Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→User WaftCinematic: R, definately UPE and likely SOCK |
|||
Line 326: | Line 326: | ||
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --> |
||
Would like a second opinion in case I am overthinking. And, pinging {{ping|WaftCinematic}} 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWaftCinematic&diff=1184970859&oldid=1184970237 on November 13]. Did not receive a response. Behavior continued so I asked user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WaftCinematic&diff=next&oldid=1185084162 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. [[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 18:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC) |
Would like a second opinion in case I am overthinking. And, pinging {{ping|WaftCinematic}} 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWaftCinematic&diff=1184970859&oldid=1184970237 on November 13]. Did not receive a response. Behavior continued so I asked user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WaftCinematic&diff=next&oldid=1185084162 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. [[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk: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 [https://boroktimes.com/waft-studios-pioneering-pr-and-wikipedia-services-for-indias-entertainment-and-corporate-industry/ 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. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 07:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== World almas == |
== World almas == |
Revision as of 07:24, 19 November 2023
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
| ||||
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
| ||||
| ||||
Additional notes:
| ||||
| ||||
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:
|
Search the COI noticeboard archives |
Help answer requested edits |
Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template:
|
Palm cooling
- Palm cooling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Kselapt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
Citing one one's article
- Paradisus Judaeorum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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): [1] (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.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| 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 ([2]), 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| 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_creepTalk 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 @Piotrus: wishes. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- +1. Kudos to Prokonsul Piotrus. You must be a grownup, truly. scope_creepTalk 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. – Joe (talk) 12:18, 14 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)
- 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 ([2]), 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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
IP editor: 76.174.4.161 and possible academic refspam
- Methadone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Opioid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Oxycodone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Methadone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 76.174.4.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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 [3] 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
- Wolf Theiss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Gnom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
Repeated WP:SELFCITE by User:Alex pereira de araujo
- Alex pereira de araujo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Horror film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rhetoric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Discipline and Punish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Eshu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Orisha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Marquis de Sade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (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: [4]. 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&Windows 21:10, 18 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 Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 72#Open Knowledge Association (OKA). 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 Colin, 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. SandyGeorgia (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 Alemedicen 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)
- 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 Alemedicen 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)
- 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Trying to figure out, do I really have COI
- Draft:Apache Pulsar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Visortelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
- You're wrong. I read it. Visortelle (talk) 18:00, 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)
- I'll try to explain my major pain points here:
- 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'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
- Radhika Rao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Vinay Sapru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Yaariyan 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rao And Sapru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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_creepTalk 11:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Renaissance Community
- Renaissance Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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_creepTalk 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&Windows 10:13, 13 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_creepTalk 10:41, 11 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)
- Reverting two serious errors is continuing? Because I question you you attack? Ldm1954 (talk) 20:48, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. Ldm1954 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 Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Assistance please) 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,[5][6] 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&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&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)
- 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&Windows 19:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Eaccbro
- Eaccbro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Created a draft titled Draft:E/acc London Summit that was speedy deleted per G11. Contested WP:UAA (permalink). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- I blocked them. Secretlondon (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
A first? Wiki Ed professor has students writing her own bio
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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, 9Starbucks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has her students writing her biography. SandyGeorgia (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: Wikipedia: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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- And there are scores of similar edit-a-thons listed at the parent, Wikipedia: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. SandyGeorgia (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| reply here 03:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- Times hundreds of articles in a list that unsuspecting students are using? Not feasible ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia "a Notability noticeboard doesn't exist". Hmmm. I call it WP:AFD :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- And there are scores of similar edit-a-thons listed at the parent, Wikipedia: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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 13 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. SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 14 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)
- 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 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. @Sage (Wiki Ed): 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). — 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,
this wasn't something she assigned them; they found her name on the list from the Meetup. She has told her students not to move that draft to mainspace
. Curbon7 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)- Rhodendrites 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I would also add, to quote Ian from the WP:EDUN thread,
- 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'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. — 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's Back (talk) 23:12, 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)
- 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's Back (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Oabrown23: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good point, but that's the wrong student. :) @MathDementor: -- but you're not obliged to respond if you don't want to, MathDementor. — 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'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 Wikipedia:Meetup/DC, which includes the list from which the students picked their subjects, of which many are not notable. SandyGeorgia (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'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 ? SandyGeorgia (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. SandyGeorgia (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's Back (talk) 04:00, 14 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 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 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 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's Back (talk) 23:44, 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 Wikipedia:Meetup/DC, which includes the list from which the students picked their subjects, of which many are not notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 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's Back (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- Good point, but that's the wrong student. :) @MathDementor: -- but you're not obliged to respond if you don't want to, MathDementor. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:06, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Oabrown23: Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 13 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
- Anne Kabagambe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Chitheenabler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 41.155.34.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 41.155.38.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
User WaftCinematic
- S.N Reddy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Shehzad Poonawala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Chandrani Das (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Palak Tiwari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (G4'd. Note this was previously deleted in September through AfD after being created by another user)
- Ankush Anami (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- World Designing Forum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Sohan Lal Commodity Management Pvt Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Rajveer Deol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- WaftCinematic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Would like a second opinion in case I am overthinking. And, pinging @WaftCinematic: 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)
World almas
- Madame Web (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- A Murder at the End of the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Cary Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Grammy Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Inside Out 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- 9/11: One Day in America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Southern hospitality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Starlink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Love Island Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Austin City Limits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Frank Clark (American football) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- World almas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
I was left off the Barney and Friends TV show list of composers.
- Talk:Barney & Friends (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
- Hollydoubet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)- To editor Hollydoubet: 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: [7]
[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 [8]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)
- They seem good to me. I've added it back with the ref you found. - Bilby (talk) 05:09, 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
{{edit COI}}
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) - @Jdbauxt: 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. – 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)
Aptera
- Aptera (solar electric vehicle) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Fotoguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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 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#Vehicles planned for production 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)
- To quote the paid editing section of WP:COI (emphasis added)