SCAM WARNING! If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are not legitimate and you should contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org immediately. Please see this page for more information.

Welcome to my talk page! If you are adding a new comment section, please post your new topic at the bottom of this page. If your comment is about an article, please consider adding the comment to the article's talk page, instead of adding it here. Wikipedia is a community effort, and other editors might have valuable opinions. You could add a comment here to let me know about your comment on the article's talk page. If I think your comment is about an article I may move it there and leave a note here saying I did so. I absolutely hate conversations that thread across multiple pages. If you add a comment here, I will reply here. If I left a comment on your talk page and you reply here, I will move your reply back to your talk page. Please add this page to your watchlist to be informed when I reply. Thanks for stopping by! ⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Click here to email me. Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do not use {{ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification.

	Archives: Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 5.

Hi Ivan,

Following the discussion at User Talk:D.18th the other day regarding an IBan they had recieved in January the block was removed by yourself with the reasoning they were no longer under an IBan per your March removal. From my reading of the initial close, however, the IBan was a community authorised editing restriction. Would such a ban not require community consensus to remove per WP:UNBAN? I'm not sure the removal of the ban was valid without a community discussion - if there was one can you let me know? Thanks! CoconutOctopus talk 19:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoconutOctopus: nothing you said here is incorrect, and no there was no discussion about modifying the interaction ban.

Back in January D.18th and Aidillia were reported at ANI; you've seen that discussion. Subsequently, D.18th made good effort to abide by the ban while Aidilla pretty much just completely ignored it. They were reported again about a week later and blocked, and then were found to have about a dozen sockpuppets and were blocked indefinitely. D.18th emailed me about a week after that, asking how Aidillia's indef impacted their sanctions, and since it was then apparent that Aidillia had been the instigator all along, I told D.18th that their interaction ban was moot ([1]). The timeline is off because I was taking a wikibreak at the time and didn't respond for a few weeks. I believe this to be a reasonable application of WP:IAR: trying to abide by the restriction while the other party completely ignored it and was actively antagonizing them with sockpuppets made it unreasonably difficult for D.18th to edit.

But I didn't anticipate Aidillia getting unblocked, and now it's complicated, and both users still have a lot of topic overlap. I'm not sure what the best way forward is here - I don't want to see D.18th punished because of an administrative error when nobody has raised an issue with their editing in months (as far as I'm aware, I haven't been keeping tabs), but at the same time what is now effectively a one-way interaction ban is untenable. My only thought is to also lift the interaction ban for Aidillia, but they have not asked (again as far as I know). Probably this should go back to the community again, and I'm happy to start that discussion unless you have any other thoughts? Courtesy ping Goldsztajn, Sennecaster and jlwoodwa who have also encountered this issue.

Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not advocating they be punished for anything that happened after they were told their ban was listed, but I agree we either should remove the ban for both or reinstate it as two ways - but I think the community needs to decide. CoconutOctopus talk 22:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had my fill of doing user conduct things for a while outside of my ADMINACCT responsibilities, so whatever outcome there is I don't expect much participation from me. This definitely should go back to the community, however. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hey sir I think you by mistake me I don't know why the reason you give is false I don't know who the president is the president of Pakistan or president of America I abuse like the blame on me I never ever abuse anyone in my life I'm Muslim and abuse anyone is a sin in my religion if you don't want me to join Wikipedia then sample banned me don't blame me of anything I didn't do thank you Nasir Ul Deen (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User Ivanvector,

You were correct to "edit" my comments on Koavf's talkpage but unless you own a home, townhome or condo which you bought perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, many Canadians are facing an impossible housing situation sadly. If you see this 2025 rates.ca article: https://rates.ca/resources/how-much-money-do-you-need-to-buy-home-canada , it clearly says that a single homebuyer must earn $255,000 to even get a stress tested loan for a single family home in Metro Vancouver whereas in Metro Toronto, its $232,000. Halifax is a bit cheaper at $129,000 but the problem is anyone who earns an income that high faces an income tax rate of about 45-50+% in Canada.

I presently work as a real estate appraiser in Metro Vancouver and had to take a rear photo of a brand new high rise condo in August 2025...and sadly, there 3-4 homeless people sleeping on the ground near the area where I had to take the photo in Surrey, BC within Metro Vancouver...which was in front of a neighbouring low rise condo. Most people cannot afford to buy single family homes today in Metro Vancouver and it was never this bad under Harper or Chretien who kept immigration at between 250,000 to 310,000 a year. Townhomes and Condos are not cheap either today...not including strata. Inflation has impacted real estate prices. Both PM Chretien and Harper kept a reasonable and stable volume of immigrants to Canada until JT decided to increase it to almost 500,000 a year until Canadians had a backlash to his policies as the BBC reported here. The price boom happened with investor speculation on condos and with JT dramatically increasing immigration rates. So, JT--in his last year in power--finally cut immigration rates throughout Canada which has resulted in falling rents...but the problem is with inflation after covid, food and housing has stayed so much more expensive. I remember in the 1990s that some left wing activists in BC who did not like Walmart Canada expanding into their city or municipality complained about "the high cost of low prices" but today everything is expensive...and many people go to Dollarama or Costco--which incidentally is a US company for more value--just to get more value or to survive the hit to their wallet. Few people can afford to eat the recommended healthy Italian or Greek diet of olives and fresh vegetables which are quite expensive.

Meanwhile, more poor or low income Canadians are homeless in the large and small streets of Canada as this source notes: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/torontos-homeless-population-more-than-doubled-between-2021-and-2024-report

These are facts....and while I don't know PEI or Atlantic Canada, I suspected that you have homeless camps too in your 4 Atlantic provinces. In 2026, I may have to quit my job as there are too many real estate appraisers in Metro Vancouver...I am barely surviving on my salary--and I wonder if I can even get another job since I have high functioning autism and part time work won't help pay the bills. People with severe autism have to be hospitalised as they cannot even feed themselves but I am not in that situation. Life is quite hard. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: Wikipedia is not a platform for political soapboxing. If you do not stop bothering people with your anti-immigrant propaganda, you will be blocked from editing. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Ivanvector,

This is my last message to you. If you had even seen my userpage, you will have noticed that "I AM an Immigrant who was born in Malaysia." My parents and our family legally immigrated to Canada in 1989 under PM Mulroney but too many immigrants who come in a short period of time drives everyone's wages down and pushes housing prices or rents up which JT never considered. I used to work at the Langley, BC Real Canadian Superstore or "Loblaws" in Metro Vancouver between 1998 to 2008 when all the cashiers positions were manned by young women--who got many long hours and a good salary--but today most of them have been automated out of a job by self serving machines. So, what are young women supposed to do today to even earn money or afford a condo? I thought I could have a conversation with a fellow Canadian in PEI...on the cost of living and low wages...but I was wrong. I am sorry. It is my mistake. --Leoboudv (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• PS: These are some wikipedia articles that I personally created, typed and sourced myself from my 20 years on wikipedia: Dush, Egypt, Daniel Polz, TT218, TT219, Giulio Farina, Paheri and Austroboletus asper I do good work here and I wrote and sourced most images and information for Neferneferuaten, Tutankhamun's immediate predecessor, too. Goodbye, --Leoboudv (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the right place. But I have one problem. Couple of editors Obsidian emiel (talk · contribs), one yesterday registered who does the same type of edits Chavelines (talk · contribs), and now I see one more IP ~2025-40480-26 (talk · contribs), (maybe all the same user, not making any accusation, just concerned about possible coordinated edditing or sockpuppetry) constantly add unsourced or poorly sourced content, removing sourced content and doing nonconstructive edits on the Conscription article. Do you have some advice what to do, where to report that users, how page can be protected, what can be done about if that is indeed some coordinated editing or sockpuppetry? Volodia.woldemar (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Volodia.woldemar, you were right to be suspicious. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsidian emiel. I have already completed that report, but if you see other new accounts that you suspect are the same user, you can submit a new report by following the instructions at WP:SPI. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, and on the same page, removal of sourced, seems the same editor while blocked editing, ~2025-41051-00 (talk · contribs). Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's pretty obvious. I have blocked the temporary account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a report about that and I saw it was blocked. I am sorry, I never did so I was "practicing" how to do that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Obsidian emiel. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, your report looks good. We call the "main" account in a sockpuppetry case the "sockmaster", and you don't need to include them in your report (the report goes under their name anyway), otherwise that all looks fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will keep that on my mind. Obsidian emiel block is with an expiration time of 72 hours?Volodia.woldemar (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ivanvector. Obsidian is back, the same page and the same actions removing sources, claim some blog as a source in edit summaries. Volodia.woldemar (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into their new SPI case, they are indeed again socking using their Commons account "Sense Dense" and contributing anonymously to avoid block here ~2025-40876-14 (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus forgot to mention they are abusing as well see their recent edit on Talk:Imran Khan#Change image ~2025-40876-14 (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Handled, for now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Just wondering if something is amiss, Ivanvector? You repeatedly make proposals that mention "multiple accounts" as if my entire recent involvement isn't solely directed towards making the policy avoid conflating temporary and registered accounts now that WMF in their (in)finite wisdom have added another type of account than the only one that previously existed, the registered account.

You haven't objected to anything I have said, so it doesn't appear as if you disagree. But you wouldn't repeatedly suggest phrasings such as "You should always disclose if you're using multiple accounts" if you had considered how regular people would go "hang on, I'm using an account, do I need to disclose my temporary account changed last week???" and similar.

So I though to check in on you and ask if you had any thoughts you wanted to convey directly to me. Best regards, CapnZapp (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Operation Raise the Colours on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: as I understand it, the underlying module for the citation templates parses the wikitext source for the page and looks for the templates that specify the date format. isaacl (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you probably familiarized yourself with this RfC when advising earlier, I request your guidance and oversight regarding a series of actions by editor Robminchin on the above Talk page for List of oldest universities where the RfC is posted. My goal is to ensure that ongoing discussions proceed constructively, transparently, and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Here is a summary of concerns:

• Repeated selective removals of WikiProject banners: most recently, the removal of WikiProject Canada tag from the Talk page, despite the article including Canadian universities and an ongoing RfC concerning oldest Canadian universities. Other geographically broad banners (e.g., for WP:WikiProject Europe) were retained, suggesting selective enforcement rather than adherence to project scope. These removals may limit normal editorial participation and reduce notification of relevant projects' members.
• Violation of the Three-Revert Rule (3RR): within the past 24 hours, Robminchin has performed multiple reverts of my edits despite mine creating a new Talk section and inviting him to discuss it there first, including the most recent removal of the Project Canada tag, which may raise concerns under WP:3RR.
• Obstruction of discussion visibility: the above procedural Talk section I added to document selective removals and invite constructive discussion was moved below the reference list, far from the voting entries, which obscures its visibility. References are normally at the bottom of Wikipedia articles and respective Talk pages. This effectively interferes with normal participation and discussion flow, impacting other editors’ ability to engage.
• Inaccurate procedural claims: Robminchin has repeatedly stated that adding a relevant WikiProject tag for discussion purposes is outside the scope of the project, contrary to WP norms and the bot-driven Project Canada Article Alert system. These claims misrepresent Wikipedia policy and project practices.
• Pattern of ownership-like behavior (WP:OWN): over several days, Robminchin has repeatedly asserted control over procedural aspects of the Talk page (selective removal of relevant WikiProject banners, restoration of a claimed “status quo ante,” relocation of procedural discussion sections, and repeated reverts during an active RfC), while discouraging or obstructing alternative procedural approaches. This pattern aligns with concerns described at WP:OWN regarding editors treating pages as under their control rather than subject to collaborative process.
• Request:

- Guidance on how to safely maintain the Project Canada tag and procedural Talk sections without violating 3RR or other policies. - Oversight or intervention to ensure that repeated selective removals and obfuscation of Talk content do not continue. - Advice on whether Robminchin’s actions may fall under harassment/obstruction provisions under Wikipedia rules and what corrective action is appropriate.

Supporting evidence: Full edit history for the past 24 hours, including removals, reverts, and content moves:

• 20:35, 20 December 2025 Robminchin −23 Restore status quo ante during discussion
• 20:34, 20 December 2025 Robminchin +18 →Request for comment: Inclusion of University of New Brunswick: Complete move
• 20:34, 20 December 2025 Robminchin −20 →Repeated selective removals of a WikiProject banner most related to active discussions: Move reflist back
• 20:32, 20 December 2025 Robminchin +942 →Repeated selective removals of a WikiProject banner most related to active discussions

The relevant diffs showing repeated removals and Talk-page restructuring:

• Removal of WikiProject Canada tag during active RfC:

 [2]

• Second removal of same tag within 24h:

 [3]

• Moving Talk section below references:

 [4]

• Third revert within 24h (possible 3RR issue):

 [5]

Summary:

The combination of repeated selective removals, procedural misstatements, obstruction of discussion, and multiple reverts appears to interfere with normal editorial participation and warrants administrative guidance to ensure the RfC proceeds constructively, visibly, and according to Wikipedia norms. Thank you for your guidance.Tinterest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

URGENT: The UNB RfC has been effectively suppressed from Project Canada’s Article Alerts feed due to unilateral tag removal by the above policy-violating editor. This significantly limits visibility to relevant WikiProject members and risks procedural mishandling. Immediate intervention is now requested. Tinterest (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinterest: please don't post LLM-generated complaints here. A short, concise summary of the issue is all that is needed for attention and action. If you need immediate assistance for an ongoing issue, you'll get a faster response by posting to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. Especially do not post LLM-generated content there, it will be removed. I'm not quoting policy, I am telling you what will actually happen.

This isn't a hill worth dying on. You did everything right: you boldly added the WikiProject banner, you started a discussion when it was removed again, consensus is against including it. On Wikipedia, decisions are made by discussion and consensus, not by policies and guidelines, and sometimes discussions don't go the way we think they should. If you've made your case and others don't agree, all you can do is move on. Whether or not to include a discussion page under a WikiProject for the purpose of publicizing a single discussion would be a silly thing to pull an edit-warring block over.

I noticed that the RFC was listed as a "policy" RFC, which wasn't correct. That category is for discussions concerning Wikipedia policies themselves, not for content issues where those policies may contribute to the discussion. I have relisted the RFC under the history and society categories, which should draw more contextually appropriate attention. I've also posted a notice at several relevant WikiProjects. Don't worry about the article alerts: our RFC guideline lists ways that you can publicize an RFC but doesn't mention article alerts at all. If it helps: there are currently 448 editors subscribed to WT:CANADA, plus another 930 subscribed to the noticeboards of the other projects where I've posted a notice, although there's likely some overlap in those numbers. There are only 28 editors subscribed to the project's alerts. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look into the matter and correct the classification. That clarification resolves my procedural concerns, and I’ll defer to the discussion as it proceeds. I appreciate the guidance and oversight. Tinterest (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that the RfC regarding the inclusion of the University of New Brunswick be closed — not based on the vote tally, but solely on the list’s stated inclusion criterion: the date an institution first met the traditional structural and legal definition of a university as applied in Europe (see article lead).

The 1800 Charter of the College of New Brunswick (Lawrence 1907, p. 266) explicitly establishes UNB as a university-level institution “with power to confer degrees in the liberal arts and sciences in the same manner as they are conferred by the universities in England,” making any discussion on UNB’s inclusion redundant.

Instructional start dates in the 1820s are off-criterion per the article. Nevertheless, editors Robminchin and Jonathan A Jones have repeatedly emphasized instructional dates and related interpretive arguments over the list’s sole inclusion rule; you previously reprimanded these editors for attempts to disrupt RfC processes.

Under fundamental policies, including WP:V and WP:OR, which safeguard Wikipedia's consistency and integrity, I request that this RfC be closed in favor of UNB’s inclusion due to the conflict between the article's stated inclusion criterion and the vote tally, which exclusively reflects disagreement over factors irrelevant to this list per its single, clearly defined criterion.

Thank you for your attention. Tinterest (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be appropriate for me to close this discussion. Discussion closers are expected to be neutral observers, and I have participated in discussions and written content about UNB and its alumni on enough occasions to have crossed that line. The RFC was just re-published yesterday and this week is winter holidays in much of the English world, it should stay open for a bit to attract more participation, but someone will be along when the time is right to evaluate and close the discussion. Please be patient. RFCs normally run for 30 days, but they sometimes close sooner if the result is very obvious or if there has been no new activity in several days. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thread was closed, I'd like to continue this. Was the way you handled this discussion fully necessary? [6] I wasn't aware of the full context, I was even willing to partially retract claim. But in between, your responses were unnecessarily condescending and pointed towards me, even involving a threat to block me despite the fact that I was raising concern about an issue that another admin had expressed concern about as well. Did I treat you so poorly first that I deserved sarcastic jabs and a threat? grapesurgeon (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Grapesurgeon: I logged off after my last comment in that thread and didn't see the rest, or that it had been closed, until this morning. My assertive response was intended for the administrators I was directly replying to, who were suggesting to block a user who hadn't yet had an opportunity to respond and on the basis of a five-months-old SPI with no new evidence of recent, ongoing misconduct having been presented (courtesy ping voorts and asilvering). I also said "we don't block users for asking for help", and then threatened to block you when you were doing exactly that, and that was inappropriate. I apologize for having made that threat.

Since you and a TA did provide some evidence to investigate after I had logged off, I had a better look:

• First off, we can pretty clearly establish that User:DaveZ123 is the person who operates the website at https://transliterationtools.blogspot.com, run by an account named "Dave" and created in January 2016. We can also pretty clearly say that User:JackonLee54 operates https://transliterationisfun.blogspot.com, run by an account named "Jackon" who joined Blogspot in December 2015 (the blog itself is broken and doesn't indicate a creation date). It's probably not a coincidence that both of the Blogspot users also have their own distinct side projects of transliterating the Bible verse John 3:16 into various non-Latin script languages.
  • DaveZ123's first invitation to another user to review their tool, in January 2016, was a link to Jackon's blog ([7]). But prior to that they also at least once asked a user to review an unrelated transliteration tool ([8]), and also asked once about helping with a translation to a test wiki they were working on ([9]), which was also about a Christian church. At the time they hosted a list of free online transliteration tools on their user page ([10]).
  • Both users have promoted other users' applications for advanced permissions on the Hakka Wikipedia ([11], [12]).
  • I found one instance of JackonLee54 inviting a user to review their blog ([13]) and DaveZ123 later inviting that same user to comment on a Hakka Wikipedia discussion ([14]). That user is also a frequent contributor to multiple languages.
  • User:A-eng hasn't edited in over five years so I'm not going to spend too much time on them. They also appear to be a user interested in multiple languages and transliteration of Bible verses into non-Latin scripts, and they have at least once invited a user to review Jackon's blog. They also were active on the incubator wiki, but it's pretty clear this account is abandoned.
• To me, this could be one person with multiple accounts, but I don't understand why they would bother. It's just as plausible that this is several people who share an interest in a very niche topic (Asian Christian churches, and transliterations of specifically John 3:16).

Focusing only on DaveZ123 as they're the only account that is active:

• The two diffs you provided here are two examples of DaveZ123 asking for help with a translation, which looks to me to be the same Bible verse. You said these were examples of them asking for help to translate material for their blog, but it's just as likely they were asking for help from editors who listed themselves as proficient speakers of those languages and used the translation to contribute to something on the incubator. I can't quite follow their contribs there since they're mostly non-English, but neither Dave's main blog nor Jackon's John 3:16 blog (both the more active of the two) have any new posts since July (Dave) or since 2023 (Jackon). Based on the evidence, you can only get to "they're doing this to promote their blog" if you assume bad faith.
• In the same edit you said that they're only using Wikipedia to ask users to create content for their blog. Looking only at their English contribs does give that impression, but that unravels quickly when you consider their global contributions, where they're clearly also working with these users on other wikis to create Wikipedia content, and also don't seem to be updating their blogs. I get that you might not have thought to check global contribs, and the tools we have for it are not the best anyway.
• In a subsequent edit you provided more diffs of you removing links to their blogs from articles, but those diffs don't indicate when they were added nor by who. So I checked:
  • Teochew Romanization: added by DaveZ123 19 October 2024 ([15])
  • Xiao'erjing: added by JackonLee54 31 March 2024 ([16])
  • Chữ Nôm: added by A-eng 3 February 2016 ([17])
  • Hinghwa Romanized: added by User:Lo Ximiendo (who is now User:Apisite) 27 June 2018 ([18])
  • Kienning Colloquial Romanized: added by JackonLee54 8 July 2016 ([19])
  • Pha̍k-fa-sṳ: added by JackonLee54 22 January 2016 ([20])

So those are not particularly "recent" additions either, and one was by an entirely unrelated user. If you like, the {{link summary}} template generates links to tools you can use to find other instances, or instances on other wikis, like so:

• transliterationtools.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• transliterationisfun.blogspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Getting to the main issues:
  • The use (and possible abuse) of multiple accounts is really secondary here. Most likely they would be considered meatpuppets if there is any wrongdoing otherwise.
  • The tools they've linked to don't seem to be set up to generate revenue, but our spam guidelines don't require that the external website being promoted is commercial, only that the on-wiki activity is intended to promote it and serves no other purpose. I think they probably added these links in good faith thinking that the tools they created would be useful; people do add external links to useful free-to-use tools quite frequently, and it's generally acceptable when the content enhances the reader's understanding of the topic, sometimes even if it is commercial in nature. But you've also said that their content is also incorrect, which is a different sort of issue. I think you're right to remove links to inaccurate external content, and since they're doing this on many wikis and presumably using their content in the incubator wikis, this seems like something that should be reported at meta for global attention. I can help with that, but I will be travelling today so I'll have to come back to it.
  • Regarding asking Wikipedia users for help with content for their own website: Wikipedia is meant to be a free information resource, and explicitly allows commercial use of its content. People use Wikipedia for information for their business presentations or school homework or research papers or whatever else all the time. DaveZ123 needed help with translations and went specifically to users who noted themselves as proficient in those languages; they could have asked at the reference desk but they seem to have decided to go to those users directly instead. We may have ethical concerns about recruiting Wikipedia volunteers to generate content for a commercial project (if that's what it is) but ultimately nothing forbids it, and those users are free to choose to participate or not.

I'm going to have to come back to this later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:15, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]