
 * On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phylogenetics_software - Genozip is listed as a software capable of converting FASTA files to PHYLIP files (for phylogenetic analysis) (and vice versa), in addition to having a capability of compressing phylogenetics (PHYLIP) files and this is again correct 2A06:C701:9673:1B00:C12A:BC79:3C04:28CC (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That Genozip can compress files is not doubted at all. The issue is misleading statements by you in addition to a disclosed COI. I suggest you read through the WP:COI page. COI editing in general is discouraged amd especially from single purpose accounts. The original claim of 99% compression was made for bam and fastq files, but the reference provided claims that only for vcf files, which is *not* a genomic sequence file. In an ideal case you can achieve 99.99% compression of a genomic sequence with a coordinate and CIGAR string alone as well, the average compression is only relevant in a general purpose page. The page of phylogenetic tools is not for any software related to phylogenetics, as you can see from the first sentence of the page. I have no doubt that genozip can compress these files, but that does not warrant inclusion in a page for software to build phylogenetic trees. At last you made other claims on other pages, like 3x better compression than cram that are entirely unsourced. 2A02:AA7:4006:3386:1:2:D27C:7BEA (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful comments. I have removed Genozip from the phylogenetic page as I agree that it is peripherial to the topic. I have updated the benchmark information on the compression page: I have removed the 99% for FASTA - while one might argue that the FASTA format is also a "genomic sequencing data" format and Genozip indeed achieves 99% on certain files, this benchmark has not yet been published. I have updated the benchmark number for BAM to 43-93% (93% is achieved, for example, on file T6 here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.12.507582v1.full - this is on a downloadable published file which can be easily reproduced: https://www.encodeproject.org/files/ENCFF900XHI/@@download/ENCFF900XHI.bam), and 75-96% for co-compression of BAM and FASTQ (96% is achieved, for example, on file 3 here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.07.548069v1.full which is based on this dataset: https://www.encodeproject.org/experiments/ENCSR842KTN/)
 * I did not find in the text a claim of 3X compression vs CRAM, however this is actually correct, see for example file T4 here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.12.507582v1.full based on this dataset: https://www.encodeproject.org/files/ENCFF047UEJ/@@download/ENCFF047UEJ.bam.
 * Finally, let me stresss again that this is not a single-purpose account. I have had this account for decades, way before the Genozip project, I have made several contributions to unrelated pages throughout the years to Wikipedia and Wiktionary (linguistics is my other passion), and I am an avid Wikipedia supporter.
 * Once again, thank you for your comments and the opportunity to improve the accuracy of this text. Please feel free to look me up on eg LinkedIn or ResearchGate, and I would be most happy to get further suggestions directly. Jokerman71 (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue with your editing and the topic of the discussion on this noticeboard are not the factual accuracy of the things you wrote, but about you editing pages, that you have a conflict of interest on.
 * Again, since you do not seem to read the conflict of interest page WP:PANDSCOI:
 * Do not edit or create articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.
 * Post suggestions and sources on the article's talk page, or in your user space.
 * The role of editors is to summarize, inform, and reference; not promote, whitewash, or sell.
 * Please read the quoted bulletpoints. The correct way to get stuff you are involved in included on a page is to post it to the discussion page of the article and wait for other people to follow or dismiss your suggestions.
 * And while you created your account a long time ago, all but 10 of your 126 edits are related to genozip. And all but one edit since 2020 (that was reverted for politically motivated editing as well) are related to genozip as well. So while you did not create your account as single purpose account for promotion of your tool to begin with, it is by all accounts now.
 * So I still maintain my stance that your edits should be removed and unbiased editors should decide if the inclusion in the page is warranted after you suggested it on the discussion page. Especially since you repeatedly reverted edits or readded removed content.
 * Here is a list of offending articles:
 * PHYLIP Diff: (
 * CRAM_(file_format) Diff:
 * Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data see whole discussion above
 * List_of_RNA-Seq_bioinformatics_tools Diff:
 * FASTQ_format Diff:
 * And here is an example where your promotions got deleted and you added a link to a page where your tool was included afterwards:
 * Here are the relevant edits for the Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data:
 * I am happy to discuss the specific issues with your biased and cherrypicked compression values on the talk pages of the relevant articles as a Bioinformatician, but not here. You continue to promote your tool even after having your edits reverted, being put on this noticebaord and informed on talk pages that you are COI editing.
 * I would be happy if anyone else could voice their opinion on this as well. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I would be most happy for an unbiased editor to review the merits of these contents per your suggestion. I have no objection for any correction based on facts. I have already corrected based on your earlier comments (which resulted in your last bulletpoint). I only request that this tool be hold to the same standards as other tools on the same lists. IMHO articles about compression will not be neccessarily more factually accurate and/or more useful to users by eliminating the mention of best (or at least one of the best) tool currently available to users (according to 3rd party benchmarks, for example: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/6/1497/6499262), while keeping its commercial and open source competitors on the list. I acknowledge that this is COI, as I disclosed on the pages, and I will be more careful to follow the process you outline in the future. However, right now, do you see any information that is either incorrect or is presented in any way different than all the other similar tools listed? 2A06:C701:96A9:2B00:B198:7347:8C0F:1E19 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the relevant edits for the Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data:
 * I am happy to discuss the specific issues with your biased and cherrypicked compression values on the talk pages of the relevant articles as a Bioinformatician, but not here. You continue to promote your tool even after having your edits reverted, being put on this noticebaord and informed on talk pages that you are COI editing.
 * I would be happy if anyone else could voice their opinion on this as well. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I would be most happy for an unbiased editor to review the merits of these contents per your suggestion. I have no objection for any correction based on facts. I have already corrected based on your earlier comments (which resulted in your last bulletpoint). I only request that this tool be hold to the same standards as other tools on the same lists. IMHO articles about compression will not be neccessarily more factually accurate and/or more useful to users by eliminating the mention of best (or at least one of the best) tool currently available to users (according to 3rd party benchmarks, for example: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/6/1497/6499262), while keeping its commercial and open source competitors on the list. I acknowledge that this is COI, as I disclosed on the pages, and I will be more careful to follow the process you outline in the future. However, right now, do you see any information that is either incorrect or is presented in any way different than all the other similar tools listed? 2A06:C701:96A9:2B00:B198:7347:8C0F:1E19 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are the relevant edits for the Compression_of_genomic_sequencing_data:
 * I am happy to discuss the specific issues with your biased and cherrypicked compression values on the talk pages of the relevant articles as a Bioinformatician, but not here. You continue to promote your tool even after having your edits reverted, being put on this noticebaord and informed on talk pages that you are COI editing.
 * I would be happy if anyone else could voice their opinion on this as well. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I would be most happy for an unbiased editor to review the merits of these contents per your suggestion. I have no objection for any correction based on facts. I have already corrected based on your earlier comments (which resulted in your last bulletpoint). I only request that this tool be hold to the same standards as other tools on the same lists. IMHO articles about compression will not be neccessarily more factually accurate and/or more useful to users by eliminating the mention of best (or at least one of the best) tool currently available to users (according to 3rd party benchmarks, for example: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/6/1497/6499262), while keeping its commercial and open source competitors on the list. I acknowledge that this is COI, as I disclosed on the pages, and I will be more careful to follow the process you outline in the future. However, right now, do you see any information that is either incorrect or is presented in any way different than all the other similar tools listed? 2A06:C701:96A9:2B00:B198:7347:8C0F:1E19 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss the specific issues with your biased and cherrypicked compression values on the talk pages of the relevant articles as a Bioinformatician, but not here. You continue to promote your tool even after having your edits reverted, being put on this noticebaord and informed on talk pages that you are COI editing.
 * I would be happy if anyone else could voice their opinion on this as well. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I would be most happy for an unbiased editor to review the merits of these contents per your suggestion. I have no objection for any correction based on facts. I have already corrected based on your earlier comments (which resulted in your last bulletpoint). I only request that this tool be hold to the same standards as other tools on the same lists. IMHO articles about compression will not be neccessarily more factually accurate and/or more useful to users by eliminating the mention of best (or at least one of the best) tool currently available to users (according to 3rd party benchmarks, for example: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/6/1497/6499262), while keeping its commercial and open source competitors on the list. I acknowledge that this is COI, as I disclosed on the pages, and I will be more careful to follow the process you outline in the future. However, right now, do you see any information that is either incorrect or is presented in any way different than all the other similar tools listed? 2A06:C701:96A9:2B00:B198:7347:8C0F:1E19 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I am happy to discuss the specific issues with your biased and cherrypicked compression values on the talk pages of the relevant articles as a Bioinformatician, but not here. You continue to promote your tool even after having your edits reverted, being put on this noticebaord and informed on talk pages that you are COI editing.
 * I would be happy if anyone else could voice their opinion on this as well. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I would be most happy for an unbiased editor to review the merits of these contents per your suggestion. I have no objection for any correction based on facts. I have already corrected based on your earlier comments (which resulted in your last bulletpoint). I only request that this tool be hold to the same standards as other tools on the same lists. IMHO articles about compression will not be neccessarily more factually accurate and/or more useful to users by eliminating the mention of best (or at least one of the best) tool currently available to users (according to 3rd party benchmarks, for example: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/6/1497/6499262), while keeping its commercial and open source competitors on the list. I acknowledge that this is COI, as I disclosed on the pages, and I will be more careful to follow the process you outline in the future. However, right now, do you see any information that is either incorrect or is presented in any way different than all the other similar tools listed? 2A06:C701:96A9:2B00:B198:7347:8C0F:1E19 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be happy if anyone else could voice their opinion on this as well. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I would be most happy for an unbiased editor to review the merits of these contents per your suggestion. I have no objection for any correction based on facts. I have already corrected based on your earlier comments (which resulted in your last bulletpoint). I only request that this tool be hold to the same standards as other tools on the same lists. IMHO articles about compression will not be neccessarily more factually accurate and/or more useful to users by eliminating the mention of best (or at least one of the best) tool currently available to users (according to 3rd party benchmarks, for example: https://academic.oup.com/bioinformatics/article/38/6/1497/6499262), while keeping its commercial and open source competitors on the list. I acknowledge that this is COI, as I disclosed on the pages, and I will be more careful to follow the process you outline in the future. However, right now, do you see any information that is either incorrect or is presented in any way different than all the other similar tools listed? 2A06:C701:96A9:2B00:B198:7347:8C0F:1E19 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Author response: Genozip is a widely bioinformatics used tool, backed by peer-reviewed publications with many citations. COI was duly disclosed. Information provided is accurate and appears only in lists of other similar tools. The 99% compression rate, while an edge case, is indeed observed in practice, for example when compressing virus-sequences FASTA files. Finally, I am not a heavy wikipedia editor, but I have indeed made several contributions in unrelated areas. Rather than reverting / banning, please allow me to correct any incorrect information of style, of which I am currently unaware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A06:C701:9673:1B00:C12A:BC79:3C04:28CC (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Amar Singh (art dealer)
This student working on a school project about Howard Tangye apparently popped up 2 days ago. They have then gone on to edit almost exclusively the page Amar Singh (art dealer). It's not the first new account to have popped up on that article recently either. Uhooep (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lots of promo editing but moving from a draft edit to a mainspace article, even a random mainspace article is not outside the bounds of possibility. It could be random. A lot of it is promo edits and singe instance statements as supposed facts, which aren't collaborated which is making the article NPOV. That combined with the heavy promo aspect may be an indication that something is going on, certainly. I've removed about 30% of the article which is absolute junk. All-in-all very poor editing.   scope_creep Talk  22:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of what you deleted I did not write it was already in the article. I am very grateful that you flagged up that 1 section I wrote as self promo, I will know that for the future now. Thanks GlasgowGoatHerder (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)



Further to the above incident relating to GlasgowGoatHerder, I am flagging another 3 editors who sprung up on 27 October, 28 October and 30 October to edit the same page. Two of these accounts have now been blocked for various reasons and durations. Two separate users are now requesting a checkuser on these accounts but I have no idea how long that process will take. In the mean time the remaining active accounts among the above continue to edit and it may be that they have undisclosed conflicts of interest. It's also possible that further new accounts might spring up. It seems plausible to me that these accounts are acting in concert. Uhooep (talk) 13:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Tadayoshi Kohno



 * 1
 * 2 Appears to be promoting self, or doing promotional editing for the subject. Graywalls (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

MKSK
DarmaniLink (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * - Promotional edits, promoting relevant company without disclosure or sourcing. Edits read like a hagiography of their corporate staff.

Icaria (event)


Obvious promotional editing despite multiple warnings. When ICARIA (event) was nominated for speedy deletion, they recreated it at Icaria (event).  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 11:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * And they've recreated it at Icaria (fest).  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sent to Afd and asked to be salted.   scope_creep Talk  12:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With the pages salted and the paid editor blocked, I would say this situation is resolved, unless socking occurs.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 14:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Palm cooling


This user is editing this article although they appear to be associated with the company mentioned (AVA Cooling Technology). As can be seen in this diff link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palm_cooling&diff=1177285224&oldid=1171390082 they have specifically added a link to the company website, as well as a link to "internal investigations" of this company which do not appear to be a reliable source. These links go against Wikipedia's suggestions of links that should be avoided, and the author of these edits appears to be acting in an advertising self-interest not in an unbiased capacity. I have raised these concerns on the user's talk page and waited a reasonable time for a rectification or response to no avail. They have also added a picture (seen in the diff link) to which it appears they do not have permission to add. This picture appears to be a screenshot from a broadcast and potentially violates the NIL rights of the athlete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strict1y (talk • contribs) 20:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I reverted the user's most recent edit (13:25, 23 August 2023‎) for lack of reliable sources. I also nominated the image for deletion at Commons due to its questionable copyright status. -- Pemilligan (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick attention to the issues raised! Strict1y (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

IP editor: 76.174.4.161 and possible academic refspam


The use of Wikipedia as a source is highly discouraged in academic space; however it is often suggested as a good source for finding sources. As such, although not suggested as a source, Wikipedia has regularly been a population point of spamming for academics wishing to increase visibility of their publications and position. The edit pattern indicates there's likely COI in pushing certain academics or certain position related to "Guidelines for the first-line treatment of restless legs syndrome/Willis-Ekbom disease" given same PMID were inserted into similar related articles. They promptly removed the talk page warning message without any response.Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The academic spamming of Wikipedia WP:CITESPAM is far from uncommon. This one serves up 101 tasty dishes of spam, which may be a record number. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC).
 * In this edit they claim to be related to a patient with the disease. As to whether this is credible or not I am not sure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Wolf Theiss


User:Gnom constantly removes the well sourced information on the Wolf Theiss connections to Russian oligarchs and so on. I'm afraid the user may be not neutral and someone could have asked him to whitewash the company. As I read Ukrainian, Polish and Russian I can see that the sources are good, but the user Gnom 2 or 3 times reverted - starting a war of edits. Please assist. Найджалет (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an issue that needs discussed on the talk page of that article. This noticeboard is used to deal with conflicts of interest. I recommend opening up a discussion on that talk page in order to get WP:CONSENSUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Trying to figure out, do I really have COI


While creating a draft article about Apache Pulsar https://pulsar.apache.org/, I was advised to declare a conflict of interest by the Wikipedia admin. I did it by stating it in my Wikipedia user profile.

Apache Pulsar is an open-source project, that's development is controlled by Apache Foundation (non-profit organization).

I'm not an Apache Pulsar developer, I don't and didn't work for any company that spends money on developing Pulsar.

I helped with its site (not with the project itself) for free. Here is the list of my contributions: https://github.com/apache/pulsar-site/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3Avisortelle+is%3Aclosed

The main reason why I did it, is because it was hard to read project documentation. It looked not accurate, black font on blue background was quite not-readable. Software engineers usually spend a lot of time reading the documentation of projects they use. Another reason is to not spoil the first impression for new users. I declared that I'm ready to help with the new, more clean site version. You can find the old site version in the WaybackMachine if you want to.

Also, I reported several bugs (mistakes in Pulsar code). Something like when you contact some product's support to tell them that they have an error on their site, but in public. Here is the list: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues?q=is%3Aissue+author%3Avisortelle+

I'm just a Pulsar user at this moment.

For open-source projects, it's a common practice when users report program errors or even fix some errors. Similar to if you found a typo or mistake in a Wikipedia article while you read it.

I didn't sign any contracts with the Apache Foundation on the volunteering initiative.

At this time, I didn't receive a single penny for anything related to Pulsar. The projects I use Pulsar in, at this moment also don't make any money. They are mostly a hobby projects to better understand the broader event-driven architecture topic. I picked Pulsar by making own research and evaluating other similar projects about 2 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visortelle (talk • contribs) 13:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Therefore I'm not sure that I have a conflict of interest here. I'm an Apache Pulsar user who noticed that Apache Pulsar has no article on Wikipedia. Same as some iPhone user add's an article about it's new model.

If I am, then by this logic, anyone who is volunteering for Wikimedia projects in any way (makes edits), also must declare the COI and therefore can't continue to make edits. Visortelle (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have a COI as a mere user of the software. You would have one if you volunteered for the Foundation creating the software. That's what you said you did- you either volunteered for them or you didn't. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Again. I'm reading the WP:COI page and can't find anything about that volunteering is a full stop even by your understanding of volunteering. Visortelle (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Wikipedia has other admins? Preferably someone with engineering interests and knowledge.
 * Why do people who have nor even a little understanding of subject, nor interest in the subject's area are permitted to evaluate sources and the subject's notability? Visortelle (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And in case of specific question, aren't able to give a reference to a specific rule. Visortelle (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are other admins but I don't know of any that have engineering or computer programming experience. Because Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources, it isn't required to be an expert in the area a user chooses to participate in.(there are projects out there that do require expertise to participate) See WP:EXPERT.
 * Again, you either volunteered for this Foundation or you didn't. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll try to explain my major pain points here:
 * Lack of per/source feedback from reviewers by default.
 * Lack of guidance and personal work with author. Maybe I don't know how to it right.
 * In software engineering, the area with tons of very complex projects, there is such concept like Pull/Merge Request.
 * "Editor" makes an edit on he's own copy of project, then proposes the edit merge. After that, if it's at least somehow relevant, has sense for the project, and the project maintainers have resources, it continuing with review-improvement ping-pong. After some time it becomes merged to the main project copy.
 * I understand that the amount of work to review each draft/edit can be significant. In this case I would prefer to pay Wikipedia employees/volunteers for fair sources reviews. Maybe for several independent reviewers to be sure that editor can't cannot bribe the jury. Some kind of paid subscriptions, or per/review, but with detailed feedback. The current process is not what I expected from such a famous resource. Visortelle (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot
 * > Wikipedia summarizes independent reliable sources
 * Unfortunately, I can't agree here. I cannot afford myself to evaluate someone's article on a topic about which I understand nothing.
 * I'm also sure that there is no such thing as "reliable source", especially on any topic related to politics (that is stated as your field of interests) or religion. Visortelle (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And that's up to you. Editors here may choose to do or not do whatever they wish. I don't think you have yet read reliable source yet; reliable sources are generally those with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control- in other words, someone independent of the author checks for accuracy before publishing. It doesn't mean sources don't have bias, which is impossible. 331dot (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. I read it. Visortelle (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, but then you would see that politics is well covered by reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If, for example, you filed a comment about writing a Wikipedia article on the project because Having such an article would help the project's popularization. your interests (popularizing Apache Pulsar) are in conflict with those of the Wikipedia project. Thus, you do have a conflict of interest. Conflicts are not exclusively financial, you absolutely can have a conflict as a volunteer. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response.
 * It's interesting point of view. I would like to see such statements confirmed by references to the rules.
 * Judging on the intent, not on the article content. Despite I tried to be neutral as possible from start, the initial Apache_Pulsar article draft contained paragraphs that could be evaluated as promotional by someone. The where fully eliminated after the first or second edit.
 * By fact, Wikipedia popularizes all subjects it has articles about, isn't it? Does Wikipedia as a whole platform breaks his own rules? Visortelle (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I trying to be open as much as possible by attaching links to GitHub discussions. I see that better not to do it here. The less admins know about me, than better. Also quite strange for an "open" platform. Visortelle (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's goal is not to popularize anything, it is to build a collection of human knowledge. Not every rule is spelled out, and the spirit of a rule is more important than the letter. The first line of WP:COI is "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."(my emphasis) Volunteering is a form of relationship. You don't have to personally gain from a relationship to have a conflict of interest.
 * How open you are is, of course, up to you- but in this case you can't unring the bell. 331dot (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * > the spirit of a rule is more important than the letter.
 * Looks like some kind of anarchy to me. Visortelle (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a page for that too, WP:ANARCHY. 331dot (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You are not in conformance with either the spirit or the letter so that seems like an odd point to make... Note as well that while COI editing is tolerated WP:PROMOTION is prohibited. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @331dot @MrOllie
 * Thank you for your answers.
 * OK, let's finish it.
 * I spent two full days on it. Now I know that it's counter-productive, but I learned something that is out of my bubble. :)
 * I initiated the discussion about the Wikipedia article in all communication channels related to Apache Pulsar, so you can expect someone from the community will make another try on the article in short time. At least I hope so, maybe not, considering that no one has tried it before.
 * Have a nice time of day. Visortelle (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you were trying to do good and be helpful, but the reason that we have policies around COI editing is that COI editors are frequently blinded by their other interests - they are unable to objectively judge whether they are producing something 'as neutral as possible'. Wikipedia may popularize something as a side effect, but that is not supposed to be our motivation here. The best way to handle a COI is to be honest and follow the guidelines, not to try to hide things - at least if your goal is to help build this encyclopedia project according to its policies and guidelines. If your goal is something that is not in alignment with Wikipedia's, then I suppose the best way to accomplish it would be to be dishonest about your motivations - but that only works until someone notices problem editing. MrOllie (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Radhika Rao


Username combines the surnames of these two actors and is also the name of their production company. I have raised this on the user's Talk page and had responses but user is continuing to edit. Tacyarg (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * They've both got deletion histories and also WP:NEWSORGINDIA is relevant. I think they might qualify as NBIO/NACTOR AfD and possibly delete & salt given promotional recreations. Graywalls (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sent to the two WP:BLPs to Afd.   scope_creep Talk  11:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Renaissance Community


Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. Dbrown1793 (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

As the writer of this topic, I have had several comments from “Mikalson” accusing me of posting here and writing elsewhere for personal monetary gain which is a libel. I notice that Peaceray had admonished her several times for other unsubstantiated accusations. There is, I believe a personal vendetta at play, as we were once intimately involved. Any ideas how I can stop- not her posts about the topic - but her personal attacks on me. She has named me on this site. I have never named her although I know her identity.
 * I don't know if it is notable but it has very few references and has detail that only a participant would care about. Secretlondon (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the article is about the commune; per the usual thing about communes, there is one charismatic leader, who controls everybody to the extreme and that is being reflected here in the conversations by editor “Mikalson” who is re-living her trauma. I would take this to Ani, if you think it consitutes a serious enough problem. I think this is probably the wrong venue for it, here. If you sure its a conflict of interest, then  please add coi notices to these editors. If there is personal attacks, the only place to go is WP:ANI and they will be stopped immediately. I'm going to look at the article. It been unsourced since 2010 and has a extreme amount of detail that can't be found without being there and looks like more is going to be added. A copyedit is in order.    scope_creep Talk  10:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dbrown1793, you have a strong COI and should avoid directly editing the article. Your editing without using independent reliable sources was not appropriate - how you did not learn this during your many years of editing I do not know. The article has been rightly returned to a stub. You can seek an interaction ban with Mikalson at ANI. Fences  &amp;  Windows  10:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Laurence D. Marks self-edits


This article already has COI templates because of a prior determination. The user states this article is about him on his talkpage. The subject of the article, @Ldm1954, has made prior edits to the article but has honored the COI since its posting. However, on November 10, this editor made four edits, either reversing changes they did not like or removing notices that certain content needed better sources or was unsourced (possibly added by an editor with a COI). On the article's talk page, I have twice suggested that this editor reverse their edits and allow the other editors involved to resolve these issues. Rublamb (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * This is an outrageous misrepresentation of facts. I reversed edits by User:Rublamb because he felt he had the right to change my name. I stated as much on the Talk page, as is suggested. Changing my name without permission is unacceptable, and a standard exception to COI is when clearly erroneous information has been added. It should also be noted that many of the edits by User:Rublamb were reverted by User:StarryGrandma who both on the talk page and here has been accused by User:Rublamb of having a COI. There is zero justification for accusing her. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Four edits and the reversal of another editor's work was not required change a name, if that was the issue. The name change could have been requested on the talk page. Furthermore, two other editors discssing and/or disagreeming about the need for cleanup tags does not justify a COI edit, especially given that these discussions were less than 24 hours old and had yet to be concluded. Rublamb (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My edit clearly stated that I was reverting to remove a blatantly inappropriate change of my name, that was stated from the start. Now accusing me and User:StarryGrandma of unethical behavior is not normal. And you recently added to this be reverting an edit by a third party, User:Spintendo. Last, but not least, all of this started when I put a discussion AfD on one of your vested pages. I think you need to recluse yourself, I have already suggested this. Let other editors handle it, rather than continuing your attacks both here and on Laurence D. Marks where you are continuing to remove material. For instance, I see that you have suddenly decided that I am "staff", not "faculty". That is insulting. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * User has continued to edit the article about them and should probably be blocked from editing that. Theroadislong (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverting two serious errors is continuing? Because I question you you attack? Ldm1954 (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not believe a block is needed, nor (as I explain on the article talkpage) does the COI article template seem applicable. However, I urge the article subject to continue to use the talkpage edit request procedure where possible, and in any event to avoid broad reverts as a method of addressing narrow issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was the one reverting the notices about sourcing. I do not have a conflict of interest. I merely worked on the article for a while before it was accepted at AfC. merely reverted to an earlier version which inadvertently did that. Most of the concerns about sources are misunderstandings about what is appropriate for articles about professors. Better sources are not needed. See this discussion at WT:NPROF. I suggest that we keep this discussion on the talk page of the article. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Let's not let this get out of hand and sprawl across two noticeboards (here and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard) as well as the active talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can everyone, especially Rublamb, please stop giving Prof. Marks such a hard time? Being confrontational about faculty vs staff (the latter indeed being a slight to an academic) and other relatively minor issues is not necessary. It did not take long to verify that he worked with Archie Howie, so I wonder why you didn't try to do so before removing that statement? This is not the case of an article subject being overtly self-promotional. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not a deletionist and you have things backwards. I am trying to improve the article by adding content and needed sources. However, Ldm1954 is giving me a hard time by challenging every single change. Even when I have restored contet at his request after it was deleted by others, he has something to say; he doesn't like its placement in the article or wants one word changed or challenges the source. For the record, I never called Marks staff: rather, I wrote that he was "a professor...who joined the staff of the university in 1985". In this context, the staff includes paid employees of the institution, and no one was going to consider him to be anything other than a professor based on that sentence. However, I would have gladly changed “staff” to “faculty” if he had asked. Instead, he edited the article himself. If he just had an issue with me, I would get your point. Now, however, he is also critiquing and asking for reverts of the work of other editors. Despite this, several people are still trying to accommodate and consider his requests. In fact, I thought I had finished working on this project when he started asking me for more changes. I don’t think anyone is giving Ldm1954 a hard time; rather, his desired level of involvement is pretty unusual. Rublamb (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Rublamb, I'm not saying you're a deletionist, but I am asking you to have some perspective. None of the issues you've identified with this article are urgent or important, but in a matter of days you have distressed the article subject and you've removed easily verifiable content. Opening multiple noticeboard posts was over the top, and referring to the subject as a "COI editor" on the talk page is also unfair - he's retired and not promoting himself, he's just trying to let you know that he is known as "Laurie" and other similar issues that mean a lot to him but which might seem trivial to you. Please take a breath and think about how you can be kinder in your approach. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have been the focus of Ldm1954's ire, but the things you accuse me of—removing his nickname, calling him a "COI editor", and removing verifiable content—have nothing to do with me. There are five or six editors who have made changes to this article in the past three days. I am the one who has restored items that others have removed (at his request) and found sources so other info that he likes can remain. Nor have I started multiple notice board posts about this article; I started this one, he then started one in retaliation, and another editor started a third to get WP feedback on a specific source which was the initial issue. If I wasn't sensitive to his many requests, I would not have tried to accommodate them. I have stopped working on this article several times; however, he then asked me (by name) to make more changes. Along the way, I have taken the time to carefully explain my edits, respond to his questions, and have tried to ignore slings and digs about my capabilities and knowledge as an editor and scholar. I am piggy in the middle here, trying to navigate between his requests and the opinions/actions of other editors. Other editors from WP PROF have agreed to step in and try to work with Ldm1954. I wish them luck and hope Ldm1954 is content with the result. You may not realize that this all started when I flagged some content as being unsourced. Rublamb (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Open Knowledge Association
Now call me a nasty, suspicious person, but in the course of reviewing a number of pages yesterday for New Page Patrol, I came across some very natty creations where the author has declared they receive a stipend from the Open Knowledge Association. The first couple of these I let fly by, automatically thinking of them as some sort of Wikipedian in residence some sort of where, but then I took a closer look at OKA and, indeed, at the pages in question.

In a number, not all, of these pages I found lavish, loving detail that, while tangential to the main page topic, nevertheless seemed to give unnecessary focus to what may in fact be a sponsoring organisation. So this here article had daft amounts of detail about the newly installed church organ, attributing it to the manufacturer. This article didn't fail to make several mentions of books by a redlinked author that are set around the historical subject, while this one took great care to give attribution for recent archaeology to a specific institute.

It might be nothing, I might be tilting at windmills. In each case I removed the content and bookmarked the page and sat back to see what happens. Right now I don't have the time to do a huge amount of sleuthing beyond this - but it would seem to me that there are a number of these new creations being made with a promotional purpose that is quite smart - build links to the subject by writing/translating articles about another subject. And that would be, by my reading of consensus on paid editing, naughty.

Any views out there? Is my reading right? If so, is this to be tolerated? Is my 'root out the promo target and remove it then mark as reviewed as normal' methodology worth adopting for these OKA paid articles? (Originally posted over at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and copied here at the suggestion of Mr Joe ) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * PS: I didn't notify any editor because I believe this to be a general issue rather than a specific editor, even though the examples I've used all source back to one editor. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * André Noël (chef) appears to be an unattributed translation from the French version of the article--probably mechanical, given the occasional references to the subject as "Christmas" in the body. The redlinked authors seem to have been carried over from there. Choess (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The OPA website linked above says they are paying people to translate articles into English for Wikipedia. Secretlondon (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:OKA is a list of articles from their website. They say they use machine translation, corrected by paid translators. Secretlondon (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If they are translating from other wikipedias they are not giving credit, as per the license. Secretlondon (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The excessive detail on the organ seems to be in the German version of the article. Perhaps it's am uncredited translation of it? Secretlondon (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article on the sanctuary was such a translation of the French original it even had French citation templates in it. Secretlondon (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * All three articles mentioned are marked as translations on the talk page. The German article is credited correctly in the first edit, while the two French articles are not. TSventon (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a previous discussion of the OKA in October 2022 at Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72. Many of the problems are the result of publishing minimally edited machine translations rather than of paid editing. TSventon (talk) 12:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I reviewed several articles created by the OKA. These are usually translations of quality articles from other languages and this seems a reasonably efficient idea.  The article St. Ulrich (Amendingen) is explicitly a translation of the German equivalent where it is graded as a good article (Exzellente Artikel).  The detail about the current organ appears in the German original and is consistent with the large amount of detail about other features of this historic church.  The idea that there's money to be made by promoting church organs on Wikipedia seems an absurd fantasy and so the OP's suspicions are contrary to our policy WP:AGF.  Tsk.
 * To get an expert opinion on the matter, we should page Gerda Arendt who specialises in German church music. Now it could be that she's in on this fantastic money-making scheme, as she has written lots of articles with much detail too.  Perhaps "Precious" is a commercial codeword for her church cabal!?  No, I'm just joking...
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 17:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I heard of OKA for the first time. The church article is a way too faithful translation of the German one, without a look at that English church articles should look different: have a substantial lead (not a sentence about location only), don't use Roman for the Catholic Church, capital and linked Baroque, - and this is just the lead. Compare St. Martin, Idstein. I would not know where to start to bring the product in line with the English Wikipedia, - Graham87 is right, articles like that add work to reviewers, perhaps more than they provide facts to readers. I see, however, no promotional interests, at least in this particular article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There's (possibly) quite a problematic history here; we need to hear from, who knows all the ins and outs of the past issues. The history involves a company collaborating with established Wikipedia editors. I could be wrong; it needs to be determined if Open Knowledge is related to Knowledge Diffusion, of the video kerfuffle from several years back, where they were taking advantage of Wikipedia editors to get their content featured prominently on Wikipedia. Whether there is a connection needs to be sorted. And that venture also had links to translation ventures, so red flags are going off. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:44, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If a wider discussion is needed, the Village Pump may be the best venue. Graham87 blocked one of the OKA editors recently and mentioned previous discussions at the VP. TSventon (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm not terribly sure where to start with leading such a wider discussion. These are relatively new users but their creations need ... a huge amount of work. I blocked because after I asked them to stop adding fairly tangential see also links (, they assured me that they'd stop and then went right back to doing so. I eventually went through all the see also link additions of that editor and undid most of them (but cleaned up a few articles along the way). I think if properly executed a project like this could be beneficial but right now, it's causing major problems. Graham87 (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would help if we (en Wikipedia) could agree on updated guidance on machine translations and possibly a better how to guide. TSventon (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The previous discussions semed to reduce activity for a while, and at least they no longer try to cover very large subjects we already had articles on. The trouble is, they are machine translations by people often with a really poor level of English. They are not adding new content, just translating the whole of the German or whatever article they've chosen. If they bother to do any checking through, which mostly they don't seem to, their English is too poor to spot even glaring and basic mistakes. The linking is always terrible. I don't really think there is a promotional issue here; it's well-meaning but badly-misguided effort funded by an individual. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I spoke with Colin, and he thinks a connection to the other issue unlikely. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

A first? Wiki Ed professor has students writing her own bio
I've not encountered anything like this before, and hope others will look in and offer suggestions at the Education noticeboard. The professor of a course, has her students writing her biography. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  11:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia I appreciate all the time you have taken to audit the course. I have been working with @Brianda (Wiki Ed), and she has attended my class and met with my students. I appreciate an opportunity to obtain feedback and grow; however, let's ensure our tone is collaborative. I have no issue removing the page my student drafted about me. All of the articles students are working on were taken from here: Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon, and I am one of the people on the list. 9Starbucks (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That Meetup link provides a daunting list that needs examination for notability -- not something I intend to take on, but everything I checked looked dubious. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And there are scores of similar edit-a-thons listed at the parent, Meetup/DC, and yet a Notability noticeboard doesn't exist, and they aren't necessarily a fit for the COI noticeboard, so that's a dead end. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia "a Notability noticeboard doesn't exist". Hmmm. I call it WP:AFD :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Times hundreds of articles in a list that unsuspecting students are using? Not feasible ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WikiEd has long been known to poorly supervise their program and I'm not surprised a professor would abuse our encyclopedia for vanity's sake. Alas, this is the sort of thing our community of editors supports, so now you get what you voted for. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * With all the facts revealed now a professor did not "abuse our encyclopedia for vanity's sake"; she was caught in an IP block while traveling and couldn't communicate with the student. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy, you should know I shoot first and don't ask questions. It seems potential student assignments for a class included writing about the professor. Somebody has to accept responsibility for that whether it's the professor, WEF, or both. I have seen problems with WikiEd pretty much since their beginning years ago. I'm not chalking this up to some innocent accident. This is amateur-hour leadership. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that these kinds of problems are classic for student editing, but I think we have the wrong target in this instance. Wiki Ed staff tried.  The prof tried.  The students were responsive (in fact, very responsive-- a first for me in years of dealing with students, and I've made sure the prof knows that so their grades won't be affected).  The Wikipedia Meetup pages containing lists of non-notable bios is where we should be focused.  The student editing problem this time was simply a communication problem that couldn't be avoided. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This sure looks like a straightforward assumption of bad faith. It's common for editing projects to use a ready-made list of redlinks to turn blue. Women In Red is a great resource for this and there are many more. So a professor pointed her class to such a list (a list the professor did not create, as far as I can tell), and one student found the professor's name. Student starts a draft on Thursday, and before the class even meets for the next time (Wednesdays -- visible on the public Dashboard), we're off to a noticeboard to state conclusively that the professor "has students writing her own bio" and is "abusing our encyclopedia for vanity's sake". Now, a whole two hours after this was opened (and two hours after the very first talk page message was left for the professor), she immediately says "I have no issue removing the page my student drafted about me". Because the reality is that this isn't someone "having students writing her own bio" -- it's one of many students choosing one of many articles, and the professor addressing the problem moments after it's flagged. Now, sure, the ideal would be for the prof to see her name on the list of possible articles and go way out of her way to say "don't pick me". And yes, ideally someone at Wiki Ed would catch that the professor's name was assigned, but let's not act like this was some planned insidious promotional ploy.  now that I think about it, I wonder if this [assigned article=professor's name] could be a red flag integrated into the Dashboard, so that profs can avoid being subject to these sorts of accusations in the future (and, of course, so we don't have promotional editing going on in classes). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur that it seems more likely this was an unfortunate coincidence rather than an intentional malfeasance. The professor happened to be on the redlist being used (which is many years old) and did not check to see if their name was on the list, and a student seems to have individually picked it for whatever reason. Curbon7 (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would also add, to quote Ian from the WP:EDUN thread, . Curbon7 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * you are incorrect about when the professor was first contacted. I had assurances days ago the prof was contacted by Wiki Ed staff and students would not move articles in to mainspace. And then they did (which gave the appearance of an unresponsive prof, which has now been explained ... it was a communication issue because of an IP block while traveling. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the effect is COI editing and promotion (which is banned even outside of COI) does it really matter? Something that is never supposed to happened did happen, that is objectively a problem. I agree that how we address that problem does depend on the context though. The student in this context is the one who would earn the block not the professor (doing something isn't really the same thing as not preventing someone else from doing something). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * does it really matter? - Until the AI overlords take over and we don't need humans to write and improve articles, yes it matters. Just like it matters if we say "hey I reverted your edit because xyz, let me know if you have questions" rather than "nice try, idiot". WP:AGF is a policy for a reason. I was at WikiConference North America this past weekend, and it's funny just how many people with tens of thousands of edits got their start causing problems, but getting help with those problems instead of being chased away. It's important to be able to competently distinguish between some troll/vandal/NOTHERE self-promoter and someone making a mistake or overlooking something. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thats actually very close to what I was trying to suggest, I think the idea of an automated tool to address the issue is a good one. It does appear to be more a technical issue than anything else, sure its a technical issue which only really catches up those without significant experience but IMO the remedy here would be more technical than behavioral, I don't think there was some grand conspiracy by the prof and the student. But on the same hand we can't be having students write pages about their current professors, whether or not their class involves editing on wikipedia. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Has nobody really pinged the editor at question here? Courtesy ping to User:Oabrown23 who appears to be being treated as a second class editor... Why would we talk to the professor and not the student? For out purposes that are both editors with the same rights and privileges... They are equals here even if they aren't in the classroom. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, but that's the wrong student. :) -- but you're not obliged to respond if you don't want to, MathDementor. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, thank you yes that is the wrong editor... So many of them lol. My apologies Oabrown23. Seconding that they do not have to respond, WP:SATISFACTION is a good place to read more about that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it helpful to be pinging students to here (they're learning, not their fault); you can read the discussion at the Education Noticeboard, and see that it's not the students' fault, and they've all been very responsive. The professor has also explained the communication problem (she got caught in an IP block while traveling, and it's possible she didn't realize the student had picked her to write about, but one hopes in the future she'll remind her students not to do that, for the obvious conflict it creates).  So, the remaining issue wrt notability becomes the lists being propagated via eg Meetup/DC, which includes the list from which the students picked their subjects, of which many are not notable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * How are they supposed to learn if they're excluded? Being part of a Noticeboard discussion is a key wiki learning experience. Think about it this way: if you wouldn't treat a non-student editor like that don't treat a student editor like that, they are not second class editors. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is excluded from where? The students from this board ?  Do we think it helpful for them to absorb internal Wikipedia processing when they (and their professor) are still working to learn what notability and reliable sources are ?  Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your question ?  A secondary issue is, although I've always found Wiki Ed staff to be very responsive, it seems that everyone was away at a conference this weekend, so the lack of response made it appear that no one was paying attention, and the students continued uploading copyright images and moving articles to mainspace, after the prof had been told they should stay in draft space ... all a perfect storm because of a conference and an IP block, leading to communication issues.  All solved, except how many other courses or editors are going to use those Wiki Meetup link pages to generate more non-notable articles?  Not a matter for this board; would someone like to close this thread ?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, you added to your post after I responded, so my question looks goofy. No, I don't treat student editors the same way I'd treat other editors.  Knowing they are part of a class means we can contact Wiki Ed staff, who will contact the professor, and they will sort things out.  The students can't be held responsible for doing their best to earn a good grade regardless of what instruction they get; it's the professor we need to make sure understands policies, and that usually works with Wiki Ed staff ... in this case, there were communication snafus. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I added to my post after you responded. The students are just as responsible as any other editor, you should try to treat all editors with the same respect and consideration regardless of age, religion, gender, employment status, etc. Its just not civil to discriminate against some editors like you are doing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I wouldn't exactly call this a first, even if it never happened within WikiEd. Some years ago (2016, if I remember correctly), I was alerted to a conference at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which received some sort of sanction or support from WMF, having to do with addressing the encyclopedia's gender gap. I tried to give them pointers in advance, because I wasn't going to be able to visit their efforts in person (I was working in the tourism industry and certain times of year are times to hustle). As it turned out, instead of going two buildings over to the library and looking over the more than adequate selection of women's studies material, the participants instead wrote encyclopedia entries on themselves. Since WP:WIR is treated as a sacred cow on here and any criticism of their work is quickly whitewashed, I don't expect any traction on this, but I thought it was worth mentioning nonetheless. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

World almas


This user has been posting links to a site called "almasinfo" which may be COI, or at least Spam. 164.44.0.57 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Dear Wikipedia Noticeboard Administrators and Community Members,
 * I am writing in response to the notification regarding my contributions linked to "almasinfo." I want to clarify that my intention in sharing these links has always been purely informational. I have no personal or financial interest in promoting this site; my sole aim is to contribute to the richness and accuracy of the content on Wikipedia.
 * I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view and the concerns regarding conflict of interest. Please let me assure you that my edits were made in good faith, aiming to add value to the topics with credible sources and relevant information.
 * If there are specific guidelines I should follow to align my contributions more closely with Wikipedia's standards, I am open to learning and adhering to them. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my position and am willing to cooperate fully with any review process you deem necessary.
 * Thank you for your attention to this matter.
 * Sincerely, Almas World World almas (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is pretty obvious linkspam. You can 'align your contributions more closely with Wikipedia's standards' by ceasing to add this link. MrOllie (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Dear Wikipedia Noticeboard Administrators and Community Members,
 * I apologize for the confusion caused by the typo in my previous communication. My correct username is "World almas," not "Almas World " Please note this for all future correspondence.
 * Thank you for your understanding and attention to this matter.
 * Sincerely,
 * World almas World almas (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Spamublocked by me. CORPNAME + promotional links = 😒 --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Eaccbro


Created a draft titled Draft:E/acc London Summit that was speedy deleted per G11. Contested WP:UAA (permalink). –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 23:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I blocked them. Secretlondon (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I was left off the Barney and Friends TV show list of composers.
Hello - I was a composer on the Barney and Friends TV show from about 1995 to 2000. In the Wikipedia article about the show, my name has been left off the list of composers. This is quite insulting, as the list as it stands is all men - I was the only female composer, and was the only one omitted from the list. I have tried two times to have this corrected, and the responses were that my sources were not adequate. I have received royalties for my work on the show for decades, and still do, but there is no place to upload a paystub for proof. I would love to get this corrected! I would really appreciate your help and guidance. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:500:3E30:CD22:8EAC:B1A4:D868 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You will need to get sources saying you worked on Barney. A paystub will not suffice. NW1223&lt;Howl at me&bull;My hunts&gt; 02:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You've done the right thing and asked on the talk page about the edit you want. This noticeboard is for the community to deal with editors who haven't been as forthcoming. As you've been told before, we don't add facts without references. I'd recommend you let this drop, as you have actual money for the work you put in on the show, which is a lot more than our volunteer editors get for writing this encyclopedia. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The other composers, who HAVE been included in the credits for the article, were paid as well. I do not want to drop it. Thanks, though. Hollydoubet (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've managed to find a Dallas Observer article mentioning that she wrote songs for Barney: [Doublet] had moved to Dallas to write songs for Barney and Friends after working in the music industry in Los Angeles and Las Vegas for nearly two decades. Also discussed on an interview with Dobulet on Voyage Dallas  I moved back to Dallas, my hometown, in 1994, and was soon the songwriter for the Barney and Friends TV show. Talk about a great opportunity – I loved every minute of it!. Are either of these enough? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They seem good to me. I've added it back with the ref you found. - Bilby (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh! Thank you sooooo much. I have been trying to make this happen for months. I really appreciate your, and everyone else's, help. Small request - my last name is Doubet, without the "l". Would you mind correcting that for me? I am truly so happy to finally be included on the Barney and Friends page. So much gratitude. Hollydoubet (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the songwriters listed on the Barney Fandom wiki https://barney.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Songwriters (yes, this is not a reliable source I know, I am not suggesting it be cited) there seems to be a few songwriters that worked on the show over the years, substantially more than those listed in the infobox, like https://barney.fandom.com/wiki/Angelo_Natalie for instance. I suppose the question is why do we only list 3 composers when there seems to have been quite a number of songwriters for the show? The three listed in the infobox seem to have composed large numbers of the songs, so I can understand why they were listed. It might just be better to remove the "composer" section of the infobox. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for responding! The ones listed, plus myself (not listed) are the only ones I was aware of, at least during the time directly before and after I was there. There may have been an occasional song included by someone else, and there was public domain material used with new lyrics written. I wrote about 20 songs for the show, but am truly at a loss regarding how to confirm this to Wikipedia, however. It seems that the only online reference info is Fandom and YouTube, neither of which were deemed acceptable by this resource. I truly do appreciate your interest and suggestions. Hollydoubet (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition to the two sources Hemiauchenia cites above, Holly Doubet is credited by PBS as a Barney songwriter at http://r53-vip-soup.pbskids.org/barney/children/music/greatdaycounting.html Elspea756 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh - so great to know! Thank you! Hollydoubet (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression we'd only use those who are notable, basically those who have their own articles. Doug Weller  talk 08:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I actually have many articles in the media, but I am so proud to have been part of the Barney and Friends show, and wanted to be included in the credits. It is still a wonderful show for the little ones! Hollydoubet (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Protocol: COI edit requests w/o references
The Edit COI template asks requesters to supply "references supporting [a proposed] change." What is protocol for COI edit requests where the change is uncontroversial, the source is the subject of the article, and there is no published material to cite/reference? For example, I would like to request corrections to some factual inaccuracies of a technical nature in an article about an organization where my source is the organization itself. Thanks!

jdbauxt (talk) 21:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, per WP:COIEDIT you may "propose changes on talk pages (by using the template), or by posting a note at there, so that they can be peer reviewed;" Therefore please post here your proposed edits. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything included in Wikipedia must be verifiable. "The organization itself" is not an acceptable source because that's not something other editors can verify. If the errors you're talking about aren't referenced to a reliable source, you can simply ask for them to be removed. If they are, then there's nothing we can do here: you'll have to get them corrected in the public record. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, material published by the org itself (like their website) is still "published", and may have some limited use per WP:ABOUTSELF. Like who is the boss, where is the HQ etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Asiana Airlines/Korean Air Merger
An editor (KorFlyer88) has been repeatedly reverting on Proposed merger of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines without explanation. The initial reversions were in response to my edits to their additions (and removal of some extremely detailed/uncited background on the merger) which I admittedly should have explained but it has proceeded to be a series of nonstop reversions to their preferred version without explanation (beyond claiming vandalism).

After viewing their talk page, it appears the user has been previously given a "final warning" for edit warring when they claim the other editor is "vandalizing" on Asiana Airlines. In that case, they also logged out and made some of the edits as an IP. I would notify Ad Orientem who issued the prior warning but they are currently traveling.

Interestingly, IPs from Korea have once again appeared to continue making reversions to the article continuing KorFlyer88's pattern of behavior (see these edits) and even replied logged out to the talk page discussion I started on the edits. Interestingly, in this reply, the IP revealed that they are an "executive" with Korean Air. I believe this means that beyond edit warring, any edits would be a conflict of interest.

Strangely enough, however, in reply to Ad Orientem, KorFlyer referred to Korean government employees as "colleagues" after Ad Orientem blocked them after they continued making edits from an IP when they were blocked. If that's the case, it's worth noting that the merger was proposed and is advocated by the Korean government.

I don't want KorFlyer blocked in general (they have made many good contributions to airline articles) but it seems like there's some sort of conflict of interest when it comes to Korean Air/Asiana Airlines which makes their editing on those articles less helpful. Avgeekamfot (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's obvious that there would be more interest in the merger from Korea than anywhere else. The 'colleague' reference seems to just refer to civil servants. It looks more like an editing dispute than anything else. Secretlondon (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Anne Kabagambe


Promotional editing and unsourced material added to this BLP. 41.155.34.104 is, I think, the same editor as Chitheenabler, as the latter account replied to me on the former's Talk page. I had warned the Chitheenabler about CoI and promotional, and also about account sharing as the editor uses "we" and "our". The editor confirmed they have a CoI and asked for further guidance on complying with the policy. I linked them to how to make a paid contributor disclosure and the simple CoI request guidance. The editor has however ignored this and made another series of promotional edits ("Recognized for her leadership and global citizenship, Anne Kabagambe has demonstrated a notable ability to balance professional responsibilities with motherhood she has a Son"). Tacyarg (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi all ,
 * I appreciate your diligence in seeking a second opinion and reaching out to Tacyarg regarding concerns related to potential conflicts of interest. I understand the importance of maintaining transparency and compliance with Wikipedia guidelines.
 * I would like to clarify that I have been in communication with Tacyarg, who has been assisting me in understanding the proper procedures for disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. I am open to making any necessary disclosures to ensure adherence to Wikipedia's policies. However, I have encountered challenges in finding the appropriate channel for disclosure.
 * I have followed the directive that leads to a link, but unfortunately, the information provided does not specify where to share the necessary disclosures. Could you kindly guide me on the proper procedure or provide information on where I can make these disclosures?
 * Moreover, I want to extend my sincere apologies for any delay in responding promptly. I experienced a medical emergency yesterday that required immediate attention, and I appreciate your understanding in this matter.
 * Ensuring the accuracy of information on Wikipedia, especially in the case of the Anne Kabagabe page, is of utmosit importance to me. I am committed to addressing any concerns and making the necessary disclosures to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. I cant keep making edits that are remove which makes it impossible to determine what steps to take, i ensure their was no confiect in my edits but ensure the infomation on that page is updated as well as communicate clearly infomation that is benefical.
 * Thank you for your understanding and assistance in this matter. Chitheenabler (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Answered at Teahouse. Editor now understands need to declare PAID, not just COI. David notMD (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Aptera


Previously discussed at this COIN thread where user has disclosed an investment in the company. User is back at Aptera (solar electric vehicle) and added promotional material form a press release and created WP:OR in the "Design" section. Despite providing reasoning for my revert, user added the information back. Reverted again citing WP:ONUS and user is on the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aptera_(solar_electric_vehicle)#Edit_war? talk page] asking for someone to review my actions so I am coming here hoping someone else can take a look and opine on the content. Maybe its suitable, maybe not so eliciting more opinions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I, too, welcome a review of and suggestions for resolving this edit war. Yes, I have a small investment in Aptera Motors. Does that disqualify me from editing an article on their planned product? Are all interested parties prohibited from editing articles on the companies they own a share in or the products they like? And how is adding 3 and 4 year old history of the vehicle's announcements "promotional"?
 * I am trying to get this Aptera article up to the standards of other planned EVs on Wikipedia. This vehicle article is within the scope of the WikiProject Automobiles and WikiProject Environment and is supported by the Green vehicle task force.  For a list of related EV articles, see List of production battery electric vehicles of 50+ vehicles in this category, including many from startups.
 * I also see no WP:OR in my submission that clarified a previous statement.  Fotoguru (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To quote the paid editing section of WP:COI (emphasis added) An editor has a financial conflict of interest when they write about a topic with which they have a close financial relationship. This includes being an owner, employee, contractor, investor or other stakeholder. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I raised this on the talk page but since it goes more towards editing behavior, will move it here for discussion. I found it strange that you also removed an entry from List of production battery electric vehicles citing that it had no online presence and implying it was a scam, despite it being sourced to a reliable publication (and at least one other I found in a quick search). --CNMall41 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated WP:SELFCITE by User:Alex pereira de araujo

 * (starting in 2018)
 * (starting in 2018)
 * (starting in 2018)
 * (starting in 2018)
 * (starting in 2018)
 * (starting in 2018)
 * (starting in 2018)

All of users edits appear to be adding references which have user's name as one of the authors. User has been given standard COI notice as well as promotional/advert warnings. ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  21:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Added another one today: . Either doesn't know or doesn't care about the talk page warnings they have been getting. MrOllie (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I blocked for two weeks due to persisting past a final warning. His work is also published in unreliable venues. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

User WaftCinematic

 * (G4'd. Note this was previously deleted in September through AfD after being created by another user)
 * (G4'd. Note this was previously deleted in September through AfD after being created by another user)
 * (G4'd. Note this was previously deleted in September through AfD after being created by another user)
 * (G4'd. Note this was previously deleted in September through AfD after being created by another user)

Would like a second opinion in case I am overthinking. And, pinging for full transparency and hoping to elicit a response. User has created many drafts which have been declined, after which the user creates a new page for that topic in mainspace. Some are now at AfD but the editing behavior gives the appearance of a COI. Notified user of COI guidelines on November 13. Did not receive a response. Behavior continued so I asked user directly and have not received a response. Note that user has replied to other talk page messages and continues to create new pages so not sure why no response. CNMall41 (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This has taken a weird turn. User is still creating pages in mainspace despite most of them being sent to AfD and not responding here despite the ping. One page they just created (Waft Studios) has a reference to the Borok Times where that company is promoting its "PR and Wikipedia Services for India's Entertainment and Corporate Industry." More information about the founders and prior sock being filed at SPI now. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved it to draft for the moment until its sorted here. I plan to take a look at the rest of these articles today at some point.   scope_creep Talk  08:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Be careful what you wish for, its a rabbit hole. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. That is a lot of work to keep track of them. Kudos for bringing it together. I guess they will be back.   scope_creep Talk  10:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Travis Shallow


User WolfgangPaycheck has been editing exclusively on Travis Shallow page for over six years. Editing behaviors are consistent with public relations editing, including uploading high resolution publicity attributed to photographer Brian Lantz, as well as those attributable to Erika Arlee as "their own". Left a UPE notice on their page. They say they're "just a fan". I find it unconvincing given the circumstantial evidence. Graywalls (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Citing one one's article


Somewhere on my to do list is to try to get the article on Paradisus Judaeorum to GA (again, I failed a while back). I'd like to cite my own highly relevant article (peer reviewed): (in fact I wrote that article based on reasearch I initially did for the Wikipedia article), and it probably would be a decent cite for a few other articles on related topics. I would like to get an "ok" for citing this from COIN, however, to avoid any suggestions of COI (that I am trying to unduly promote my own work etc.). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think your transparency would outweigh the COI since you are not here to promote your work. Given the 250,000+ edits, I would say you fall under WP:HERE and since it is in a peer-reviewed journal, I doubt there would be an objection since you made a disclosure. I am only one opinion of course. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:SELFCITE allows this. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be preferable to say it's self-citation, then request it via COI edit request. If this is something contentious, I would have strong reservations to self-citation though. Graywalls (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about this self-performed, self-cite Special:Diff/957498161. You tacked yourself onto something in prose that was already cited. Did you do so because the existing source did not directly support the statement made? If the existing source supported what it was cited, please explain why you piggybacked your own publication. Why yours, as opposed to other sources out there? When one cites themselves, it infuses subconscious bias that tends to favor citing themselves over other references out there even if in the eyes of uninvolved editors who do not know the authors might not have chosen yours as the most appropriate. For such reasons, I strongly dislike self-citation. Graywalls (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why me - because my publication was peer reviewed, the ones that we had were just media articles (well, one media, and something blog-like that likely still needs to be purged from that article, and AFAIK no other peer reviewed work addressed this topic as relevantly and in detail as I did (note that I did not cite myself in the article on social capital, despite my publication being relevant - there are many more influential works to cite on that topic - but I did also add it to hobby shop, because again, AFAIK, my work on this is rather pioneering and that article had no academic sources cited). In general, adding/upgrading academic references from newspaper/social media ones that exist in text is a best practice, no? Although it seems I forgot to report this one here despite mentioning my intention to do so in the edit summary, sorry about that. Still, if you think COI overrules that consideration and instead of citing my peer review article it is fine to just cite the newpaper+social media for this claim, feel free to remove this. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be suggested in the Wiki project and/or COI Edit Request. In countries where tipping is expected, is it fine to go to a fine restaurant, get great service, then tip nothing? It's not a prosecutable criminal offense. It's not even a civil violation unless you agreed explicitly in advance. DIY self-citation is seen in a similar light. Graywalls (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. It should be hands off as much as possible. Suggest it and let somebody else evaluate the source, if they want to do it. I wouldn't do an edit request. I think that is too close to asking for it to be added. That is maybe the coi boundary, although that can be argued. The illustration above is spot on. Infractions are tallied here, as you know, so best to avoid.   scope_creep Talk  09:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's night and day compared to others who come to Wikipedia to promote themselves without even thinking of asking about a conflict. But, I understand everyone's comments as well. I'd be happy to review any request to add the cite if wishes. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * +1. Kudos to Prokonsul Piotrus. You must be a grownup, truly.    scope_creep Talk  11:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seen in a similar light... by who? The written policy is WP:SELFCITE, and it makes it quite clear that a prior edit request isn't required (because it advises them only when in doubt). You're perfectly entitled to hold a stronger opinion, but I see no evidence that this is a generally-held expectation. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as tipping isn't required Graywalls (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Valeriu Pantazi


I asked Asybaris01 on his talk page to declare his apparent COI concerning the article Valeriu Pantazi. I have good reasons to believe that he is interested in promoting this subject both on Wikipedia in Romanian and in other languages (such as English or French). Instead of the requested statement, Asybaris01 replied that he considers himself harassed by me, because of the discussions that we had in Romanian. I repeat here the information presented there which demonstrates this contributor’s connection with the subject of the article and his interest in promoting it. Given the nature of his relationship with the subject, I wonder if the COI doesn't fall into the "paid" category as well. --Pafsanias (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Asybaris is the organizer of the retrospective exhibition of painter Valeriu Pantazi, as he mentions in the summary of File:Valeriu Pantazi - Fotografie de la vernisajul expozitiei UN GAND PUS IN POVESTE (1).jpg
 * 2) he is also the editor of an art album published during the painter's lifetime and mentioned both in the Romanian article and in the Wikidata item d:Q12743069
 * 3) his real name is mentioned in the infobox of the Romanian article under the heading "patronage" (patrons), along with two other art brokers.

Girl Next


Bookerh30 exclusively edits about this film and might have a conflict with this film... 2600:1700:5390:5CCF:1453:80E8:AF7C:EBF6 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They've not edited for a year and a half. The horse has definitely bolted now. That said, it may be worth looking into whether edits they've made need to be cleaned up. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Lanka Bandaranayake


User:Gabriel2954 is constantly trying to remove the template on Lanka Bandaranayake and Tradition (film). For context, Gabriel2954 asked for help at the teahouse as their draft Lanka Bandaranayake was declined 5-7 times(not sure). I pitched in to fix it for the AfC review. The COI tag was placed before my intervention. Gabriel2954 tried to remove the COI template a couple of times, here, here and here but with a sock account. Similarly, here on Tradition (film). User was warned and there were discussions of the same on their talk page. Previously claimed that they were the copyright owner of Tradition (film) but denied any COI when asked about it. Here Gabriel2954 has acknowledged that they have contacted the BLP previously through email and still denied COI. Account has only been used to edit the above 2 pages till now which makes it even more suspicious for COI. Jeraxmoira (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the issue in the platform to solve it with professionals.
 * I did declare the COI in the "COI template" "edit" section yesterday (please check the edit hostroy), but it was deleted from there by GoingBatty (talk) who informed me to add the COI to the talk page. Since the case is on this platform, I will not add it to the talk page now to avoid any further confusion. I will wait now until this case is reviewed by the professionals. Thanks. Gabriel2954 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Sudhir Ruparelia


The editor is a self declared paid editor, though they have not made the declarations completely. They have edited the article in a manner which sanitises the subject's reputation, and made those edits directly. I understand direct editing is not explicitly prohibited when an editor is paid, but should be confined to correction of simple facts.

Because there are several intervening edits which prevent simple reversion I have come here to ask if there are admin tools available and whether it is approportae for an admin to make use of them in this instance. If so, and if judged correct to use, I ask that an admin makes of this tools to reset the article as appropriate to its state without the edits, and for any such edits to be discussed and consensus reached on them before putative application to the article.

I am, at the moment, not particularly concerned with the editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * After the responses below, especially the boldface type comments, I am now concerned about the editor. I have struck my prior lack of concern. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Timtrent I already made the mandatory disclosure both on my Talk Page, and the Edited page talk page in advance, before i could even start making any edits.
 * I was not directly paid but will eventually be compensated with time, i was contacted by Bukenya and i stated it in my Disclosure. First checked out Wikipedia terms and made own research a couple of weeks prior to the edits, and now here you are also to guide me further. I was not told what to do but made my own independent research in reference to other pages like one for Aliko Dangote checked out the nature of edits made there by more experiences editors, then came up with my draft but in reference to Sudhir Ruparelia that's all i did putting in consideration the Wikipedia guideline's sir. Where i have faulted, i am here for guidance.  Sol zb ie   10:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Solzbie I am concerned about the nature of your edits. I am not particularly concerned with your behaviour outside them. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent I need to know the actual problem with my nature of edits, then Improve as provided by the terms and guidelines of use here please sir.
 * I even found malicious statements that were not included in the provided references nor referenced elsewhere(These are even still on the talk page) and i also found that this is not allowed as it tarnishes the character of the subject. The editor who made them was blocked, but the edits were not reverted and i only did nothing about that. Nothing i made in my edits is fabricated as it i found information in google secondary reliable references, if there is any problem with any kind of edit, kindly lets us address that   Sol zb ie   11:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Solzbie This is the COI Noticebord. I am concerned that you have sanitised the article because you are paid or expect to be paid on behalf of the subject 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Timtrent By saying this, it simply means that the article was dirty and i removed the dirt......but all i did was expand as per the Wikipedia Foundation Purpose of empowering and engaging people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.  It is not that the content added is promotional or poorly sourced and perhaps it has already been edited and cleaned again by many other or non conflicted editors there by meeting Wikipedia neutrality requirements, so i am basically trying but failing to understand your real point here.
 * At one point, such can frustrate a contributor sir as instead of 'empowering and engaging people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license....it is rather working against the said contributors''....but regardless of whether one expects to be paid and disclose the same or not paid, there is always serious determination, commitment and time investing in collecting, editing and rephrasing content that is entered here in full compliance and adherence of the WF terms and policies of Use. For my case, i really need empowerment and guidance and perhaps together we can make this platform better but here i am feeling fought against and discouraged, sir.   Sol zb ie   13:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

GRAITEC


I issued Danielle Middleton a WP:PAID level one warning, since she's easy to find on (say) linkedin as the communications manager of the firm in question. Shortly after that, another Danielle reinserted the same text verbatim. I have thought about submitting this to SPI, but the quacking is deafening. I think a admin intervention is due. Kleuske (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add that three articles linked in the GRAITEC article, Advance Steel, Advance Concrete and Advance Design appear to all be non-notable advertisements for GRAITEC products (41.5% of the Advance Steel article is a word for word copy of GRAITEC's user guide product documentation booklet). A perusal of their edit histories show efforts to interfere in those articles by numerous IP editors going back 11 years, first by removing other editors' placement of maintenance messages, and more recently, by placing promotional external links. Regards, Spintendo  05:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Daniel DeWeldon


The article Daniel DeWeldon has been edited today by an IP address in a form which appeared by be an advertisment. I added the "Advert" banner which was removed by a new editor User:Barry Krost Management (who toned down the promotional language a little). The actor Daniel DeWeldon is represented by Barry Krost Management (see https://www.barrykrostmanagement.com/daniel-de-weldon.html ). Further editing may be needed to remove promtional content and provide citations for any material left. &mdash; Rod talk 22:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the account per WP:ROLE and nominated the article at AFD. SmartSE (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Steven Hassan


I am Steven Hassan and my page has been significantly altered by cult propagandists. There are many, many entries that are biased and not objective. My BITE Model of Authoritarian Control is a scientifically validated construct. My work is about undue influence and not just cults, and in the area of cults, I am against deceptive recruitment, phobia programming and many cults are not religious. For example human traffickers use control of Behavior, information, Thoughts and Emotions. I have authored numerous peer reviewed academic textbooks which are omitted. I need an objective editor to work with me to go line by line. But I suggest go back in time to when Wikipedia began and see how much it has been attacked by cult agents or those hired by people who wish to keepp people ignorant about mind control. Sh fom (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article will not be whitewashed to remove criticism of you. That the article displays criticism does not mean that it was edited by "cult propagandists". If the sources cited in the article about you are not being accurately summarized, please make an edit request(click for instructions) on Talk:Steven Hassan and detail the errors in how sources are summarized. If the sources are accurately summarized, but you disagree with what they say, you will have to take that up with the sources, not us. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Refspam
Slightly odd case. This user Seems be adding a load of (not good) references to articles in the journal Appl Food Biotechnol. Bon courage (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Sent it to WP:UAA. See what they make of it.   scope_creep Talk  10:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Bon courage (talk) 10:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Most are reverted and editor now indef blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)