Chris Elrod

Chriselrod (talk · contribs) has been editing Chris Elrod since 2009. That user has made more edits to, and added more material to, that article than has any other editor. The user Chriselrod has contributed about 65% of the current content of the article Chris Elrod. My attention was brought to this today, when Chriselrod added Chris Elrod to the notable residents/members/alumni lists in 15 articles, some of which are on my watch list. I reverted nine of those edits because I saw nothing in either the Chris Elrod article or the edited article to support the claim of membership in the list of notables. A couple of the ones I did not revert are supported only by Chris Elrod having been added to a category, but there is no support for such membership in his article. I invite other editors to comment on whether further action is appropriate. - Donald Albury 01:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated Chris Elrod for deletion as it is sourced solely to his own website and there is no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Gays for Trump

The president of Gays for Trump has submitted requests to update the organization's Wikipedia article. Before, he used User:PeterBoykin, but the most recent requests were not under a registered account. Sorry, as much as I want Wikipedia to be accurate and complete, there's no way I'm helping here. If someone else cares to help, or if any COI notifications are needed, please see Talk:Gays for Trump. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The requests that I have answered were worded as if there had been information in the article which was removed, and the requestor was then asking for it to be restored. I could not locate the information the COI editor was talking about, so requested that they provide diffs of when the information was added and removed, which they did not wish to provide. I declined the requests as not actionable, since I cannot judge something as being restorable if nothing is shown that it existed in the first place. If they want to propose adding something new, that's a horse of a different color which they've yet to do, and for which I stand ready to review if need be. Regards,  Spintendo  03:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I've located the diffs. Boykin was listed as president of the group in March 2017, a claim which was removed in December 2017 when a new president of the group was chosen. Regards,  Spintendo  09:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter Boykin (or someone claiming to be) has submitted a new request at Talk:March 4 Trump. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"It's tough, it nasty, it's mean, it's vicious, it's.... beautiful." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Another COI query:

Thanks all for the help. Here's my question: WP has an article about me. It's all good, but there's a couple things out of date, and I'd like have a public domain picture added. Editing one's own page doesn't seem kosher, so where would I go to ask for a volunteer to do the 5 mins of work? Thanking you again, Charles CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Just post on the Talk page of your article using the template Template:request edit. See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more information. -Nat Gertler (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Nat Gertler

Nothing here for the noticeboard, at least not regarding the named party. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Im pretty new in this Wikipedia thing so Sorry if I make any format mistake.

We all know the importance Wikipedia has a politics source of information.

A lot of people rely in it, probably politics is the subject that generates more discussions and controversy. That is why is so important for Wikipedia to be fast and fair. Because if someone is working in detriment of another person is always going to have the upper hand.

I want to raise a complaint about NatGertler and his participation in Rocky De La Fuentes article. Generally about his intention and particularly about the NH situation (which is a good example oh his intention).

To explain a little bit about it, NH SOS stated in their website that Rocky De La Fuente is on the Ballot on the State and Nat didn´t consider it as a reliable source, just because didn´t want to read or research which is not what an editor should do. He/She has the right to not be interested in reading but not in letting time pass and edit in detriment of the candidate. You can read the whole thing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_De_La_Fuente

Some may question my intention and will see that I´m a Rockys volunteer but that doesn´t mean I pretend the article to have false or information

I believe that any candidate should be able have an objective article without having to be worried about people that want to damage their image or hold information back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorityEqualizer (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This inquiry appears to be from the user who was posting on a floating IP basis in this discussion. There, a paid user had specifically asked me to evaluate several sources to be used for claiming that the article subject, Rocky De La Fuente, had qualified for various ballots in an upcoming election. I pointed out that the specific source said that he had filed, rather than that he had qualified, which are not always the same thing (in fact, this very candidate had filed in a previous election for which he did not end up qualifying.) The IP user's first step into the conversation was to threaten to sic an admin on me. referring to my work on the article as "shady stuff". He made various false claims about me in terms of my participation in the editing of the article and my violation of wikipedia policy. He also erected a series of hoops he expected me to jump through - duties he invented on my behalf, statements he insisted that I make. Being that I am a volunteer editor at a knowledge project and not the vassal of some anonymous volunteer for a political campaign, I felt free -- nay, encouraged -- to ignore his demands.
While it's hard to defend against a COI claim when no specific conflict has been alleged, I have no conflict of interest on the Rocky page (I do not consider not being a vassal to be a conflict of interest.) I do pay a fair bit of attention to it, as it has been the target of socket puppetry, block evasion, clearly promotional material, and undisclosed paid editing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
The only one here with a COI is MinorityEqualizer, who has not made a credible statement of what NatGertler's supposed COI is. Given the history of "supporters" on De La Fuente's article and talk page, I'm suspicious of Minority Equalizer, but am willing to extend good faith at this point. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 16:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

And that is where your research fails, we already had this conversation and you still stall. Some States when you File it means that you already qualified and that you will be in the ballot. Other you File and later they tell you if you qualified or not. So you can´t measure all the States with the same criteria because they have different processes.

I´m stating and being 100% clear about the fact that I´m a volunteer, which means I don´t get paid so there is no conflict of interest and that is where you saying you extend good faith actually means you don´t. Plus Im not requesting for false information to be posted.

The point here is that anyone that reads the thread in Rockys article will see that Nat operates objectively in detriment of the candidate image and that has delayed information being well aware of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.24.253.227 (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Previous comment is me Minority Equalizer, sorry about that. Im new into posting in Wikipedia, but have studied the policies years ago, that´s why I know what I´m talking about. ~~MinorityEqualizer~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorityEqualizer (talk • contribs) 18:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

MinorityEqualizer, there is a conflict of interest regardless of whether or not you're paid (if you're paid, then it's a paid-editing problem, which is a subset of COI). Per WP:COI, While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest. As a campaign volunteer, you have an relationship to De La Fuentes and (presumably) an interest in promoting him, and so are presumed to be non-neutral with respect to him and his Wikipedia page. This is a textbook conflict of interest, and is not up for debate. I will leave a note on your talk page about how best to edit areas where you have a COI. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 18:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"we already had this conversation and you still stall." Stall at what? Obeying your commands? Yes, I will continue to stall at obeying your commands. I'm not sure why you're not understanding that it is not my job to obey your commands, but it actually isn't. In fact, if it were, I would have a conflict of interest... as you do. If you are not being paid as a volunteer for the campaign, then the rules at WP:PAID do not apply to you, but the conflict of interest guidelines still do. As you will find at WP:EXTERNALREL, "Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial (including holding a cryptocurrency)—can trigger a COI." So far, you have put forth no such clear conflict for me... you make the claim that information you have means that I should've had a different answer to a question that was directed at me, if I had it, but that is hardly a conflict of interest.
Between the talk page of the article and here you have made various unsubstantiated claims about my editing history and my violations of policy. Here you have a chance to show that, even though you cannot name what my supposed conflict is, there must be a conflict based on my history. You have yet to do so. If you cannot substantiate it, I request that you withdraw your unfounded claims. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly in emotional state Nat, why?. I didn´t made any ¨unsubstantiated claims¨, what I did and still do is to publicly question your intention in the article. All the things you add or take out are in detriment of the image, thats it.

On the other side the intention is very clear simple you didn´t read correctly and failed to provide the right information just because you did not consider official enough the NH SOS website, which is totally ridiculous. I can understand your ignorance about the different processes on the States, but not after people has explained and showed you how you are wrong makes no sense to keep the same position.

Conflict of interest happens when someone loses his objectivity in order to promote OR make something or someone look bad to affect another its public image. Which I have not done and you do.

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest

The only person that has broken this policy is Nat The only thing I have done is to ask you to properly check the information. Im not promoting or asking false information to be added.

The only thing I did was to tell you that if can´t be objective move aside. Something I will gladly do if anyone in here can proof Im not. Being a volunteer means that Im dedicating time to something I believe in, not that I am hired to make it look good, lie or that I owe him something.

There is no COI as long as someone does not loses objectivity which I have not. Anyone with knowledge in law will know, the problem is that you talk about policies you don´t even understand or know how to interpret.

~~MinorityEqualizer~~

@MinorityEqualizer: The above shows that you either have not read WP:COI or do not understand how it applies on Wikipedia. Because you are a campaign volunteer for De La Fuente, you have a conflict of interest with De La Fuente or any article related to him (e.g., election articles). Good intent does not override your connection to the subject.
By contrast, you made claims that Nat Gertler has an external relationship to another party in De La Fuente's campaigns but have failed to present any evidence to that effect. Either introduce evidence to support that assertion, or let the matter go. Otherwise, it may be time to consider whether administrative action needs taken—such as a topic ban, interaction ban, or outright block—against MinorityEqualizer. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
"I didn´t made any 'unsubstantiated claims', what I did and still do is to publicly question your intention in the article. All the things you add or take out are in detriment of the image, thats it." Couldn't even make it to the end of the next sentence without making a claim and showing no substantiation. That's impressive, in terms of efficiency. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The first person that made a claim about someone getting paid was Nat so if I get punished for answering to his accusation he would have to be punished too.

Leaving that aside I have not published anything yet so there is no way you can prove I have a COI. Im just exposing NAT participation which is very clear that he failed. Anyone with a minimum comprehension would read and see that he was provided with NH SOS official website that states something very clear and he failed first to understand it because he thought is the same in every state and then took a not objective position and still denied it.

Is very simple guys, I have no COI because I have not written anything. COI can be to work in favor or detriment of someone else. Which is what happens here. Talk about the incident which originated this conversation, rather than the fact that I give my free time to help a person I dont know but believe in to get a fair trait.

~~MinorityEqualizer~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorityEqualizer (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@MinorityEqualizer: If you have not written anything, then who wrote this on your user page? That's a pretty clear admission of a COI. And yes, COIs can work in favor of a subject: that's precisely why we restrict editors with COIs from editing the conflicted articles, because they cannot maintain neutral point of view while editing. —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I do not recall accusing you of being paid. I did tell you that if you were being paid, there was a policy to be checked regarding that. This is because the page had had paid editing in the recent past, including from editors that were undisclosed at the time of their edits (such as the editor who disclosed here only after they'd been editing for weeks.) But hey, if you can substantiate that I accused you of being paid, feel free to put it forward. Until then, I can file it away with your other claims about me, your claims about your own expertise, and so on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I wrote my description C.Fred that is pretty obvious, I meant in the article I didn´t think that I had to clarify that. Maybe if I wrote there could be a COI but not if I expose something, maybe now you understand why there is no COI.

Nat you made a suggestion and I did too, that is my point in my response to C.Fred.

By the way if I had a COI that doesnt mean that Nat can not have one. The evidence is in there and once again since I have not edited anything there is no COI for me yet.

But stop trying to get out of the main topic which is the NH situation an Nats article edits which are negative to the image, and that will be seen by someone who supports Rocky and for someone that doesn´t even know the guy. You just need to know how to read.

~~MinorityEqualizer~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorityEqualizer (talk • contribs) 21:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

MinorityEqualizer, you've accused someone repeatedly of COI without evidence beyond "he didn't agree with me" (if you're going to prove COI, you need to show that he has a specific relationship affecting how he edits the article, not just that he's biased against your point of view) and now are telling people that they don't know how to read. Those are both personal attacks, and that needs to stop right now. Also, please read WP:INDENT and WP:SIGN - you really need to be indenting and signing your posts, you not doing either makes the discussion difficult to follow. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 22:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I would also recommend the user read WP:BOOMERANG --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
This looks like pointless bickering, started by the user MinorityEqualizer. It's disruptive to the editing process, and the complaining user also has COI as stated on their talk page. MinorityEqualizer might also want to read WP:IDHT and WP:DROPTHE STICK.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear creffpublic is not something about if he agreed with me or not and you will know if you have read that part in the Talk. That is exactly why I said that all you need to do is to READ Im not insulting anyone by saying that, I mean it literally.

ThatMontrealIP the bickering started when they rather than analyzing the case started to talked about me. Which would be another talk if you want but this one right here is about the case of NAT in a particular case.

~~Minority Equalizer~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MinorityEqualizer (talk • contribs) 01:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@MinorityEqualizer: You do not appear to be listening. You have been given good advice. Follow it, or live with the consequences. - Donald Albury 12:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

David C. Stairs

The username above is the creator of the page (Redacted). They are a SPA that refuses to stop editing their own page despite warnings to their talk page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Election candidate-created articles

Article was created and written by an editor claiming on my talk page and the article's talk page to be the candidate themself. I'm not sure how the community has chosen to address these candidate-created articles (WP:DRAFTIFY?) so posting this here as an FYI. Editor notified per COIN rules. Regards,  Spintendo  03:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the article to draft space. The editor can use WP:AFC if they choose, but should note that being a candidate for political office does not in itself make someone notable. Melcous (talk) 06:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
And without large amounts of non-routine coverage outside of the election, I would probably decline such an article in WP:AFC per Melcous reasoning above. Bkissin (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on students writing about their faculty?

Withdraw concern as this does not appear to be a case of that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

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.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Doc James, I added the users and notified them on their talk pages. I am a little unclear on who is whose student, can you clarify? I can see that Nzapparrata is Brooks Patty's student, but not the connection to Abbeduto.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks User:ThatMontrealIP look further, I see I was confused. They are at different Universities. Will close this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Ilya V. Osipov

User likely has relationship with the subject and subject's endeavors, given the focus of edits (created both pages, etc). Ilya V. Osipov was nominated once for an AfD where Iexeru was the only other participant. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am a member of the family of Ilya Osipov, I honestly try to include in the article about him information only from verified and objective sources, providing links to sources. I do not receive money for it. Iexeru (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Cyntoia Brown and J. Long

I'm not particularly involved here, but have both pages on my watchlist, and was approached by Candi Jones on my talk. The issue is that User:Bueller 007 recently tagged both listed articles with COI, and linked Candi Jones to the COI. Things have gotten a bit heated, and I'd like to see this cool down and have an official end. So thats the question: does Candi Jones have a COI here? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Things are not heated from my perspective. It seems to me that this person knows Brown/Long in real life, and in fact may be Long himself. Specifically, (1) Candi Jones's edits appear to be positive/defensive in nature, (2) there appears to be a case in which "Candi Jones" accidentally used J. Long's real name to refer to him-/herself,[1] (3) "Candi Jones" in one edit summary revealed that he/she has knowledge about the details of Cyntoia Brown's birth certificate.[2] Bueller 007 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


For the record, I do not know J. Long or Cyntoia Brown Long any more than anyone else with access to the internet. Once she was released and it was reported she married musician J. Long, I went to see who he was on Wikipedia. When I found there was no information for him there, I decided to create a page—the site presented info on how to create a page and I followed the link and figured out how to do it. Since I was inexperienced with Wikipedia, I had to be helped by Cerebellum in making sure it was appropriate. Any problem with the tone of my edits probably stem from the fact that all of my research came from articles online, many of which included interviews and what I now know to be “promotional language.” I wrote the article as a lay person, not an experienced researcher or journalist. Secondly, where Bueller accuses me of referring to myself as J. Long is on a picture that I uploaded. It was not my intention to imply that I was J. Long, but that the pictures appeared to be his, not some copyrighted work. They are pictures that are on Google, that came with the articles, and that he posted himself on public platforms. If I made a mistake here it was yet another mistake due to my inexperience with Wikipedia.The upload process is confusing, but you can Google his name and find the same images that I did on there. And finally, the reference to her birth certificate is common sense—-in an article in the Tennesseean (August 2004 via ProQuest TEL) it revealed that when she was arrested she told police her name was “Cyntoia Mitchell”, she was subsequently charged with Criminal Impersonation and afterward referred to as Cyntoia Brown. It seems like common sense to infer that her birth certificate reads Cyntoia Brown if that is what official court records refer to her as AND she was charged with impersonation for calling herself Cyntoia Mitchell.

The only interest I have in these articles is that I spent hours trying to write the page for J. Long, doing tons of reading from various websites. I made changes to the wife’s page based on information that I came across in researching the husband. I just feel like I worked really hard and Bueller is coming through tearing it up and for what? I worked really hard on it and he is just coming through making unnecessary changes, then he wants to accuse me of having a conflict of interest because I feel like he is destroying something I worked hard on? Get outta here.Candi Jones (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:OWNER. The changes improved a biased article and brought it more into line with the manual of style by omitting information that is not supposed to be there (e.g., their non-notable agent in the infobox). Bueller 007 (talk) 22:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Meaza Ashenafi

This article was recently greatly expanded by a SPA who seems to be promoting the subject. I removed many ELs in the text and added COI tag. There are many uncited paragraphs and many others where the citation is to an interview by the subject. MB 14:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the largely unsourced promotional text added in this edit and asked them about possible COI on their page. I wanted to restore the photos they had added, but with the text so much shorter, there was unfortunately only room for one of them. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC).
Just noticed they did not respond to your request, re-added all the external links into the text (including facebook, youtube), put back 13k of text, photos, removed COI template.... MB 15:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely no attempt to communicate, so I've blocked until they begin to do so. Please tidy up the article if you get a chance--RexxS (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. MB 02:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Kumargau

This appears to be paid editing. Kumargau has declared a COI with respect to Piramal Pharma Solutions which Kumargau created multiple times and has been deleted as blatant advertising and draftified. The user, however, has not specified what their relationship with Piramal Pharma Solutions is. The user has also made significant contributions to the related articles Ajay Piramal and Swati Piramal. In addition, the user has created other articles that have been deleted as advertising (People Tech Group) or could use review (Brillio and Raj Mamodia). Peacock (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

They had declared it here on my talk page: "I am directly working for the company and an employer here. [...]  I am not getting paid for the work. I am just working for them. They are my client." I had added that diff to the ((connected contributor)) on Draft:Piramal Pharma Solutions. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
If they are "working for the company", presumably they are getting paid, so it is paid editing. But that is a bit of a disclosure..ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
FYI - They have removed the COI disclosure on their user page [3] and removed the UPE template on the Brillio article, which was reverted [4]. S0091 (talk) 00:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I've reverted their user page blanking and warned them here that I'll block them if they hide their UPE or don't follow the guidelines. I perhaps should have blocked anyway, but I didn't want to pre-empt this discussion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
They have now recreated Piramal Pharma Solutions in mainspace. I don't see a willingness to comply with the COI guidelines. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Piramal articles

Related to the report above, other articles about businesses associated with Piramal appear to have a history of COI/advertising issues as well (but from different editors), including: Piramal Glass, Piramal Group, and Piramal Foundation. Peacock (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

PCock, could you point out the editors that you think have COI? You can add them to the list above using the userlinks template that you will see in other postings. Also do not forget to notify them on their talk page as described at the top of the page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
All three articles have been extensively edited by Madhavi Wagh, an editor who gives every sign of being a paid editor, and Piramal Group ‎has been edited promotionally by Sahildaveindia. Both are notified of this discussion. Peacock (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if all the Piramal-related articles could be, or should be, merged into Piramal Group. It looks like Piramal Enterprises (another article extensively edited by Madhavi Wagh) was redirected to the parent article with the edit summary "spam; redirect to main". Piramal Realty was also redirected to the parent. Peacock (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

COI from Authority Positions at Discussion Groups?

When editing an article on the subject of X, does off-Wikipedia, non-paid, participation in Pro-X or Anti-X discussion groups automatically mean there is a Conflict of Interest at Wikipedia? I believe the following categories are appropriate, but I'm seeking other opinions or consensus.

Assumptions: The Anti-X group is NOT a professional or financial entity, and the Pro-X group IS backed by a professional and financial entity. X company stock is NOT publicly traded, so short-selling for financial gain by Anti-X'ers is not an issue. Also assumes Wikipedia participation is independently self-motivated, not recruited in the discussion groups, which would be another problem.

Type of Participant Pro-X discussion group Anti-X discussion group
Participant (Basic Member, can be pro- or anti- in either type group) No COI No COI
Authority, appointed by leadership Yes COI No COI

Discussion: Someone appointed to an authority role (e.g. moderator or admin) by X leadership obviously has a strong incentive to make the leadership happy by making the X article look as favorable to X as possible. Even as a volunteer, there is an implied possibility of future financial rewards or at least gratitude and possibly fame if the X organization succeeds. There can be widely different moderation standards at different groups, but it seems much more likely that a Pro-X discussion authority would suppress negative comments and encourage positive comments about X in their discussion group, and that behavior would roll over to Wikipedia. If left to their own devices, as part of PR efforts, the X article would become an extension of their web site, and an advertisement.

OTOH, a non-financially organized Anti-X group would most likely appoint people to volunteer authority positions by consensus and self-organizing. No future financial rewards could be expected, and gratitude or status among associates is the only expected reward (which can be of significant personal value). However, the most likely purpose of the authority position is to prevent spam or off-topic discussion. Moderation is likely to be more relaxed, but not necessarily. Motivations for participating may be having negative opinions of X, socializing, or wanting to discuss the issues in a less controlled environment. Rolling over to Wikipedia, the person is more likely to be cooperative, argue with facts, and build consensus. They will be motivated to remove advertisement from X (which is a good thing IMO).

Disclaimer: I support not "outing" editors for off-Wiki activities, and care should be taken when handling such information, privately, unless the editor has already revealed the association on-Wiki. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

How do we handle

I have something interesting. I am an OTRS agent active mostly in info-el and permissions-el queues. There is a ticket about the copyright permission for a now deleted draft (deleted as copyvio). The mail came from a Digital Marketing agency. Checked the user who created the draft and there is no paid editing disclosure. If we confirm that there is no copyvio and the draft/article recreated, there would still be an infringement of policy and terms of use. What are your thoughts? - geraki (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Geraki, I'd say still a problem as probable undisclosed paid editing, even if you got a release to use the copyvio content. Recommend contacting the user in question about their paid status. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Geraki: It depends. If they've not been directly informed that they need to disclose (e.g. with ((uw-coi)) or ((uw-paid)) on their talk page), I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and ask them to do so. If they have been informed and continued to edit without a disclosure, I'd say that's grounds for a block for UPE. Can you link the OTRS ticket number? – Joe (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: ticket:2019101010006617. Check the from and cc adresses. The cc'ed address is of the digital marketing agency. The username of the creator is first and last name of the Digital Marketing Manager of that agency. No coi warnings anywhere (same problem in another wiki). - geraki (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

/e/ (operating system)

As I explained on the /e/ talk page, I discovered that those users did repeatedly non-neutral edits on the /e/ page and have a clear conflict of interest.

1. User Yae4

If you look at Yae4 personal edition history since late August 2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Yae4&dir=prev&target=Yae4) it all started with: "+1,818 /e/ (operating system) Add criticisms and controversy section" and later " /e/ (operating system) Criticism section with /e/'s published sources. " Actually his edits are mostly "anti-/e/" or more subtle "/e/ FUD". He also tried to add some reference to some competing projects such as Purism/LibreM. If you look at his edits from the start until September 9th, 90% of his contributions are anti-/e/ edit on the article and anti-/e/ actions on this discussion page. That's a deliberate and systematic behaviour. Other evidence that Yae4 is non-neutral and probably has a conflict of interest: his microG draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:MicroG, where he doesn't mention /e/ as ROMs that include microG, while /e/ probably is the biggest "provider" of microG instances in term of userbase

Comment from User:Oldosfan
Please source your claims and assume good faith during your editing. Anecdotal arguments have no place in a Wikipedia argument. Would (oldosfan) 10:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't have any claim, just evidences that you are non-neutral, from your Wikipedia editing histories. 1984brave new world (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

2. User Oldosfan

While he has been less active that Yae4, quickly after he started to edit on Wikipedia, most of his activity seemed to focus on anti-/e/ edits and comments. One notable thing is that user Oldosfan is part of a small public group of /e/-haters on Telegram at: t.me/ewwlo and guess what? User:Oldosfan is moderator of this group and its most active member. He recognizes 

being part of this in the /e/ talk page.
Defense from User:Oldosfan:
I was not a group administrator nor a contributor to ewwlo at the time of editing (having being promoted recently), which you've conveniently omitted here. Furthermore, it was prior community consensus that the /e/ article had a distinct bias .towards. /e/ when I was active on that article. Would (oldosfan)
Any proof that you weren't an admin or contributor to the Telegram group? However, you clearly admit here that you have a strong bias against /e/. 1984brave new world (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There's no proof, but in this case assume good faith applies. As for (2), my personal bias against /e/ didn't exist when I first began editing this article. What you are doing here seems to be an assumption of guilt, which humanity in general has left behind hundereds of years ago. Count me disappointed. Would (oldosfan) 23:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

3. Finally: if you look at the /e/'s talk page you will notice that Yea4 and Oldosfan mutually protect themselves in when arguing.

Comment from User:Oldosfan:
Is there anything wrong with someone who did _not_ have a conflict-of-interest at the time of editing agreeing with, and defending, a fellow editor in an argument? Would (oldosfan) 10:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The question is not moral, I'm refering to an evidence that you both guys Yae4 and Oldosfan clearly are non-neutral regarding /e/, and probably have COI. Which means that either all your edits should be removed from the /e/ operating system page, or you should be blocked from Wikipedia editing, like the guys you succeeded to have blocked using this procedure. 1984brave new world (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, assume good faith applies. I (and I'm certain that this applies to User:Yae4 too) have not been editing /e/ in a non-neutral way, and have instead been acting upon consensus to remove uncited and advertisement-like content from the /e/ page. Would (oldosfan) 00:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Claiming is something, but you both editing history shows the exact opposite, and that's the purpose of this case 1984brave new world (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
My edit history shows that I was acting upon consensus and removing advertisement-like content from the /e/ page. I did not add uncited, biased or untrue content to that page. Would (oldosfan) 04:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

1984brave new world (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Yae4 Response:

Note: Adding Draft:MicroG, Gael Duval and User:1984brave_new_world in links above, as involved or related pages and users.

I had an even more detailed response written, but anyone even briefly reviewing user pages and contributions should reach the correct conclusion regarding COI and personal attacks here. User:Mnair69, User:Indidea, User:Caliwing, User:1984brave_new_world... the pattern continues at /e/ OS related pages. Who will be next?

Would someone please block this attack-user, User:1984brave_new_world, so the rest of us can get back to doing the best we can to edit Wikipedia neutrally? Thanks!

Falsehood: "he doesn't mention /e/ as ROMs that include microG, while /e/ probably is the biggest "provider" of microG instances in term of userbase "

Fact: The draft states, "Refurbished phones have been sold with MicroG pre-installed.[14][15]" This statement and sources include /e/.

In context, considering all sources found on microG, this was neutral balance, relative to mentions of many other ROMs also using microG. LineageOS for MicroG and Essential_Phone's Project Gem are more notable, based on sources, so they were mentioned. LineageOS for MicroG was the first fork, as I understand the history. /e/ is a later copy. Although I started the latest draft MicroG page, it is not "mine." Editing help was requested in several places, and a few other editors contributed to the page, particularly User:Newslinger (Thanks!). On the /e/ talk page, the help request was met with: "This is the talk page for /e/ Operating System. Not sure why this particular section asking help for a page on MicroG has been added -- Mnair69 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)" FYI, Mnair69 is a promoter of /e/. This is typical non-cooperation from /e/ promoters, such as now, User:1984brave_new_world.

As for User:Oldosfan, even if he does write accurate, critical blog articles like https://ewwlo.xyz/wikipedia.html, we have not always agreed at Wikipedia, and Oldosfan has been a voice of more moderation at times. From /e/ talk page, directed to me:

"unfortunately that source does not fulfill the requirements for an acceptable source. Oldosfan (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2019 (UTC)"

"Both of you should calm down a bit! Would (oldosfan) 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)"

Being a volunteer participant at discussion sites, and having strong negative opinions of something like /e/OS, is far less of a COI than being payed or otherwise rewarded for promoting /e/OS. It would be different if User:Oldosfan was trying to use wikipedia to promote an article on https://ewwlo.xyz/, or https://t.me/ewwlo , but there is no evidence of that.

As said or implied on my User page, the promotional side of Wikipedia articles takes care of itself, because of people with real COI, such as User:Mnair69, User:Indidea, User:Caliwing, and now, User:1984brave_new_world.

-- Yae4 (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no COI at all, I'm just reporting facts that surprisingly, nobody reported earlier. It's very odd that Wikipedia admins let this happen 1984brave new world (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So if I understand well Yae4, the sole fact that I noticed that he and the other guy have been actively acting against the /e/ operating system page on Wikipedia, makes me guilty of a conflict of interest... I don't know if it's stupid or funny, but the facts are speaking for themselves and I don't think that in Yae4's case the "attack is the best defense" strategy is appropriate. However I will let the Wikipedia admins judge this case. It's going to be very interesting and I like to learn about how Wikipedia is working. However I have a question: shouldn't Yae4 open a different case to judge his new victims instead of adding them to this one? It's really weird and confusing for the reader to mix all the cases. 1984brave new world (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

When you created this ID, User:1984brave_new_world in early September, we were going to noticeboards with nearly identical, if briefer, complaints being made. It's fairly transparent. Now, a couple months later, here we are again. The only thing changed is the user ID. Deja Vu.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive290#Ga%C3%ABl_Duval
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_148#/e/_(operating_system)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Indidea/Archive -- Yae4 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
What I brought here is that over a long period of time you have used your account mostly to bring anti-/e/ content, or more recently, more subtle-FUD, to its Wikipedia page. Furthermore, as I detailled above, your global history shows that you have non-neutral editing activities, and probably a conflict of interest regarding the /e/ page. 1984brave new world (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
What you brought here, and to Draft MicroG talk, and to /e/OS talk, in a short time, with a style similar to Indidea/Caliwing, is called Hounding, IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:/e/_(operating_system)#Non-neutral_editors_User:Yae4_User:Oldosfan_on_Wikipedia,_at_least_for_this_page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:MicroG
It's wrong. Case closed. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
"with a style similar to Indidea/Caliwing" I don't understand what you mean here. Your argumentation is only claiming and implying bad stuff in an aggressive manner. On my own, I have just reported some facts can be checked easily. And I'm happy to learn about Wikipedia :-) But it seems to be like a jungle here, I'm very surprised. And I don't think this case is closed. Any moderator reading? Because obviously, there won't be a consensus between me and Yae4+Oldosfan 1984brave new world (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Not really. I'm new to all this and I discovered some interesting facts about 2 users: Yae4 and oldosfan who repeatedly did some non-neutral edits on the /e/ operating system page. And Yae4 started his account to edit the /e/ operating system page. Looking more closely to their track record and edits on other articles, I felt more and more they are probably part of other projects in the same area (example: Purism LibreM, GrapheneOS, microG...). I think it's a clear COI. Upon suggestion of user "Newslinger" in the /e/ talk page, I opened this procedure here. Then user Yae4 added other people to the opened procedure, which is a surprising behaviour in my opinion (why not opening an other, dedicated procedure? why attacking others instead of just defending?). 1984brave new world (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we've wasted more than enough time here. When I made my first edit at eOS on 27 August 2019, the previous edit by User:Newslinger, two months earlier, had removed the Undisclosed Paid tag. The article still had the Self-Published and Advertisement tags. We now know the Undisclosed Paid tag was removed prematurely, because User:Indidea edited the Article from December 2018 through September 2019, when blocked for spam/advertising; and his sockpuppet User:Caliwing edited it from 29 June 2019 to 4 September 2019, when their COI and sockpuppetry became more clear; however, that's beside the point. The point is, through discussion and collaboration, and a lot of editing work primarily by User:Newslinger, the article no longer has those tags, is better sourced, and is more neutral. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't solve in any way the fact that you Yae4 and Oldosfan had repeated non-neutral activities on Wikipedia (negative of /e/, positive on other articles). This is strongly in favor of a COI for you, and an evident COI for Oldosfan. 1984brave new world (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Being "negative" or critical is not necessarily a violation of NPOV or a COI. Removing cruft, advertising and shoddy sourced content is rather fulfilling an obligation to edit neutrally than a NPOV violation. Also, casting aspersions without providing the required evidence for your claims is a gross violation of Wikipedia policies. I have no opinion upon who's right on this matter, all I say that you failed to produce evidence for your claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Jirtel and Raven & Kreyn

The user's sole edits from their creation have been to create an article about (and promote) Raven & Kreyn. Based on a conversation in #wikipedia-en-help with the (alleged) account-holder, I also have reason to believe the account is shared. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 20:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

NordVPN

The user |Minor stab has been making repeated edits to NordVPN adding WP:ADVERT-like material, and has been removing the advertisement article box without consensus. A previous COI discussion on pers talk page was resolved as AGF. Their latest edits add further content cited from unreliable sources and native advertising sources. The user also appears to be a single purpose account, editing no articles other than NordVPN.

Here are several examples of pers non-neutral editing behavior:


As I have already explained on my talk page, the NordVPN page is my pet project, for which I don't receive any compensation. Regarding the edits that have been provided as examples of my non-neutral editing behaviour:
There is currently a discussion at RSN about provpn dot com. The consensus there seems to reflect it as an unreliable source. Would (oldosfan) 02:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I've actually been planning to go through all the citations on the page and swap the VPN-related sources for better known or at least more generic ones. Am I still allowed to do that? —Minor stab (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
That would be rather nice. I withdraw my COI claim. Would (oldosfan) 02:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Concord Law School

A PR person for the school is removing RS content and inserting PR speak about the degrees that the school offers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Although Ewqwdqemdh has declared their COI on their userpage, I believe they would still be subject to WP:PAID since they identify themselves as a representative of Purdue University Global which operates the law school; so, I've added a Template:Connected contributor (paid) to Talk:Concord Law School. They've also posted at Talk:Concord Law School#More context on recent reversions (they forgot to add ((Edit request)) to their post so I added it for them) to propose changes; so, it does seem as if they're trying to follow WP:PAID and WP:COI. As long as they refrain from directly editing the article any further (except where allowed per WP:COIADVICE) and continue to use the article's talk to propose changes, things should be OK. Right now, it doesn't seem like anything else needs to be done other than perhaps a gentle mention of WP:BRD and WP:EW just for future reference.
When editors seem to be making a good-faith effort to comply with COI guidelines and other relevant policies, care should be taken to not WP:BITE them (even unintentionally) after only a few edits. So, perhaps it might've been better to start off discussing things on their user talk page with ((welcome-coi)) than a more sterner warning. More strongly worded user-warnings can always be added later on if the situation starts to deteriorate. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the supportive debate here, and indeed am doing my utmost to adhere with good faith to WP:PAID and WP:COI. I've updated Talk:Concord Law School with the corrected ((Edit request)) format.Ewqwdqemdh (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Ewqwdqemdh, I would not say that removing sourced material that is critical of the school is "doing your best". It is clearly promotional editing, and would likely lead to a block if you continue these efforts. Stick to "request edit" and do not make more edits to the article yourself.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ewqwdqemdh: It would probably be a good idea for you to further clarify your COI/PAID status on your userpage. One possible way to do this would be to use Template:Paid. You should state all of the articles which you are intending to try and improve which fall under COI/PAID contributions. Other than that, you should be OK as long as you follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI. If your boss or someone is asking/requiring you to make edits to any articles, you should let them know about WP:OWN, WP:PAID, WP:COI, etc. The COI/PAID editors who seem to be able to successfully contribute to Wikipedia are the ones who show the Wikipedia community fairly early on that they're WP:HERE by following relevant policies and guidelines; however, those give others the impression that they're WP:NOTHERE often find themselves having problems (often rather quickly) with others. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The Evangelists (band)

Mr. McColgan appears to be the lead singer of the band "The Evangelists". He has a wikipedia account by the name of Eamonn Evangelists. He has been warned as far as 10 years before the creation of the COIN. He continues to ignore warnings. I believe he has not disclosed his COI. - AH (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

First time seeing all the COI articles. I’ll cease all activities on this page. Thanks. Eamonn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eamonn evangelists (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Louis E. Sola

Louis Sola is a previously deleted article, with a review clarifying deletion. His AfC draft has also been rejected twice, but since has been slowly cut by IPs to remove mentions of Sola to hide that fact. The current page is extensive, although the sources don't seem to back up his notability. Gardadelamana and Woolmist appear to be SPAs while SiriusFireRing was the one who moved the page from draftspace to mainspace. Seems like a relatively complex COI attempt to get Sola's page created. 98.219.223.182 (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion. Will AfD if that fails.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Freeman (filmmaker)

User is a SPI who adds promotional content, frequently unreferenced or inadequately referenced, to this article alone. The user has never responded to multiple requests for COI disclosure This week the user has re-added promotional glurge that I deleted. A very helpful IP contributor worked the article over yesterday, but enough is enough with the COI and the utter obliviousness to usertalk (while I realize that my messages have been templated, it doesn't appear that taking any more time would have made any difference since it isn't clear that the user realizes they have a talk page). Thanks for any further help. (I am notifying the user as soon as I publish this.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

(insert thumbs-up emoji here)! Thanks! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
The user's edited past multiple COI warnings, so I've just blocked the account as promotional. Perhaps they can interact on their talk page - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Nope. Editing under IP 209.6.159.41 now; has added more content to the Freeman article. This IP has edited an article about an actress in one of Freeman's films whose article Patrickoneil75 has also edited. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Entertainment One

accounts

This user's only edits over a long-term period have been to articles related to Entertainment One. Edits they have made have sometimes contained PR-like wording. I had given them a COI warning, but they have not replied. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are some more IPs that have recently begun editing the articles related to Entertainment One which, incidentally, have become something of a walled garden.
Also, I requested page protection for Entertainment One due to aggressive and disruptive editing there. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I merged the content of several articles with Entertainment One, and sorted the list so that the redirect structure is more visible.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)c
Entertainement One and Entertainment One Films have been semi-protected for two weeks after requests at RFPP.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@AmericanAir88 I noticed that too. I think the Ghana IPs are VPNs, since ST47 blocked 154.160.26.23 based on long term abuse, and that LTA seems to be elsewhere.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: I agree. 174.88.147.139 is registered to Bell Canada, which could be evidence that this is the true location of the IPs instead of a VPN Ghana. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@AmericanAir88: could be. This is a company with a lot of resources and international subsidiaries, so I imagine the promotional editing could be coming from any places. I think it is going to be OK now with all the redirects back to the main substantial articles. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: I agree, if they come back though. Some blocking/investigation may have to occur. AmericanAir88(talk) 18:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I filed a request for proxy check at WP:WPOP for the Ghana IPs on November 11, but it hasn't been serviced yet ☆ Bri (talk) 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Drsammyjohnson

Looks like long-standing paid editor.

  • Apologies, "Dr. Sam Johnson" (as you identify yourself on your userpage), unfortunately I don't believe you are being honest or forthcoming with disclosing your WP:COI if not WP:PAID based on your pattern of editing. You also wrote in the edit summary of this diff [5] at Draft:Joe Laresca, "This draft has been declined however, I still wish to raise the issue of notability with this individual as it does not seem that basic notability has been established." You are saying you have a relationship with this individual, in which case you are not properly disclosing your COI. And Mr. Laresca also happens to be the "director of marketing and social media" for Ryan Serhant, whose page you worked on extensively. C0nL1ght (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • C0nL1ght That's a big leap. That does not indicate I know him. I know OF the subject of that article because of the research I did for the RS page. During my research I saw that there was a draft for JL - so I researched him as well and found he is obviously not notable enough to have one. That is exactly what I was supposed to do in a situation like that. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)drsammyjohnson
I saw a tag placed on John Crist (comedian) and it didn't look substantiated to me (no clear issues on page, no discussion on talk). I now see there is a broader discussion taking place here. I'm not seeing evidence of paid editing. The tags seem like drive-by tags. I'm going to check over more of these articles and remove any tags that don't look substantiated. Marquardtika (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Don Cuningham

This article is about a county-level politician. My first impression of it was that it seemed quite promotional. But rather than being primarily written by a SPA as these bios usually are, this one has substantial contributions by long-term editors as well as a many edits by one or more IPs who seems to agree the article is one-sided - but their edits clearly show a bias against the subject. There has been edit-warring and protection applied. I think the article could use some more eyes to look at the content from a neutral perspective, if anyone wants to work on this. MB 01:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure this belongs At COIN, as you have not named specific COI issues. However it does belong somewhere, as the article on this local politician ran to 48KB! I trimmed 10KB that was all about the local government and how well it was doing. The article does indeed seem slanted, given the large and detailed specific coverage it gives to such a run of the mill politician.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Is it "bias" to know what Cunningham has actually done and the conditions he has created in the Lehigh Valley? The vast traffic jams he has helped create, with thousands of big rigs spilling out of warehouses built on his watch, are so unpopular locally that Cunningham takes to the local papers regularly to belittle his many critics. Why is it biased to wish to include that information or cite Cunningham's own words on the subject? No, the real bias is coming from that obvious flack Hunter Kahn, who has been fluffing Cunningham for years. That's why his page has grown like a cancer; it's all Hunter Kahn's doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.251 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Since I was mentioned by name, I felt compelled to weigh in. LOL I've worked on this article in the past, and since I watchlist most articles I've worked on, I saw and made efforts to stop what I saw as clearly biased edits by the aforementioned IP editor in recent weeks/months. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost 12 years; my contributions can be found here and here. I'm also from Pennsylvania and I occasionally edit about local or state topics (I can cite a multitude of examples if need be), and even more often I sometimes like to just take a topic at random and write about it. Often when I edit, I like to focus on a single article, gather as many details as I can, make it as comprehensive as possible, then move on. (My edit history from the last few months alone show that.) I did so in the case of this Cunningham article, and as a result, it's possible I may have gone a bit overboard. If so, I welcome good faith edits from other editors, like the ones ThatMontrealIP made above, even if I don't agree with all of the changes. — Hunter Kahn 12:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, in light of Hunter Kahn's willingness to accept the good faith edits of other editors, per WP:OWN, this article could use more eyes and edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm more than happy to accept the suggestion of ThatMontrealIP. I honestly haven't substantially edited the article in a while anyway; my primary concern was preventing what I perceived to be vandalism. Thanks for your efforts here ThatMontrealIP! — Hunter Kahn 15:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Your interest as you demonstrated was in eliminating every single bit of information and every citation that cast Cunningham in anything but a positive light. You didn't discuss edits that were critical of him, you didn't try to improve that content; you just routinely deleted all of it. Your willingness to accept others' edits is merely an acknowledgement of reality, that the involvement now of editors who have an account makes it virtually impossible to continue your fluffing of Cunningham and your arbitrary deletions of factual information you don't happen to fancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.137.126 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Saint David's School (New York City)

The user in question has been altering the "Controversy" section of the article claiming that some of the statements were "misrepresentations" and "inaccurate and inflammatory". Might be worth keeping an eye on this. The Grand Delusion(Send a message) 20:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

After looking at their changes, I do see some whitewashing, but it also looks like there's some synthesis going on here - some of the statements made were saying things in Wikipedia-voice that weren't in the sources. Article is definitely giving too much coverage to non-notable things (example: from a quick glance, nothing in "Athletics" is sourced outside of the school's website), and could use a trimming. Tagged as needing third-party sources and ref cleanup, and flagged the user as having an inappropriate username (organization names aren't permitted since they imply shared use). Will keep an eye on the article. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

National Informatics Centre

The IP is evidently a contractor the NIC has hired to puff up their Wikipedia page, per their contributions and this edit summary. The article as a whole has always had an issue with promotional text, but one of the major contributors on that front is blocked for a username violation and I'm not so sure about a third. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 06:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The IP has been traced to the National Informatics Centre using WHOIS. AmericanAir88(talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Keith Ablow

A number of newly created accounts and IP numbers keep re-inserting text that seems very PR-ish (flattering, lots of primary source content), as well as remove RS content on the controversial aspects of the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I have asked for temporary protection at WP:RFPP and reverted the latest IP edit. RFPP is probably the first stop for IP troubles like this, but COIN is also appropriate. Next time please notify all editors mentioned above with the template, as described at the top of this page. I'll do that for you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
The IP starting with 73... is registered to Comcast Cable in NJ. The IP starting with 2001... is registered to Telus communications in Calgary. The IP starting with 136... is registered to The University of Calgary. It seems two of the IPs are working together. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Todd Starnes

This editor appears to be a COI. The editor also engages in legal threats and doxxing threats. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Older accounts (not active in the past year, but have edited since Toddstarnes3 started editing) that appear to be connected:
A COI notice was posted to User talk:Toddstarnes in September, 2018, after which that user stopped editing. A COI notice was posted to User talk:TPDNYC in October, 2018, after which that user stopped editing. I have blocked the two accounts as sock puppets. - Donald Albury 19:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Open Engineering Inc

It appears that the article is predominantly written by the founder of, or an individual otherwise affiliated with, Open Engineering Inc.

This is evident from donation sites linked on the "About" page of Open Engineering Inc's website, where the name of the individual receiving donations on behalf of Open Engineering Inc directly coincides with the username of the article's creator.

Avigl (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Dando-Collins

Their names suggest that the first three editors are in fact the author Stephen Dando-Collins. I suspect Sir Ian Richmond, named after a archeologist of the Roman Empire, is as well. He shares the subject's interests and has a pedantic knowledge of his career. Sirdandypants has supplied both photographs in the article and claims them as his own work. He has also added a quote about the subject being "the legions' foremost living historian". However, the source of this quote also states that Dando-Collins propounds a "fallacy", that his conclusions are "skimpily supported", and that "no doubt some of those interpretations will be rightly refuted (interpretations offered as conclusions - and conclusions offered without substantiation - are of course to be extra-suspected, in this work and in all works)". The selection of the quote is clearly cherry-picking. Sirdandypants also added a blurb from Amazon. And cited a laudatory blog. There is puffery throughout the article:

These editors seem to be using the article to promote Dando-Collins, without any regard to neutrality.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the blatant puffery from the article. There are still questions about notability, as the sourcing is particularly poor. Melcous (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Iridium Communications

Someone is apparently copypasting info from promotional material into the article.

Tagged COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Rossy Evelin Lima

This article appears to have been created and constantly updated by the subject's spouse, Gerald A. Padilla.

Tagged as likely COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Filmybhadaas

The user is only here to promote Zuber K. Khan, adding unsourced promotional contents, copyvio images and not responding to paid warnings. GSS 💬 11:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The user was blocked for a week. If they continue to contribute un-constructive content without listening to warnings, they will most likely be banned for a further period or indefinitely. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Tagged as potential COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

NikkiTAA

This user came to my attention when I noticed a super spammy recreation of Cascade Lacrosse/Cascade (company), which was previously created by an obvious COI editor (likely it's owner.) I then came across Sam Slater (entrepreneur) and thought it was familiar only to find it was previously created by two infamous spam farms. There are also deleted contribs of this user that are recreations of other deleted content created by COI editors, indicating to me that this is likely UPE. (see Andrew S Lanoie previously created as Andrew Lanoie for example.) Praxidicae (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Dammit, I patrolled the My/Mo Mochi article, of course this happens the one time I try to assume good faith and tag issues instead of just tagging for speedy deletion... creffett (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Bradleypallister88 / User:Bradders2019

Keeps adding citations written by themself, or material promoting the organisation they are attached to. Repeated warnings on the user's talkpage about Conflict of Interest have gone unheeded. OsFish (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Have added new username after name move. OsFish (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

OsFish thanks for this. I had not noticed the alerts at the top of the page, apologies. I will seek to rectify any articles now Bradleypallister88 12:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Bradleypallister88, I am curious about the blatant advertising you included in this article? we have rules against using Wikipedia for promotion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Bradley. Please note that editing to promote products and people of any kind isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Please look at rules on notability (WP:N) which describe which topics are suitable for their own article and reliable sources (WP:RS), which describe the sort of sourcing needed to support claims. Even with notability and reliable sourcing, you should avoid editing with a conflict of interest (ie adding your own work or editing material directly about yourself). OsFish (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Akritas2

This is a WP:SPA whose all edits are aimed to push opinions, own work and publications of Alkiviadis Akritas, who is clearly the owner of the account Akritas2. Recently, he has edited only the five articles that are listed above. In each of them he has added references to his own PhD thesis, publications and other articles (not reliably published): [6], [7], [8], [9], [10].

The content added by this editor does not respect WP:NPOV, by including opinions and assertions that are not supported by most specialists of this subject. For a typical example, a paper by Anna Johnson Pell Wheeler, which has been forgotten during more than 100 years is qualified of "seminal". However, these are technical issues that are not the subject of this page.

As Akritas2 had the same conduct in his older edits, and he has often an agressive attitude when his edits are reverted, I suggest to ban him from editing WP articles on subjects about which his has some contribution, in order that each edit that he suggests must pass through an edit request. D.Lazard (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I see that you warned him seven years ago (!) and he replied that, more or less, he is the only authority on the subject and deserves to add his own sources. It does seem like the user has ignored COI warnings, for seven years.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

For being specific, the subjects of interest of Akritas2 for which an edit ban is needed are all subjects that are more or less related to polynomial greatest common divisor, real-root isolation, pseudo-remainder sequences, and (possibly) cylindrical algebraic decomposition. D.Lazard (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is last Akritas2's edit summary at Polynomial greatest common divisor: Lazard, here is the material from the Anna Johnson site, with improved references etc. I think it is very appropriate for this entry. Please feel free to modify it so that it fits with the rest of your article. Also, remove any references that seem unnecessary. Regarding COI and Talk sites I am sorry that I do not participate but I have lost (if I ever had it) the ability to use wikipedia freely. Do not feel offended.. I have reverted this edit withe the edit summary: Reverted 1 edit by Akritas2: If you are able to edit articles, you must be able to read and edit yout talk page and the section that concern you in WP:COIN (follow the link). This is original research (WP:OR), and, as such, strictly forbidden in Wikipedia. I do not know how handling this further. The tone of Akritas's edit summaries may partially been explained by the fact that we met several times at scientific conferences (I remember only one case where we have talked together). D.Lazard (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi ‎

SPA first made some random edits to get himself autoconfirmed and then posted Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi. After draftifying the article, I asked him to disclose their relationship with the subject and received these two replies (diff-diff). A week after the submission was rejected for Draft:Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi he posted Sarbat Da Bhala Charitable Trust an organisation founded by SPS Oberoi. No major edits outside these two topics except creating Avalok langer (yet another promo piece). Sound like an undisclosed paid editor who is only here to promote his clients. GSS 💬 06:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@GSS: I had recently submitted Surinder Pal Singh Oberoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) again. It was rejected with a comment "I'm concerned about the tone showing how great the person is. Also there isn't much to explain how he became wealthy enough to be a notable philanthropist. If the accomplishments are per the Trust / organization, perhaps the article should be about the Trust?".
I could change the tone of the article, but I don't know he became wealthy enough to become a notable philanthropist. And since the comment also raised a question that if the accomplishments are as per the Trust, perhaps the article should be about the trust, so I wrote this article about the trust.
Mubashshir8 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mubashshir8: Apart from promoting SPS Oberoi and his organisation, what made you create Avalok langer? GSS 💬 18:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@GSS: I was impressed by his book "In Pursuit of Conflict", and when that article was nominated for deletion I didn't even contest it. I just wanted to create a few articles on Wikipedia. I am writing on pregnancy pillows too, as I could find regular and orthopaedic pillows, but no article on pregnancy pillows. Maybe I am trying to create articles in a hurry, but in no way I am paid editor. Just check the article on S P Singh Oberoi, I've even mentioned a probe initiated against him for money laundering.

And if you still feel it's a promotional article, kindly guide me on the tone. Mubashshir8 (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Surinder Amarnath

User is holding himself out as the son of the article subject. He has requested that the article be edited, particularly by including quotations by cricket commentators about the subject's style of play; multiple editors, including myself, rejected the changes as being too flowery and not following the MOS. User is continuing to complain that there is bias in the treatment of that particular article.[11] I would like additional eyes involved in the situation and some kind voices to help explain what Wikipedia is and what it is not. —C.Fred (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User:BullRangifer

Dealt with more than ten years ago. Nothing to see here -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

In 2015 this user's position as the listmaster for Stephen Barrett*/* (who runs "Quackwatch") was discussed here.

SandyGeorgia said I agree with SlimVirgin that it appears difficult to argue that you don't have a COI, or at minimum a strong bias, in this area, which is why I believe it would be beneficial for you to not dominate the discussion with dubious assertions of fact.

Should there be some formal restriction on his activity around Quackwatch on WP? There was unfortunately no response to Sandy's recommendation in 2015. He appears to be "dominating" this RfC regarding Quackwatch presently. petrarchan47คุก 03:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any evidence of misconduct other than OP disliking his activity in the area; digging up something 15 years ago is not evidence of an active COI. I find it concerning that an editor topic-banned from GMOs for casting aspersions at other editors would propose this. Toa Nidhiki05 03:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This matter has already been covered and settled more than once. Even an ArbCom case did not find that I had a COI, but to avoid the appearance of a COI I was advised to be cautious. The last time this issue was raised is recently at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Scientific and legal advisors. Near the bottom of that section you will find the start at these words: "BullRangifer has stated on his talk page ..." Please read that and then close this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

User:EPBRUaccount

User whose only contributions consist in deleting public-interest information on MEP Dubravka Šuica. The account name suggests it is someone from her team of parliamentary assistants (EP = European Parliament, BRU = Brussels). -- Dans (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of the username and I have blocked the account as a promotional username. 331dot (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Columbus Hydraulics Co.

Created this page shortly after the draft was deleted by Jimfbleak and COI notice placed on talk page. Editor has added "Mike Winn" to the second two article's infoboxes also. MB 15:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Daniel Mattes

This article needs some eyes on it from more experienced admin. Contribuine34 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Chuang726

Account history and editing behaviors such as creating multiple biography pages in the field of poetry with zero apparent editing experience suggest this is a single purpose account. On 14 November, the account created 11 articles in under 6 hours. On 21 November, the account created 10 articles in just over 3 1/2 hours. The account has no significant contribution outside of working on the articles created. Account was created , 3 April 2019, then it sat unused for over four months before it started creating articles here and there, then abruptly started creating a mass of articles starting in mid November. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Graywalls: I checked and reviewed all of them. I sent a couple to Afd, but most of them need additional refs. For the most part they are small decent articles. All poets in in one form or another, some English professors. scope_creepTalk 19:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Scope creep: Possibly, but what impressions do you get from this editor's pattern? You certainly don't start off with a bunch of preform template like bio-pages. This is more about potential conflict of interest. Graywalls (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
All the articles are related to a poetry contest in Montreal. scope_creepTalk 21:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
IMO, it's possible that the user has a COI with Dial-A-Poem Montreal given their strong interest in it, but I'm not sure their intents are promotional. The program shut down in 1987, so it would be rather useless to promote it on Wikipedia in 2019. And some of the poets they've written about are deceased, so they are presumably not paying anyone to write articles about them. The editing pattern is odd, but not that suspicious to me given that these are mostly very short stubs - the editor is probably working on them in a word processor and posting them in batches when done. The mass creation of non-notable articles is problematic but, whether there is a COI or not, this seems like an enthusiastic new editor who needs some guidance on notability and referencing, rather than a bad faith spammer. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I left a note with some info about notability, RS and COI on their talk page. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Update, user says I am helping with writing wikipedia entries on Canadian poets in 80s Montreal for a Library and Archives grant [12] and has declared this on their user page. I directed them to WP:GLAM. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Without looking at the edits themselves, the explanation of doing work for Library and Archives Canada sounds sincere. It must be some kind of satellite grant as L&AC is in Ottawa.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Borderland Beat

Hello. I want to improve the article about a Mexican Drug War blog known as Borderland Beat. However, I want to make it known to everyone that there might be a potential COI on my part. I'm a member of that community and have written a few articles for the blog (I'm a blogger there, I don't hold any admin powers). I specialize in Mexican drug cartels here on Wikipedia. It is a topic I've studied for over a decade, hence my involvement in this other online community too. I've never used articles I've written in Borderland Beat as sources on Wikipedia (most of the articles I write there are actually excerpts from the Wikipedia articles I create, like this one and this one, which are from these Wikipedia articles: Zeferino Peña Cuéllar and Raúl Alberto Trejo Benavides). And as far as I can recall, I've only used Borderland Beat as a source once (for Héctor David Delgado Santiago).

I'd like the improve the Borderland Beat article. I realize that my situation could be similar to a Wikipedian writing about their hometown, favorite sport, etc. Please let me know how to proceed. Thank you. MX (✉ • ✎) 19:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

MX, thanks for letting us know. Since you have a conflict of interest, I'd recommend having a look at the plain and simple conflict of interest guideline. In short: declare it on your userpage and (out of an abundance of caution) use the ((edit request)) template rather than making changes to the article yourself. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
MX, I second creffpublic's advice. Also, your disclosure was classy and appreciated. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
ThatMontrealIP and creffpublic: Thanks for the replies! The article needs a major overhaul and I don't know how practical edit requests could be. Instead of doing multiple edit requests, is it OK to work in a draft page and then have other editors take a look at it and copy the info to the article if they deem it fit? I think that may work best but I'll leave it up to you. MX (✉ • ✎) 20:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Classy and appreciated – well said, ThatMontrealIP. I agree with MX that the edit-request process can be cumbersome: are there enough interested editors at that page to implement the requests? I'd like to suggest an alternate process that just occurred to me. MX could create a talk section called "edits for review" or "request review" or similar, explaining the situation, with a bullet list of diffs. Independent editors could then indicate assent or dissent to each point (a certain level of assent would be a "green light" equivalent to implementing a requested edit). Sequential small edits could be combined into a single diff where appropriate to avoid the list becoming too long. Rather than the abundance of caution that creffpublic recommends, this would entail a … modicum(?) of caution. We would be re-ordering BRD to BDR. What do people think of this idea? It's not a procedure that I would want to see used by a paid newbie PR hack, but only where we have an experienced Wikipedian in good standing (I assume) with the community. MX, is your relationship with Borderland Beat unpaid? Cheers! Pelagic (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Clarification. What MX has described appears to me as "potential perceived COI" as distinct from an "actual COI". That's why I'm not convinced that everything needs to be kept at arm's length (or even formally reviewed). A simple disclosure might suffice. But if the majority opinion is to act indirectly, then WP:COIATTRIBUTE explicitly mentions using a draft, so I wouldn't expect any problems with that. Pelagic (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Pelagic, I completely agree that it's "potential perceived COI," that's why I had the caveat "out of an abundance of caution." It's enough of a gray area to me that I feel it would be best to play it safe and just treat it as a COI. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 13:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Pelagic Thanks for your reply. My relationship with Borderland Beat is unpaid. MX (✉ • ✎) 17:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:CoolKEF

The name's a little suspicious. Just like the text. Article was already in the article room, moved it back to draftspace. ZaaraTE (talk) 11:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Its promotion disguised as an educational endowment or prize. It non-notable as its only recently came into existence. scope_creepTalk 12:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I have sent the username to UAA for discussion.scope_creepTalk 12:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Knuteson

Withdrawn. The editor appears to have ceased all COI editing.

Knuteson appears to be the author of the book Conspiracy Theory: A Philosophical Defense[13] He dodged the question on his talk page[14] but pretty much admitted it on Talk:Conspiracy theory [15]

I gave him the standard COI warning[16] but he continues to edit in the area where he has a COI.

I considered going straight to ANI wit this, but in the interest of fairness and because I might be wrong, I decided to bring this up here and notify Knuteson using the standard template so that he can respond, either by clarifying the he is not the author or by making a commitment to following our Conflict of Interest rules.

Any advice from the regulars here would be most welcome. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

ON what evidence do you base the COI?Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't being a published author in the area and chair of a philosophy department make him an expert? GMGtalk 11:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Well that would depend on who published it, but would still not override a COI.Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • GreenMeansGo, not in this case, as he is promoting a fringe view of conspiracy theories and citing his own work in articles, including creating a POVfork to represent his view against the consensus we painfully thrashed out at the parent article over many months. Guy (help!) 12:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well I certainly don't think that every person who is qualified enough to publish on a subject necessarily has a COI. Neither does anyone who does or has worked in a field necessarily have a COI. Draw that line and you eliminate half the Military History WikiProject, myself included. If they are using their contributions on Wikipedia to try to advertise their book, then yes, that's a COI. But if they're just interested in the subject area, and good enough in the subject area that they get paid to teach about it, that's just having an area of interest, not a conflict of interest. GMGtalk 12:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Whether the article should exist is a matter for AfD, not COIN, and seems to have already been settled for the moment. Whether they are unduly promoting their book, that is a matter that is germane to COIN, and it doesn't look like anyone has provided diffs to that effect. GMGtalk 12:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Well for one the article is named after his book "Philosophy of conspiracy theories" yet seems to actually be about the definition of conspiracy theories.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Named after his book? That's a bit of a stretch. Including a few of the same words doesn't exactly count as "named after". GMGtalk 14:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
There is certainly nothing wrong with subject matter experts contributing to Wikipedia, as they can be a valuable resource. The problem is when they come here to promote some particular point of view that they feel deserves more attention than the encyclopedia is giving it. Any new article created by a new Wikipedian is naturally scrutinized by other editors, and Philosophy of conspiracy theories was no exception. Earlier versions of the article appear to have emphasized the views of M.X.R. Denith and Kurtis Hagen, with External Links and Further Reading sections heavily featuring these authors, and a Definitions of Conspiracy Theory section that positioned a generic philosophical defense of conspiracy theories at the forefront. Of further concern was that one of the authors is active in the 9/11 Truther movement [17] [18]. Given that the conspiracy theory article has a history of POV-warriors efforts to make it more sympathetic to belief in conspiracy theories, inquiries regarding this new editors possible COI are not unreasonable. Philosophy of conspiracy theories has gotten a lot better thanks to some attention by established editors, but IMO still has a ways to go in terms of clarifying that the cited philosophers who express positions regarding conspiracy theories that are contra to the mainstream are in the minority. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I commit to following the COI rules. But let me be clear. I have not “admitted” to anything. I objected to the very effort to reveal my identity. The implicit argument seems to be that this effort is legitimized by a potential conflict of interest. But, I submit, anyone who would suggest that the philosophy of conspiracy theories page is an inappropriate advertisement for the book in question, or anything else, has lost all sense of proportion. Such a person is likely driven by some other motive. First a plausible case must be made that an inappropriate interest is being served, only then can COI even be a possible issue. Perhaps the issue that we really ought to be considering is harassment. Knuteson (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. in my case the motivation would be "why are you refusing to say just a simple "Yes I have a COI" if you have nothing to hide? This looks like evasiveness, and that always causes me concern.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Knuteson, Re: "Okay, I commit to following the COI rules", I look forward to seeing you follow Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. May we have a rough estimate as to how long it will take you to do this? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Knuteson, you don't have to state your identity, you only have to state whether you are personally involved with any of the books or authors you're promoting. That does not mean you are the author, you could be his PR or dog sitter for all we care. Guy (help!) 23:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have an opinion about whether this contributor is involved with the subject of the article. However, WP:COIEDIT states "you should disclose your COI when involved with affected articles." If someone chooses to edit a page that discusses a scholarly debate that they are involved in, disclosure would seem to apply. The points above about promoting a book seem a bit less relevant to me compared to disclosure. External links to blogs are a bit of a concern to me.[19] I could list a number of editors (myself included) who have disclosed that we edit articles related to the institution or subject area that we work in professionally. Expertise in a field is valued here, but being open about potential bias is also important. Choosing to edit a specific topic is optional. If one chooses to edit a subject that they are involved with it might necessitate sacrificing some degree of anonymity depending on the level of involvment. I would also argue that COI: "you should respect other editors by keeping discussions concise" applies to the talk pages in this case. I consider asking questions about an editor's involvement with a topic to be a legitimate exercise. --mikeu talk 15:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Question: Is the user primarily citing his own book? If so, I definitely see a conflict of interest. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The answer to that question is "no." Knuteson (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, mikeu. The only sentence that I can find that suggests that one has a COI merely because they have a “connection to a topic” is in the context of composing a page about oneself or one’s family. That isn’t applicable. Other than that, the COI page seems primarily concerned with promotion that may have significant financial implications. Which also doesn’t seem applicable. But if COI is interpreted expansively to mean that if one has written, made a scholarly presentation, or taught about the topic (or something roughly of that nature) one needs to declare a connection, then I hereby declare that I have a connection to the topic. If my reading of the COI guidelines was faulty, I apologize. But, generally, when one states a COI at the end of a scientific article, one does not state that one has written or otherwise expounded on the topic in other venues. That type of thing is not normally considered a COI. Knuteson (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Are you or are you not the author of the book Conspiracy Theory: A Philosophical Defense? You can argue that you have no COI related to that book because you have no connection to the book, or you can argue that you have no COI related to that book because you being the author of that book does not establish a COI according to your interpretation of Wikipedia's COI rules, but you cannot do both. So which is it? It's a simple question. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Knuteson does not need to answer that question - they are not required to out themselves. They have stated that they will follow WP:COI - beyond that we cannot ask someone to reveal personal identifying information, and Knuteson has made it clear that they do not wish to reveal such information. - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On the interpretation of policy and/or guidelines: The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording of any "sentence." If you are an author of (or are mentioned in) any of the references cited you are contributing to an article here about your own work. I would welcome the expertise of Michael E. Mann at Hockey stick controversy but it would be appropriate for him to disclose his close connection to the topic even in cases where no financial interest is at stake. COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships, and the tendency to bias that we assume exists when those roles and relationships conflict. I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia:Conflict of interest differs from the common interpretation of Conflict of interest. I may have been unclear by my usage of WP specific terms and phrases that may be unfamiliar. --mikeu talk 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

OK can we close this now wp:outing is not as solution to a COI, whilst I do not understand why Knuteson cannot just say "Yes I have A COI" Or "No I do not have a COI" is beyond me. But this is just beginning to look like a bit of a witch hunt by one user, and I dislike that even more.Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with JzG's recent comment above and don't see any need to press for a specific identity. Could be a "dog sitter" for all I care... But there is obv. a close relationship to the subject so I've added ((Connected contributor)).[20] I won't object to closing this but also don't consider the matter resolved. --mikeu talk 12:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Philosophy of conspiracy theories#Requested move 24 November 2019. --mikeu talk 12:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Alright, well this is all starting to look a bit too much like harassment. If anyone has diffs that this person has been promoting a book that they are supposed to have written, then cough them up. Otherwise this discussion serves no purpose. GMGtalk 13:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    GreenMeansGo, I mean, I think we have an admission of COI in respect fo the book, and he's certainly been promoting that, but I also think it unlikely that he will continue to do so at this point, so there's not much to be done here IMO. Guy (help!) 15:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
    @JzG: Promoting it how? Has he been spamming it as a reference? According to WP:BLAME, there is no version of Philosophy of conspiracy theories or Conspiracy theory that cites the book at all. If you mean that he simply wrote a book once that is related to a subject where he has been editing, then that's not a COI. What it does look like is Randy in Boise who isn't happy that an AfD didn't go their way, and so they are throwing WP:ALPHABETSOUP at the wall in the hopes that something will stick, and using COI as a means to bully an editor off an article that they would like deleted when no one can actually provide any evidence that they have at all done anything promotional. GMGtalk 15:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Err yes there is, the earliest version has this "Kurtis Hagen has argued that, like the “conspiracy theory of society,” the “paranoid style” does not accurately describe many conspiracy theories, and that it is therefore misleading to conflate the broader category of conspiracy theories with the narrower, and more dubious, “paranoid style.”[11]" In fact Hagen appears (in both text and cites) 10 times. In fact out of 22 cites 6 are to one of Hagans works.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Last chance to comment before this goes to ANI Despite the above discussion, Knuteson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is still COI editing[21] and, despite what he wrote at[22], has failed to follow WP:DISCLOSE, particularly the part where it says "If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic." (Emphasis added). Before I send this to ANI, I would like to do a quick straw poll:
--Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Send this to ANI

  • Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Do not send this to ANI

  • Oppose A COI edd is not banned form an articles talk page, in fact policy says they are allowed to ask for edits to be made.Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments:

  • I'm not seeing a problem. Knuteson declared that they had a COI here and on their talk page. There's a connected contributor tag on the article's talk added by Mu301, so the notification requirements are met, and their only edit to date was to the talk page of the article rather than mainspace. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

HRBrown

HRBrown duly ignored my posting to his talk page concerning COI yesterday and returned today to make this edit describing how he has refuted a theory. He is the owner of Jack The Ripper Forums (an article that he wrote that was subsequently deleted) and his primary purpose here has been to promote himself or his website. I would indef him as both COI and NOTHERE but I have edited articles related to Jack the Ripper in the past so I prefer someone else handle this. Thank you,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a sockpuppet, although they have not edited on that account for an age. I notice it the same article subject. Certainly seems to be breach of policy as a misuse of clean-start. There is large gap, more than 10 years, between the two accounts. Perhaps a forgotten password?scope_creepTalk 02:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Added other accounts and found the sock case.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. It looks to be definitive now.scope_creepTalk 12:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Clarence Jey

This article is full of absurdly slanted fluff written almost entirely by various IPs who all write in the same style, who seem to be connected to the subject. It was actually deleted following an AFD discussion, but it was recreated against policy by the user who nominated it for deletion because he was "under duress, and threatened and coerced into recreating the article" by someone connected to the subject (see talk page). Since then his only edits have been to this article. MDDevice talk 21:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Emek

Editor Jambonec has been adding promotional content including direct inline links to an online store, since 2014. I found and removed them today, but s/he has restored them.

Jambonec says links to an online store are a public service, after I removed the online store link and numerous inline links to the Emek site. This seems pretty cut and dried to me. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagged COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Border Patrol Foundation

An IP number is scrubbing RS content and adding flattering unsourced text. Obvious COI account. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Watching now, and tagged COI. Quandomeencuentras (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Suomonev/David Alexander (Author)

User Suomonev's only edits have been to create an article in his user sub-page for David Alexander, upload an image of David Alexander, and a single edit to his user page. User Frecch's only edits have been to add references to the David Alexander draft on Suomonev's sub-page, give a barnstar to Suomonev, and add David Alexander books to some articles. User AustynconradtCJ's only edits have been to add references to the David Alexander draft on Suomonev's sub-page, give a barnstar to Suomonev, and add references to David Alexander to some articles. Info advocates 1 performed several edits to David Alexander and one edit to David Bowie, almost all disruptive, in 2011, and then one edit to Suomonev's sub-page this month. I have placed COI warnings on Suomonev's and Freech's talk page. I will place COIN notices on all four talk pages. Donald Albury 18:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

SPI opened.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
All four accounts listed above were blocked as sockpuppets, and the draft was deleted. I believe this can be closed now if there are no objections.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2015-2019

User is prob a COI worker for the EBU from denmark.. Idan (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The username could be reported to WP:UFAA as it implies shared use.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
​I have done so. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
More