Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 174

• Draft:James Dunn (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jennajrdunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The submitting account appears to be in violation of the terms that they agreed to for an unblock about 24 hours ago. They were blocked for a promotional name, and were then unblocked by User:jpgordon for a rename, in which they said, "Confirm that it will not be used to promote any subject on Wikipedia or link to any website which we have an outside connection with." They have now submitted Draft:James Dunn, which I disambiguated to Draft:James Dunn (businessman). Maybe they aren't in violation, because the draft isn't about a business but about its late founder. If they are technically in compliance, they should nonetheless make a declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a misunderstanding. They did put a

WP:NOTMEMORIAL might apply. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 18:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: The article is not to promote the business in any way, it is simply to state the biography of the late business founder.Jennajrdunn (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jennajrdunn: there was a lot of promotion in your draft (a half dozen watch brands were mentioned, including two comapnies related to your family and the jrdunn.com web URL) but I have removed that from your draft. You seem to have deleted Ivanvector's comment above, but I have restored it.--- Possibly (talk) 18:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: My apologies, thank you for correcting the comment. No problem about removing those, the draft is great with your revision. I did ensure to place the disclosure on my user page prior to this draft. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. The intent is not to promote the business. Thank you.Jennajrdunn (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jennajrdunn: others might have comments to add, but I think you are OK there. Sorry for your loss. --- Possibly (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Bảo Đại (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Royal Vietnam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single-purpose account seems to be self inserting themselves into this article. After wack-a-moleing unreferenced edits they have provided a new edit which references a book written by the user in question. I am not sure if this is vandalism or a conflict of interest. However they clearly seem to be the self proclaimed "pretender to the throne" that they keep editing into the article without any third party sources. Spongie555 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Dennis Smith (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tom Anderson 1945 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It looks like an SPA who does not communicate is trying to manage this article for an active political candidate. Myself and SpeedMcCool suspect a COI. More eyes on this would be appreciated, and possibly some admin action like a page block. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I also suspect that user Applebit is closely related to Smith's campaign (considering that they uploaded his campaign photo to the commons before his campaign launched.)

Further, in early 2018, they repeatedly removed sourced content from Doug Wardlow's page without explanation. Considering the circumstances, this seems like it may have been a sort of peremptory strike on Wardlow's page in anticipation of Smith running in the 2018 race (Smith eventually did not enter the race.) I am not especially familiar with how these cases are handled, so if I am overreaching with my suspicion, please disregard this.

• Applebit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SpeedMcCool (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I found another one that appears to be a COI. A week before Smith's campaign launch, content that is now featured on Smith's website was copied verbatim into Dennis Smith's page (unsourced, I will add.) This user has only ever edited the Smith page. Again, let me know if I am overreaching.

• SomethingBorrowedSomethingBlue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SpeedMcCool (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Tom Anderson 1945 also uploaded that same campaign picture as his own work on June 1st, File:Dennis_Smith_Downtown_Osseo.jpg. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  SpeedMcCool please note the warning at the top of this page and when you post here "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so." I have posted the notices on his occasion. TSventon (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  My apologies, thanks for the notice. SpeedMcCool (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Randy Fine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Floridagopman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Randy Fine has a page, who is is a Republican politician in the Florida House of Representatives. A user with the name @Floridagopman: (Which seems like Randy Fine himself because the name has Florida and initials GOP is synonymous with the Republican Party) has made many changes to page. Glancing at the edits, this user has removed many negative things about Randy Fine and put in positive things. This appears to be a conflict of interest. I put a warning on Floridagopman's talk page. Anything else that should be done ? Thanks RockyMaivia88 (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

RockyMaivia88 please note the warning at the top of this page and when you post here "You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so." I have posted the notice on his occasion. TSventon (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The user only edited on 13 June and all their edits were reverted so I don't think any further action is necessary. The notes at the top of the page say "Be careful not to out other editors by posting personal information here." Floridagopman could be any Republican supporter in Florida or indeed elsewhere. TSventon (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Andrew Pessin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Miranda6391 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Miranda6391 has made only 26 edits, all but 3 of which are directly to Pessins article, and another one of which is adding a reference to a novel by Pessin diff. The user has been edit warring to remove reliabilty sourced information from Pessin's article about a 2015 controversy surrounding a 2014 facebook post Pessin made about Gaza. They have not made any attempts to respond other than a post on the BLP noticeboard diff. I agree that the wording that the user objected to in their BLPN post was questionable so I removed it in subsequent editions, but Miranda6391 has continued to remove the passage without any response, other than claiming that the information is "false and defamatory". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Miranda6391: is still continuing to revert without engaging in discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I have asked for page protection as editor Miranda6391 seems to be edit warring. scope_creep^Talk 16:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Miranda6391 may have a point there. The material they are trying to remove might be a tad one-sided, seeing as there is a lot of coverage about how Pessin feels the posts was mis-attributed. it definitely needs some POV balancing. See Slate and Insidehighered.com'. One of the sources currently used to support the section is a Washington Post opinion piece, which itself criticizes the brouhaha. --- Possibly (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree that there is a need for a more thorough treatment of the controversy, but Miranda6391 needs to engage witout repeatedly reverting. I already attempted to add context by specifying that Pessin was referring to Hamas rather than palestinians, but it should probably go further than that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, no excuse for their edit-warring. Glad to agree that the particular issue needs a POV fine-tune.--- Possibly (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

On Pessin's talkpage, Miranda6391 has continued to not disclose their COI, but has stated that they will engage productively from now on diff rather than just repeatedly reverting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have replied to Miranda6391's post with an explanation of the issues. TSventon (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Normally, I show up here to discuss someone with a conflict of interest who isn'y following the rules. Today I have someone who is following the rules and is getting nowhere.

I often assist COI editors who follow the rules. I look at their suggested edits and either implement they or ask that they be made less promotional, etc.

Usually, nobody has a problem with this. At Talk:NowMedical#Requested changes from NowMedical there was a disagreement about whether my edits were good, and I decided to withdraw because I am unwilling to get into a dispute over this.

Alas, that left the COI editor, who really seems to want to follow our rules -- hanging.

Could I please request some other editors to look at the situation and offer an opinion as to whether my edits were appropriate and should be made? I like them and think they were good, but then again, I like everything I do and always agree with my own opinions. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@

requestedit}} template would bring a wider range of opinions?--- Possibly (talk

) 19:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the person who declared that they work for the company, has made some suggested edits, which lead to a lengthy back-and-forth between themselves and User:Guy Macon (with a small number of other people chiming in). This COIN report says that User:Guy Macon wants to make edits but they were disagreed upon by the person who declared themselves as working for the company. Guy: can you summarize for us how many of the users in that discussion disagreed with your edits and how many agreed? If it was just a disagreement between you and the person declaring themselves as having a "COI", then I could understand the gridlock, but it seems there's more people involved in that discussion. Dr. Universe (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you misread the situation, Dr. Universe. The editor who reverted Guy Macon's edits was not the person who works for the company. Schazjmd (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it was I. I have every kind of respect and esteem for Guy Macon, but in this particular instance I disagreed with his addition to our article of content purpose-written on the company's website by the COI editor, and – not without hesitation – reverted it. I know this isn't a normal COI report, but it concerns COI editing and how we deal with it. I was planning to bring it here, but Guy got there first. I'd certainly welcome some other opinions. Would this sit better on the project talk-page, perhaps? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here are all the players so far:

The person with the declared COI who made the edit suggestions is User:MarthaLuke.

I, User:Guy Macon agree (after a bit of back and forth improvements) with MarthaLuke's suggested edits and implemented them. As always I stand behind my edits so if they are not up to par the fault is mine.

User:Justlettersandnumbers does not agree with My/MarthaLuke's edits and reverted me.

User:DGG agreed with one thing I wrote (about the use of responsible self-published sources), but I don't think we can say they support either version unless they say more.

As for it being a content dispute, of course it is. The problem is that it is a content dispute where one side has their hands tied because they are following our COI rules. I think they deserve to have more than two editors look at their suggestions and have their suggestions permanently rejected on a 1:1 tie vote.

The reason I brought this up here is so that editors who are good at sniffing out promotional edits can check my conclusions. I am really uncomfortable when one person disagrees with me and there are only the two of us. What if I got it wrong? --Guy Macon (talk)

I think they deserve to have more than two editors look at their suggestions... huh? I think the paid editor got first-class service. Two admins and yourself is fabulous high-quality scrutiny. It's not

WP:BOGOF, it's buy one get three free. I considered looking at their suggested edits myself, but I don't think it needs to be buy one, get four free. If the edits are stalled then that is the correct outcome.--- Possibly (talk

) 02:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Just like Guy Macon, I dislike arguing about requested changes. The proper way for a coi editor is to present the information on the talk page, and let other people edit the article. If it becomes a matter of bargaining, I normally disengage. If I consider the end result unsatisfactory, I may edit the article as I would any other like the usual BRD editing by people without a coi. Those with a coi should stay out of the discussion. I am not happy with the present state of the article, but then I am generally not happy with criticisms sections ,which I think are better integrated. And this article has the additional problem thart we don't usually use consumer anecdotes, which can never be representative, but in this case it seems to be the clearest way to show the situation. I think on balance its OK as it is , in the Justlettersandnumbers version. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If DGG and Justlettersandnumbers both like the current version, then so do I. Sorry. MarthaLuke, but the consensus is clearly against your suggested edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"Those with a coi should stay out of the discussion." That's a new one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I had the same thought. Great minds[

ed] think alike. I was working on a COI request a while back where the person with the COI identified a boatload of mistakes and spoon fed us reliable secondary sources backing up every suggested correction. Of course we also have people with COIs who want to whitewash articles and make them into corporate adds, but there is no rule against suggesting that on an article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk

) 13:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:COITALK! Smallbones_(smalltalk

) 04:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Far from requiring "Those with a coi [to] stay out of the discussion", that guideline makes clear they are allowed and indeed expected to participate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

That's an incredibly creative interpretation. " No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"an incredibly creative interpretation"? Far from it. It discusses not whether they may participate, but how they may do so. Of course, if you think it says that they should not participate in discussion, please feel free to quote the exact wording supporting that view (which the wording you do quote, being specific to "long or repetitive discussions", does not). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I am with Pigsonthewing/Andy on this one. It's not like non COI editors are allowed to engage in

long or repetitive discussions

.

If you don't give someone with a COI a way to correct factual errors or even to make a brief argument against whatever mean things Wikipedia is saying about them, the result will not be them going away and accepting it. The result will be them making undisclosed COI edits or hiring someone to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

While nobody is supposed to engage in long and repetitive discussions, I think it's fair to hold COI editors to a slightly harsher standard in that regard, simply because part of the way a COI (even a declared COI) can be harmful to the wiki is the unequal motivations it applies in terms of protracted disputes. For example, you backed out of the discussion when it became too frustrating - but someone with a serious enough COI would not (and in extreme cases might not even be able to concede a point or stop pushing it without losing their job and livelihood, though this case doesn't seem quite that extreme.) As

WP:DROPTHESTICK on something that is plainly unlikely to go anywhere. Granted that COI accounts are hardly the only people motivated to slog through that (which is why we have DROPTHESTICK and such to begin with), but it's one reason to be more cautious about it. --Aquillion (talk

) 18:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I was working on a COI request a while back where the person with the COI identified a boatload of mistakes and spoon fed us reliable secondary sources backing up every suggested correction. This is a tangent, but only slightly (since it touches on why many editors are skeptical about COI edit requests.) Fixing mistakes is good, and providing reliable secondary sources is good - but when an article is heavily edited by (or on the advice of) someone who is contractually obligated to only ever correct mistakes in one direction, it can still produce a lopsided article. This is obviously a problem on any article that attracts editors with a strong POV, as anyone familiar with eg. the AP2 topic area can attest, but normally a controversial topic attracts editors with many different perspectives, which ensure everything gets similar scrutiny and leads to a more balanced article overall - there are academic papers confirming this. Whereas COI editors often focus on obscure topics and, if we're not careful, can end up with articles created primarily at their direction, even if every individual edit is well-sourced and accurate. So I feel that when reviewing COI edits it's important to not merely review the specific suggested edits, but to take a step back and consider the article as a whole with an eye towards

WP:TONE, and in particular (especially in situations where there are few other editors) to actively search for aspects of the topic that might go against the COI in question to ensure that they're getting due coverage. --Aquillion (talk

) 18:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The reason there is confusion is because the discussion string starts with edits I requested six months ago that are not currently the subject of dispute. @Guy Macon: I see there is another noticeboard for Reliable Sources that seems more appropriate to resolve a disagreement over using primary sources. MarthaLuke (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• St Hilda Sea Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Napalouza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user seems to be interested solely, going back years, in getting this company onto Wikipedia. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The company does not seem notable. AFD'd.--- Possibly (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Todd Kashdan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gmupsychologist1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The biography of Todd Kashdan contains a section regarding sexual harassment and "lack of appropriate professional behavior" charges that were brought against him following a series of incidents involving his graduate psychology students at George Mason University. The incidents and consequences were reported in The Washington Post^[1] and Inside Higher Ed.^[2] User Gmupsychologist1 has created an account today whose sole purpose is to whitewash these events and present Kashdan's side of the story, relying on first no sources (diff) and then a source from Justitia Dockets,^[3] which fails to verify the claims made in their edit (although their edit summary claims the evidence is in the docket appendix, which does not appear to be available from Justitia). I have warned Gmupsycologist1 of Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, to no avail. I seek administrative intervention to keep this user from whitewashing this page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

As the user who put the {{

welcome-coi}} template on their talk page, I think the username makes the conflict of interest abundantly obvious, especially coupled with the nature of the edits. Gmupsychologist1 is welcome to suggest edits at the article's talk page, making sure to cite reliable secondary sources, but they should not be allowed to directly edit the article. —C.Fred (talk

) 17:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• Researcherphd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grey relational analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Liu Sifeng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nearly all of this user's edits, going back several years, seem to be related to a small group of researchers. I've reverted several instances of

It looks very likely that

• Deng Julong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

should be added to the list. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The linked revert of mine was actually about different sockpuppets who were refspamming a different academics work in some of the same articles. I don't remember noticing Researcherphd before, but I agree that the editing pattern looks bad. -

MrOllie (talk

) 15:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have made an edit on Liu Sifeng where I changed "he is the world's expert on Grey Systems Theory" to "he has published multiple highly-cited papers on Grey Systems Theory". It's somewhat subjective who the "world's expert" is (though Liu Sifeng does seem to be the most prominent living person in that area), whereas it's objective that Liu has published at least 3 papers on the topic which each have 1000+ citations on GS. However, I'm not quite sure I see where the accusation "Nearly all of this user's edits, going back several years, seem to be related to a small group of researchers" comes from? What percentage of a user's edits need to be related to a specific topic, to be considered "nearly all" edits? It appears to not even be 50% of the person's edits. Even if it were 49% of their edits, this would be closer to nearly none than nearly all. What relation do Patricia O'Brien, Fatima Ebrahimi, Frederick Soddy and other that Researcherphd edited, have to do with Grey relational analysis or Liu Sifeng? Dr. Universe (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this is my first time at COI page, since i begin editing several years back, and i hope i respond/edit my comment here accurately. (1) I am not associated with any people i edit (or when i create new page). (2) If you see my edits, there is one pattern, which none of you could observe: I work on niche, someone big editors fail to recognize. Grey System Theory (GST) was developed in 1982, who else saw it? I tried to create a page for it but since it is connected with its popular model

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) had a page but a scientist with a very promising contribution (Fatima Ebrahimi) didn't had one until i created. I repeat myself: I'm a "niche editor", and it's a very difficult job. You can ask me to resign and i promise you i won't touch those pages ever again however i will remind you after five years if no body edited them in that period. Researcherphd (talk

), 2:46 am, 11 June 2021.

The many other IPs and accounts making apparently anti-Dattani edits are being dealt with in the relevant SPI. It is, in fact, extremely relevant that there were U of Waterloo IPs making pro-Dattani edits and listing grievances alongside and in support of you/each other. How are we supposed to believe your claims of professional and personal independence from Dattani when you a) have discussed very specific events you both attended, including a pre-conference dinner where you were photographed together; and b) have admitted to "using U of Waterloo computers". You're a subject-matter-expert in the same niche field as Dattani, can attest to the specific roles each author played on a paper he was on, familiar enough with his research to dig up unindexed source code for a program released by Le Roy that happens to acknowledge him in a comment, and apparently even worked at the same university as Dattani, and yet you don't know him personally or professionally? JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• You mentioned one U of Waterloo IP and now you're saying "IPs" in plural.
• I wrote here already that I don't know where that quote in 2019 about what seemed to be a pre-conference dinner, came from: It was commented out, and the sentence was cut-off suddenly without finishing. Please let's stick to evidence that wasn't commented out or incomplete. I really don't know what was going on there 2 years ago in the middle of that contentious discussion with 22 anti-Dattani accounts/IPs.
• Me using U of Waterloo computers is something I wrote today here in this discussion, in the spirit of being open, not for you to use it against me: The university has about 60,000 members at any given time and probably millions of alumni and members of the public using their computers.
• I never "attested" to specific roles each other played on a paper he was on: I went by the "author contributions" (which was brought up by you!) listing in the paper.
• I told you in the AfD discussion how I found the source code, and you also managed to dig up some extremely specific information about him in that same discussion.
• I'm not sure where it was said that I "worked at the same university as Dattani".
• This is the last time I'll say it: I would like you to stop interacting with me on AfD and noticeboards since I have told you so many times to stop badgering me and sealioning me and I can no longer take the level of harassment. If "uninvolved" editors have concerns, they can chime in so you don't need to worry. Dr. Universe (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Request I can no longer take the

Comment. Apologies to come back in here late. But after reading

WP:OUTING carefully, I believe it is within policy to point out two relevant edits by Dr. Universe: 1) I believe the 4th-from-last sentence of this diff, beginning "my name", may be a self-disclosure that the editor is very closely connected to Dattani, indeed. (Note that the subsequent edit replaces "my name" with "my subject's name".) 2) Possibly also relevant, in this diff, Dr. Universe speaks somewhat frankly about his use of Waterloo IPs. Russ Woodroofe (talk

) 12:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Also, Dr. Universe points out correctly that he was not the creator of Robert J. LeRoy. I was confused by the similarly-named LeRoy radius article, and this was a mistake in the original posting. The sentence praising joint work with Dattani in that article was added by an IP. As far as his other related points about the nomination: I don't think the difference between swift G4 and swift referral to AfD is significant, and my concerns about Pseudo-Boolean function stand. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Response: It is absolutely not a self-disclosure, the diff points to a typo that was corrected 3 minutes later, and to consider something a disclosure one must look at the final version after minor typos are corrected. I remember correcting that typo and thinking it wouldn't be a big deal because people already know that I'm not the subject, I'm just being accused of being too closely connected to the subject. It's extremely easy to prove the former (although the initial ways I can think of, like me showing a picture of my ID or something, would I hope not be necessary if we respect the rules about WP:OUTING that I just learned from Russ's comment). My use of a Waterloo IP was something that I did not need to say here, and I was worried that by saying that people would try to use it against me, but I thought that since I don't know the subject personally or have professional ties with them, there would be no harm in being open and honest about it, plus there's 60,000 members of UWaterloo at any given time, and millions of alumni and even more when we include visitors and members of the public since it's a public university funded by tax-payers who are allowed to spend time there without being a member. I'm finding a lot of this to be intimidating and I don't think it's fair to say I broke WP rules based on me using a Waterloo IP (which you first of all learned directly from me, in this specific discussion: I didn't have to tell it to you but I didn't know people would try to use each piece of information against me that way... this is making me nervous about being open in the future, which is unfortunate because all this time I thought were were supposed to be welcoming and not making others feel uncomfortable in this way... I feel "guilty until proven innocent" and that the burden of proof for everything is on the defendant rather than the accuser). After learning from Russ just now about WP:OUTING, I don't feel comfortable having comments from years ago, which were clearly not even complete since the sentence ended abruptly without finishing, used to make assumptions about me, and I worry that the follow-up questions and responses to my answers did push me to want to just say my name and show my ID so that we could settle all this once-and-for-all, but I don't think we're supposed to be made to feel like we're forced to "OUT" ourselves.

The events on various pages in the 2 weeks leading up to this discussion, make me concerned that the initial accuser had quite a strong interest in getting a certain outcome and they started this discussion with some wordings which have hindered the possibility for a fair trial, even though they may have been acting with good intentions. Also there was 4 years between the two articles, so even if "swift G4" and "swift AfD" were the same thing, neither is an accurate representation of what happened or what my intentions were when I made the second article. Furthermore, the initial accuser did actually say "G4" and not "AfD", and that was not fair. The instructions are quite clear that COIN should start only after some other things have been attempted such as talk page discussions, but no matter what anyone tries to say, that just did not happen and the initial accuser already had told XOR'Easter that they were considering COIN well before any attempt the discuss anything on the talk pages.

However now that Russ and I have started to talk a bit on his talk page, he has suggested that I should add a "connected contributor" template to the article I'm currently writing on Donald James LeRoy, and it seems this is only based on the fact that I'm a fan of his son Robert J. LeRoy, even though I never met DJ LeRoy and absolutely did not know him personally or professionally, or in any capacity at all (actually he died in 1985, and without WP:OUTING my specific age, let's just say it wouldn't be hard for me to prove to you that I didn't personally know him if I was forced to). I had not idea that "conflict" of interest was so broad that I should add "connected contributor" to that article, but I will consider to do this and then to add this template myself to whatever articles in Russ's above list that warrant it based on my next thorough reading of the COI rules, but I would be quite furious if my username just gets embarrassed by other users adding these templates everywhere unfairly. I already removed all mentions of people connected to Robert J LeRoy, from many of those articles. I would appreciate if we could go through the proper procedure of discussing things on talk pages before making much wider public accusations: for example in some of the above articles, things like the KLi example and the quadratization reference were removed without any discussion on the talk page, and before this COIN discussion even started. For example, I'm very sure we would have at least reached agreement on the KLi example if we'd talked about it (seems we did eventually agree on it outside of this COIN!). Dr. Universe (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie (talk

) 21:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@

Jiří_Čížek (Waterloo professor) and Donald James LeRoy (father of Waterloo professor) and the OP of this COIN discussion (Russ Woodroofe) was helping me with these on a different talk page, but he said it would be okay if it goes through "AfC". I was already considering contributing to Women in Red when I saw on JoelleJay's talk page how many women that pass WP:Notability don't yet have articles, but being brought into these noticeboards and such, have caused me to be unable to write new articles about people and contribute in other ways. If I can stop editing articles about Waterloo people, and also in the meantime not have people keep discussing me here, I'm actually extremely keen on contributing the Women in Red. I actually know someone involved over there named Jess Wade. Dr. Universe (talk

) 21:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Pasted from the top of COIN, where it was mistakenly posted.--- Possibly (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC) @Possibly: Do you know why this is still up after 14 days? You said that a bot will archive it after 14 days? Dr. Universe (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@

closed before 14 days have passed, then it might even be archived a little sooner (which again isn't a big deal). -- Marchjuly (talk

) 01:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Universe: Marchjuly's answer above is excellent. At my talk page you asked a similar question about how COIN works. As Marchjuly says, this will be archived a while after the last post to the thread. In general I think COIN is effective at getting at the core of COI issues as many people contribute their views. Your message on mytalk page sounded like this discussion is overwhelming for you. If that's the case, don't participate, unwatch the page and do something else for a few days. --- Possibly (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• GSM Cell ID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• OpenCellID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DaxServer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd like to know how I can disclose CoI edits that I have made about 5 years ago. During my work at a former employer, Unwired Labs, I have edited the articles: GSM Cell ID and OpenCellID. I'm not aware of edits to other articles at the moment, but history might reveal some. I have not actively received any payments for my edits, apart from the monthly salary for my work at the company. However, edits to Wikipedia is not part of my job resposibilities. The article GSM Cell ID was used for promotional purposes, to the best of my knowledge during my work. I could not comment on further advancements after I parted in November 2017.

I was not aware of the CoI requirements in the early days. As I progressed over time, I learnt more and has thus mostly refrained from editing. I might have edited, but couldn't recall. I have added {{Update}} (Special:Diff/786780889) and {{Advert}} (Special:Diff/800745380) templates to OpenCellID and {{Primary sources}} (Special:Diff/788141583) to GSM Cell ID, for which I was reprimanded. In 2020, when I knew better, I have noted the CoI in the edit summary (Special:Diff/961037277) as per policy.

What are the next steps that I should follow? -- DaxServer (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@DaxServer, If you have had a COI in the past, declaring so would be a good idea, but since you no longer edit the article, declaring it is rather moot. Just don’t edit the article again, but if you are going to edit the article in future, then declaring a COI would be wise. Celestina007 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 Thanks for the clarification! -- DaxServer (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles

• Draft:Aaron Gabriel Golbin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Aaron Golbin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aaron Golbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Aaron Gabriel Golbin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:DebateIsland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:DebateIsland.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DebateIsland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• DebateIsland.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recent accounts

• DILover1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AaronGolbin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bruce Lamete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Julereca 2981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Last year's accounts (blocked)

• Wikiusername02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Debater20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DebateIslander2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User DILover1 claims on their talk page they aren't paid and are just a fan of Aaron Golbin, a teen businessman, and his company DebateIsland. However, all their edits are on the above articles, and the intent is clearly very promotional.

The most recent evidence of promotional intent came when they removed all the AFC tags from Draft:Aaron Gabriel Golbin, including the stop sign one advising that Golbin is not notable... and then pushed the article to article space. Then they did that all again, five minutes later. This really strikes me as paid editing. I opened an SPI for the many associated accounts that have worked on the Golbin article, but no word yet.

Now they've done the same thing with DebateIsland, stripping it of the "stop" AFC tags and moving it to article space with the comment "DebateIsland is the largest online debate platform globally by activity and should have a Wiki."

Here's the deletion log for Aaron Golbin. I think this is pretty clearly some kind of promotion, with an undisclosed COI. --- Possibly (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m not paid and will not be paid to write these articles. I’m a DebateIsland user, like hundreds of thousands of others, and want to make a wiki about the company and Aaron Golbin, the founder of DebateIsland. DILover1 (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Care to explain "I am not being immediately financially compensated" then? (emphasis added) —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 04:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

And it's more than a bit difficult to believe that this [2] is the first edit by a new user who just happened to decide to write an article. Meters (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I added AaronGolbin to the list of accounts active this year; they created Draft:Aaron Gobin and Draft:DebateIsland last week, on June 5. Those got deleted, and were recreated by DILover1. It's actually hard to keep track of which account created which draft, as there have been so many attempts. --- Possibly (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Added two more accounts; see User talk:Bruce Lamete, User talk:Julereca 2981 ☆ Bri (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm requesting creation-protection on every title they're using to try and dodge the prot. At this point I think the SPI is superfluous,
  avoid being scrutinised, considering the accounts from overnight have yet to be blocked. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano}
  01:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hammer dropped on all "recent" accounts save Julereca - they haven't been active since 2017. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• I haven't seen this at COIN before, but all the recent accounts are blocked... and all possible article titles are salted ... and all possible draft titles are salted.--- Possibly (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• All possible article/draft titles that were used before have been salted. If they're as persistent as they have been they'll probably find some workaround. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 22:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• Natemup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Xavier University of Louisiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Natemup declares on his user page that he: is a millennial theology and history nerd, Black Catholic aspiring to the priesthood, and graduate student in Black Catholicism at XULA's Institute for Black Catholic Studies. He is from Evansville, Indiana. in a recent article addition he has cited himself, writing a blog for the "Black Catholic Messenger", in which he identifies as a Josephite seminarian. He has not explicitly declared any COI anywhere I have seen, and continues to edit Josephite- and XUL-related articles freely, regardless of NPOV concerns. It seems this editor will need to (1) declare his COI explicitly and (2) begin to use edit requests on the talk pages of articles where he has a direct COI. He has done good-faith work in areas of black Catholicism and I hope that this issue will not serve to hinder that work. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23: there are COI disclosures for Black Catholicism and Black Catholic Movement on Natemup's user page. Do those mitigate the above any?--- Possibly (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, those aren't really organizations in their own right. He can't have a COI with "black Catholicism" just because he is a black Catholic! What I am discussing are the specific organizations to which he is affiliated. Elizium23 (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with disclosing any relevant COIs, but I wasn't aware that I needed to beyond what I had already done. Is this something that should have been mentioned on my talk page before being reported here? And for the record, I am a Josephite seminarian-to-be; I haven't started classes and am would not be a member of the society per se for another several years. As for XULA, I am a student there, but I'm not sure that counts as an editors' COI. natemup (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I have started a discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_BlackCatholicMessenger.com_a_Reliable_Source? about Natemup's use of his own blog / "news" site as a reference in Wikipedia articles. I initially thought of opening the discussion on THIS noticeboard, because I initially saw it as promotion of his own website and a COI in that sense, but it may just be a Reliable Sources question.

@Natemup: Thank you for openly declaring what COI you think you have. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Catholic University of Portugal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Cristina Vilela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klodij (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Above editor has made a COI declaration on their TP. They are continuing to edit the article, which is filling up with phrases such as "UCP promotes integrated training geared towards the global context, based on the principles of truth and respect for individuals and the environment" and "with a view to promoting qualified education and integral formation, knowledge and research of reference, and innovation at the service of the common good". Some of this is "sourced" to the university website, and many of the sources are in Portugese. MB 19:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

They disclosed a COI but not that they are being paid. The Commons account for the same user says it is a role account for the Catholic University of Portugal, so the paid editing seems clear. I left a paid editing template on their user page. --- Possibly (talk) 21:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A new account with one edit, Klodij, arrived to edit the page. --- Possibly (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mariam Kamara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NeoMaditla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is trying to declare CoI and make edits they consider constructive, albeit in complete ignorance of the rules. They need some guidance especially after a BITE-y initial response. 79.71.47.30 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There does not seem to have been a "complete ignorance of the rules"; there was even an attempt to properly disclose the connection according to

WP:PAID, in their edit summaries. There is currently nothing to do here – except removing the disputed content that was incorrectly re-instated in [3] (done), notifying the article creator about the concerns (done with a discretionary sanctions notification), and removing the unjustified vandalism accusation left by Drill it on NeoMaditla's talk page (done with a ping). The only mistake here was treating an almost-properly-disclosing editor who corrected BLP mistakes like this. ~ ToBeFree (talk

) 21:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Arcesium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikionlinecontributor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editor's very first edit was to add "Arcesium" to HITEC City [4]. Their second was to do the same in another part of the same article [5]. Then they wrote Draft:Arcesium (company) which was deleted. They were warned that paid editors needed to disclose [6] and after receiving that they wrote Arcesium which is promotional with no references except the company itself. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty clearly promotional or paid editing.--- Possibly (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't find any sourcing for the Arcesium article so I've put it up for AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcesium. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Notfrompedro. I've blocked Wikionlinecontributor indefinitely, see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 21:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC).

• Jlmorris7403 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:James Morris (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Witching Season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• They Live Inside Us (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Jlmorris7403 is a

He also moved

James Peppler Morris (bass-baritone) (a name that doesn't appear to have been used by Morris) with the stated reason "Name getting mixed up in google searches and causing issues with other people who share the name." Clearly he is editing to improve his own google rankings. Notfrompedro (talk

) 22:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment This is essentially a promotion only account. I see that the editor finally disclosed COI, but even after I left an Autobio notice he still moved James Morris (bass-baritone) as noted by Notfrompedro. It more or less took Robert McClenon pinging him on multiple pages where he has a COI and starting this ANI to even declare. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

There were briefly three related issues involved with this editor and their edits:

• 1. The primary name of the singer, but
  James Peppler Morris (bass-baritone)
  can stay.
• 2. The two articles on the series and the film, which are a miniature walled garden.
• 3. The
  autobiography
  . It was first moved back to draft space, and then declined by me.

The subject editor has sent me an email apologizing for his lack of familiarity with Wikipedia processes, and stating his desire to correct the information on Google, which he says credits everything that he does to the opera singer.

The remaining issue is the two articles on the series and the film, which need to be scrubbed to determine both whether they are notable and whether they satisfy

neutral point of view

.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Jlmorris7403 is responsible for over 90% of the content of the two film articles. As for the films, it is not a good sign that none of the actors or other key people have Wikipedia biographies, and that the reviews are all on niche horror movie websites. I fail to see how either of these films meets Wikipedia:Notability (films). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment At a glance, some of the reviews on
  WP:RS but some would (Bloody Disgusting and Dread Central) so there is a real chance that one can be salvaged. The Witching Season as it stands is narrower. If you remove the references that outright fail as RS you are left with maybe three. It will take some research to find better sourcing for both but I think its entirely possible they could be fixed. Notfrompedro (talk
  ) 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked this editor from editing the two film articles although they can make talk page edit requests. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • I made some edits to They Live Inside Us. I removed the obviously non-RS reviews and added in at least one better reference. I am on the fence about the Utah Film Festival one because I have never heard of it and I don't know how notable it is or isn't. I will leave that for someone else. Notfrompedro (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)