Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:A&P Talk:David Adjaye User talk:Africatalyst Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bastion Collective Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Bruce D. Broussard Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Michael Meldman Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Norwest Venture Partners Talk:Obama Foundation Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Overseas Development Institute Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Diana Senechal Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Bulat Utemuratov Talk:Versapay Talk:Romesh Wadhwani Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Gediminas Žiemelis Talk:Alice Zorn

D0kkaebi

Edit warring around François Asselineau involving a leader of his party

• Articles: François Asselineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Popular Republican Union (2007) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: D0kkaebi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Users reported by D0kkaebi in the related WP:AN/I thread: Azurfrog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Schlum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Lebob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(last 3 users separated for clarity: Oliv0 (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

D0kkaebi recently started a thread on Administrators'_noticeboard/Incident. The ensuing discussion led to the conclusion that the underlying Conflict of Interest should have been reported here, which I am doing now (even though I am totally new to such requests).

To sum it up:

• D0kkaebi has long been suspected, here and on fr:WP, of being a high-ranking member of François Asselineau's Popular Republican Union (2007). His name is believed to appear in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger").

Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Signature copied here by Brianhe for clarity

Discussion of problem by Azurfrog and Oliv0, 11 September 2015–13 September 2015

Reasons for this suspicion: D0kkaebi appears to be a single-purpose account contributing nearly exclusively to articles centering on François Asselineau or his party. His only other significant contributions seem to be about Korean subjects such as Yakgwa (which of course increases the suspicion about his role as a delegate in the Far East, even though he never edited Dokkaebi himself). D0kkaebi was previously known here as Lawren00, which links directly to his current username. This change might have been caused by the wish to avoid easily connecting Lawren00 to UPR, while replacing it by a connection to the spirits in Korean folklore. A quick research on the web linking Lawren00 and UPR ("UPR", Popular Republican Union, "Union Populaire Républicaine" in French) will lead to a Facebook account introducing the UPR delegate in Korea. Another very basic search simply linking "Twitter" and "Lawren00" leads to a Twitter account in Seoul, Korea, under the username of the UPR delegate and Lawren00. Now, this has extensively been discussed on the French WP, on which Lawren00/D0kkaebi was very active at a time on the same articles; but this is not the point. The problem here is that D0kkaebi has taken a rather aggressive stand on these articles without ever disclosing his - highly probable - affiliation with UPR, leading to overdeveloped (and initially overblown) articles, the bias of which is all the more difficult to correct as most editors are unfamiliar with these subjects and largely unable to extensively read the French sources. I am at a loss how to deal properly with the matter: reaching a consensus on the talk pages could be reasonably easy, but D0kkaebi/Lawren00 repeatedly gave us to understand that only the edits approved by him were legit on these articles (here, for instance), resorting to a lot of edit warring and a wide array of procedural actions. Azurfrog (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC) To help answer the question of a COI or not, I note that in the Facebook page mentioned above (written by "François Asselineau - Union Populaire Républicaine", exactly the relevant WP pages here), at the end under the title "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" (en quoi consiste le poste de délégué) there is a list of "areas of activist work" (axes de travail militant) and the 4th point is "developing the notoriety of PRU globally" (développer la notoriété de l'UPR de façon globale), as opposed to doing so in the same country in the first points — and this can include Wikipedia. Oliv0 (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Please note: I tried my best to explain how a few basic queries on the web would permit to reasonably ascertain that a conflict of interest existed, without ever revealing a name or any other personal information that wouldn't be obtainable through these basic queries. However, as this is the first time I ever placed such a request, I may have erred. So please delete as need be anything that would not comply with WP policy: my purpose is not to out anyone, just to show that readily available public, unredacted information leads to the belief that a conflict of interest does exist. I must add that I find all this rather tricky: how can anyone complain about any conflict of interest without explaining why, with enough specific details to show that it is not an idle complaint? --Azurfrog (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Amplification by Francis Le français, 14 September 2015

Very very funny, shall I open a new case for outing? The 4 users totally ignored the comment written in bold and red at the top of the edit page "When investigating possible cases of conflict of interest editing, editors must be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the conflict of interest guideline". A relent of habitual behavior from the French Wikipedia? Azurfrog (talk), let me give you an advice, you have to prove that my contributions to the article are not neutral and obviously bias in favor of the party. The other accusation will have to go through email. Admins will correct me if I am wrong. Regarding my contribution to the article, let's divide that into 2, since I am accused of being non-neutral on 2 topics. Francois Asselineau Article: Note that it is been a year that I did not write a line in the article. The special task force made of French wiki admins organized into a crew ruined my willing to enrich the article. When 5 users of the French admins started their modification without prior discussion, I ask them to discuss the changes on the talk to find consensus since other experienced and neutral user Ravenswing advised to do so. My suggestions were received with personal attacks. Please note that their attitude ruined the willing to contribute to the article to many neutral contributors such as Ravenswing or Aya Laglare. UPR article: I am certainly the user who bring the most contribution to the article. And since this article is a very "hot" topic in France, it receives constantly the visit of vandals either from UPR militants like here or here and anti-UPR militants like here or here. So I spent lot of my time protecting the article against both of them. Sometimes, some neutral users try to really improve the article. And I always welcome the change. I will give you a full example, so that you can understand the way I act. Regarding the positioning of the party, majority of sources were indicating "neither Right nor Left (wing)" and this is what I wrote in the article. Then, someday an IP suggested to change into "syncretic". I honestly did not know the meaning of the term, but after checking it, I was thinking that it may be a more concise summary of "Neither right nor left", so I left it in the article. Then, Ravenswing brought a change in the article by indicating that "centrism" would be a better translation for English native. Since I disagree, I brought the change on the talk page to explain why I think it might not be the proper term. As I failed to convince him, I was ok to stick to his suggestion, because I know this user is undoubtedly neutral. But Azurfrog and his crew, in line with their usual method of doing, just removed that from the article, and justified that change with personal attacks. It leaded to an edit war and of course a notice for edit war where you can see all the explanation on this Azurfrog's crew way of doing. I guess it gives an idea on who is neutral and who is not. D0kkaebi (talk) 04:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC) D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable... [1] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after. [2] [3] he calls vandalism everything ! [4] he protects bad sources [5] WP:OR [6] & [7] & [8] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie) [9] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject) [10] removes a critical source [11] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [12] & [13] & [14] & [15] & [16] & [17] & [18] removes a critical source, canceling , addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest. --Francis Le français (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

rebuttal by D0kkaebi, rebuttal to rebuttal by Francis Le français, 15 September 2015

Just for information, Francis was blocked for a day for edit war and since that did not contain him from making same changes in the article, another case in on-going. So let me answer point one by one: Removal of 4 sourced information without explanation: Of course I revert and invite to discuss on talk page. Same change, same revert. Same change + removal of political positioning (neither right nor left) which is sourced here, here, here, here and here + questioning about validity of Radio Quebec source which is answered on the talk page here Request of "citations" for an already multi sourced information (neither right not left) Same changes as above, no justification Suppression of Lamayenneonadore local news website sourced information, no justification For that, I opened a new section in the talk page Removal of Dauphine source because Francis claims the article does not mention the political positioning even though the conclusion of the article is "We are beyond the right and the left" (nous transcendons la gauche et la droite). Of course, I revert. Here Francis claims Asselineau is member of UMP party when the source is saying that at the counsel of Paris, Asselineau sits with the UMP party. In France it is possible to sit with a party without being member of the party like Gilbert Collard is sitting with FN without being a member of FN. D0kkaebi (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC) More lies of a new genre: use a subject to hide all others, giving inaccuracies, making diversions. Your POV and WP:OR or bad sources (Lamayenneonadore) aren't legitimate justifications. IP open a subject on talk page with explanation - you revert for 4 months without any you calls vandalism a perfect change by ip with explanation on talk page ! a source that didn't match to WP:VERIFY (choq fm) you doesn't respond. Your explanation are WP:OR (original research) already warning. A information multi bad sourced is none, is wrong and is bad. Do you understand ? lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie). You don't explain that and hide beyond some other subject.. Lamayenneonadore isn't a reliable source. this was explained to you several times. open a new section of talk page don't give you the right to erase all criticism... The source doesn't contain the word "centrist" = Lie. Your POV and OR are wrong and lie. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie. explain on that ? --Francis Le français (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

More information and request for action by Oliv0, 18 September 2015–9 October 2015 – part 1

Note: I am back and I see this is going the same way as the absence of decision on WP:AN/3RR (added: and WP:AN/I), so let me summarize. The articles about François Asselineau and his party PRU are subject to PRU's activism on all Wikipedias (at one time the article about Asselineau existed in 102 Wikipedias), keeping them neutral needs more time than these little-known party and party leader are worth (this was one of the main points in the French AfD). Now Determining D0kkaebi's WP:COI (shown by Azurfrog above) will clarify things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages and will thus help keep the articles neutral, even if the arrival of new PRU activists is predictable. His accusations of "outing" when showing his COI, made here and at WP:AN/I, are probably groundless, else admins would already have removed the corresponding descriptions and links, but anyway if the limits of "outing" have been reached when saying he is a local party leader and using Google links that may lead to his legal name (interviews and social network accounts which he of course willingly published), then the solution is easy: remove and oversight these words (including mine now) and send them to functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org, which would not mean any change in the reasons for this COI/N. Oliv0 (talk) 09:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for COI

by Oliv0 – part 2

Let me summarize again the evidence given above for D0kkaebi/Lawren00's COI: "A quick research on the web linking Lawren00 and UPR ("UPR", Popular Republican Union, "Union Populaire Républicaine" in French) will lead to a Facebook account introducing the UPR delegate in Korea" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015), and this Facebook page answers the question "What does the position of Delegate consist of?" with a list of "areas of activist work" among which "developing the notoriety of PRU globally". (Oliv0, 13:14 UTC, 11 September 2015) → so far no Lawren00 except in Google's associations but wait; The UPR delegate mentioned on this Facebook page also appears unsurprisingly "in the organization chart of this small French political party (under the tab listing the "Delegates abroad", "Délégués à l'étranger")" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:45 UTC, 11 September 2015) with a contact email starting with "lawren00@" → first link between the UPR delegate and the name Lawren00; "Another very basic search simply linking "Twitter" and "Lawren00" leads to a Twitter account in Seoul, Korea, under the username of the UPR delegate and Lawren00" (Azurfrog, 09:16/10:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → second link between these; Lawren00/D0kkaebi's contributions show "a single-purpose account contributing nearly exclusively to articles centering on François Asselineau or his party. His only other significant contributions seem to be about Korean subjects" (Azurfrog, 09:16 UTC, 11 September 2015) → link between name Lawren00 on the Internet and on WP. Also note that the topic here is determining the COI, the actual bias is off topic here as per WP:COI "Conflict of interest is not about actual bias", as WP:COIBIAS explains in detail. Oliv0 (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Evidence for bias

by Oliv0 – part 3

I can see nothing will happen here if I do not follow Huon's advice on my talk page, so it seems I am forced by COI/N rules to show the actual bias, though I am sorry to worsen tensions this way and I thought the evidence for COI would be enough as explained in WP:COIBIAS. 21 February 2011: "patriotism", a positive word without a source 6 March 2011: making "Popular Republican Union" a disambiguation page with Popular Republican Union (2007) instead of keeping the name for the "dominant party in Alsace during the Interwar era" 9 March 2011: in the source added (now on archive.org) no mention of "the second highest honors" 27 March 2011: "patriotism" again for PRU though not in the source given (at the time this text on archive.org), which is the PRU website 9 March 2012: Asselineau in the ENA article among "famous alumni", all much more famous 25 March 2012: hiding the poor result (17 signatures out of the 500 needed) behind the need for secondary sources, the source removed is a video of Asselineau himself giving this number in his official declaration, a correct source since he cannot be suspected of giving a worse result 4 April 2012: same thing, now unsourced after he removed the source 9 April 2012: PRU in list of French parties with political position "gaul[l]ism, euroscepticism", gaullism is a positive word without a source 29 October 2013: Asselineau's thoughts on vocabulary in article Euroscepticism are hardly relevant 2 November 2013: "Gaullism" added (would need an independent source) and at the same time removal of PRU website source about not claiming to be gaullist and still being most gaullist of all 30 March 2014: removing as "vandalism" several good changes: the poor result of 17 signatures whose source he previously removed, the removal of "the second highest honors" not present in the source, the removal of "thoughtful" as a bad translation of the source sérieux ("serious" candidates, as opposed here to fantaisistes "fanciful, strange ones") 2 October 2014: removing as "no connection with political platform" a passage with a source (Le Plus, collaborative but here edited by a journalist Louise Pothier) about Asselineau's accusations against Le Pen/Front National, Bush and Marianne 12 October 2014: undoing as "ultra bias" (and trying to control through "expose your changes one by one" on talk page) a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style 20 February 2015: reintroducing "neither right nor left" without an independent source (only the party PRU says so) and membership figures quoted from the party (though maybe all parties do so) - many similar changes follow in an episodic edit war with IPs and then with User:Francis Le français 8 July 2015: removing newspaper Sud-Ouest showing doubts about membership figures (which also says Asselineau is "anchored at the right of the right") 24 July 2015: insisting with a ref ("the last sentence of the article") on "centrist", a bad translation of the source where Asselineau says (primary source, insufficient here) "we are beyond (transcendons) right and left" 30 July 2015: "Gaullism" back, and moderating PRU's claim they are "the most visited French political party website" by "one of" not present in the source (le plus consulté) - many similar changes follow in an edit war with User:Francis Le français 9 September 2015: undoing my changes, though I explained them and then checked about the COI with Lawren00 and warned about it on the talk page, which brought me to WP:AN/I for "personal attack" and "outing", and then here. Oliv0 (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Restart

Pardon me for folding the big discussion above, but this needs a restart. It seems reasonable for an uninvolved editor to ask D0kkaebi if he is a PRU party official, given that his former username on Wikipedia is the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing by giving the full name of the real-world person involved. The COIN process can go from there. – Brianhe (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a new template, based on Jytdog's way of handling COI questions: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Question (includes documentation). This has been posted to User talk:D0kkaebi which seems to be as much as needs to be done at the moment. He hasn't edited since a month ago. - Brianhe (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

IMHO we should let sleeping dogs lie... Vrac (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Answers by Oliv0 to calls for inaction, all off-topic of whether D0kkaebi has a COI

Some of them never sleep. Oliv0 (talk) 19:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Interesting, so could a francophone tell me, is this Groupe Wiki de l’UPR – Cybermilitantisme an active group/force on the French Wikipedia? Maybe what we've seen here is essentially spillover from a wider issue. – Brianhe (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Have you seen the (most recent) ANI thread? This battle has been going on for about 5 years and has spilled over into most of the wikiverse. There is a lot of history here. Vrac (talk) Also see my conclusion after your analysis there: "after determining D0kkaebi's COI will have clarified things about his predominant role on the corresponding talk pages, now keeping the two articles neutral against the predictable arrival of new PRU activists will suppose keeping constant watch", meaning that your suggestion to "bury the hatchet" (WP:DEADHORSE) cannot solve the problem. And to answer Brianhe's question: that "PRU wiki group" was only an ad-hoc group reporting on how Wikipedia is unfair and biased about Asselineau, I was hinting at their "national manager for Internet activism" (last sentence says Internet helps against Asselineau's "ban from the media", no details but WP is not the primary goal). Oliv0 (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC) You (collectively, the frwiki editors) have been on this crusade for years (absurd, absurder, absurdest) so I'm not likely to dissuade you. I'll leave you with a sentence from the German AFD as food for thought: Lehrreicher Fall von Cross Wiki Anti Spam Spamming. Wiki Jagdfieber (translation: Instructive case of "Cross-Wiki Anti-Spam Spamming". Wiki witch-hunt fever.) Vrac (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC) This is something I mentioned above (beginning of the closed box "part 1"), the article about Asselineau once in 102 Wikipedias, now 20 after a cross-wiki action warned about the French AfD, which may have been spam against spam but was helpful to the 82 (!) WPs that deleted it. Anyway, anything else than the COI report is off topic here. Oliv0 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not so sure it is off-topic. Perhaps the COIN case is just another angle to continue the same crusade. Vrac (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Whoever reports it, it is useful to determine whether there is a COI because of WP:COI "COI editing is strongly discouraged". Oliv0 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(off-topic part folded) No answer yet, @Jytdog and Brianhe: what is next in this way of handling COI? Note that D0kkaebi has frequently been absent for 3 or 4 months in a row, last time in Nov-Dec-Jan 2014/2015. And as I suggested Azurfrog on AN/I, the only thing I request here on COI/N is some community approval to use COI-related templates.

I think what I would use would only be {{Connected contributor}} on Talk:Popular Republican Union (2007) and Talk:François Asselineau/Archive 1 (maybe also the AfDs for François Asselineau, but this template is probably not intended for AfD pages). These are the talk pages where user D0kkaebi/Lawren00 has a predominant role and generally directs discussions, telling others about the rules. The aim is that unsuspecting editors reading them would not be fooled by his pretended neutrality, and could use talk pages normally without the influence of the COI. Oliv0 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a question for Vrac too isn't it? Anyway I'm not in a hurry to get into this. What's the rush? – Brianhe (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I did it so now my question is clear, no rush to answer, there can be implicit approval. If D0kkaebi does not come back within 3 months (limit for RCU data, at least on the French WP), it may also help remembering he may use a new account. Oliv0 (talk) 10:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Oliv0: Let's assume good faith and not jump to the conclusion that he will be back socking. However, I'm realistic and know that sometimes COI editors do this. We have ways of taking care of that if it becomes necessary. Can I have your permission to archive this case now? – Brianhe (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can I have at least some approval by experienced COI/N contributors like you for my two diffs I give above, that is the template {{Connected contributor}} on the talk pages of the two articles involved, so that in its "|U1-otherlinks=" parameter the link to this COI/N case could be a reasonable justification for it and could avoid its removal? So far the closest I have seen is your mention of "the same as the name of a Twitter handle used by a party official, plus I'd call this self-outing", and your allusion to "sometimes COI editors" just above. All opinions are welcome. Oliv0 (talk) 07:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked by @Oliv0 (talk · contribs) to weight in. Based on reading links posted here by OlivO, I came to the conclusion that, on one hand, accused user (D0kkaebi) is most probably a follower of UPR party (enthusiast, member or whatever) but also, on the other hand, that he has been both civil and trying to reach consensus. His interest is certainly a fuel for his writing and editing. It is no surprise people giving hard work on a small page like this will be either followers or opponents. In choosing to talk and find consensus he has proven he was willing to avoid conflict of interest from his part. On the other hand, his opponents also have interest (whatever it may be) in this page and hope to hide it... which in the end, sorry, didn't work with me. Nobody can hide behind neutrality. Nobody is neutral. Neutrality is to be reached together. Witch-hunting is also a conflict of interest. Now it is easy to judge. On one side an alleged follower on the other side alleged witch hunters. One tried to reach consensus together with opposing party. The others retorted to cheap tactics, deleting and calling themselves authority. What matters is less the "possible conflict of interest" of one side than the "conflict of interest at work" of the other. Now, I think it would be better people burry the hatchet... Or leave it to new contributors (english-speaking ones if it is not too much to ask). Tl;dr : not guilty. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On the talk pages that I mentioned I do see he directs discussions so as to reach in the articles what is #Evidence for COI, finding rules to oppose all other contributions even with correct sources, and his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus". It makes a sharp difference with people like Azurfrog and me who are really neutral (Francis Le français is less experienced on WP and may have done things in haste). As I said above, my {{Connected contributor}} on these talk pages means he only pretends to be neutral and nobody should be fooled, and approving this template or not is the only thing I am requesting here: do you mean it should not be there? What do others think? (@Brianhe, Vrac, and Jytdog:) (Note: the IP is French but I feel the command of English is far above all French users so far including me.) Oliv0 (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You said: "his style is generally far from being "both civil and trying to reach consensus"." I honestly have to disagree. He was indeed calm and civil at least until Azurfrog came in. And, I am sorry, but there is no way I could defend Azurfrog's behavior on that one. As much as I can agree there is a sharp difference between them two I rather saw benevolence on the accusee's side than on Azur's side. This said, he also seems a far less experienced user, as is also shown in his attachment to his contributions, which might have contributed to the situation. Finally, I rather separate Azurfrog's contribution from yours, as I noticed you at least have been correct with me, though I didn't side with you. I hope it is a sign you are not afraid of consensus yourself. P.S.: I indeed live in France and I begin to think this Asselineau page better be edited by people far from here. 80.215.170.172 (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Azurfrog came in" here, doing as I said in #Evidence for bias "a rewrite with some correct sources and in a rather neutral style" one year ago (trying to use only the best secondary sources found in the ongoing French AfD), D0kkaebi tried to stay in control of François Asselineau ("expose your changes one by one") but failed and stopped editing it, so D0kkaebi's patronising style and control of that talk page is not after but before Azurfrog came in. Oliv0 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing in a patronizing style while trying to find common ground is still civil (however unpleasant the patronizing might feel to some). Attempting to block articles and deleting other's work together with lack of communication is not, whatever write-style is used. Just my two cents... Anyway, I can't comprehend how this debate moved here. This is not French Wikipedia. Anyway, about the {{Connected contributor}}, if it is indeed necessary, I think it should come from him, not us. For me, at this point it is both unproven and useless. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is what this page COI/N is for: determination of the COI coming from us, not him. #Evidence for COI is above. Oliv0 (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

What are we talking about? A global corporation? An all mighty lobby (like pharmaceutical, weapons or GMOs)? Is a small party like this even able to pay anybody? What is at stake? That a party that small, that broke and with so little means of expression be labelled leftist, rightist or neither? It would have to be very important for me to support violating someone's privacy and anomimity on the net just for that. I think it's not and I stand by these values. It's the usual question of security against freedom. Respect for privacy and anomimity on the net are precious tokens of freedom. Let's not retort to fascistic methods. Let's try to find a better idea. And once again, it is clear some people who wrote about this party are in a COI from an opposing source (not to mention anybody here out of courtesy, but Rudy Reichsdadt, seriously???) and these sources are both able and willing to pay for it (e.g. the French socialist party has a notorious history of doing just this). Neutrality in politics is a fragile thing. The accusee would maybe better admit his links (if any) on the condition he would be protected from consequences. History taught us finding the common good is key. P.S. Aren't we all blowing this thing out of proportion? 82.227.169.24 (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So does COIN consensus determine that D0kkaebi=Lawren00 has a COI for articles François Asselineau and Popular Republican Union (2007) so that the relevant talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}} ? No need to consider any off-topic discussion above, only #Evidence for COI. (Added note: Azurfrog too would like contributors not to consider the IP's personal opinion that nobody is neutral and that he — a French admin who greatly contributed to some of the main guidelines there a long time ago — is an unexperienced user with a wrong behaviour, but rather consider his explanation of why the COI is blatant.) Oliv0 (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. I said D0kkaebi didn't seem experienced. Never said such thing of Azurfrog. Don't put words in my mouth. Thank you. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That was "he also seems a far less experienced user" in my last link above, so it seems you meant it to explain the "attachment to his contributions" of the user with a COI D0kkaebi/Lawren00, who has contributed so much and so loudly for many years in many AfDs, Delrevs and talk pages about Asselineau/PRU on the French WP and here that I did not see he is the one you call less experienced. Oliv0 (talk) 07:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, your message isn't decipherable for me. 82.227.169.24 (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, on the French Village Pump recent and older media exposure has been found and the article about Asselineau now has good chances to be restored and kept, so I started the Delrev fr:WP:DRP#François Asselineau (32) (yes the 32nd one, this is how much French admins have been pestered with this), which brings some hope that the English WP will no longer be the main place for information about the man and the main playing ground for his fans. Oliv0 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

My last two cents here: The COI in which D0kkaebi is involved is blatant, and clearly demonstrated by the links I could provide within the limits of WP:Harassment (summarized above by Oliv0).
So I won't expatiate any further on the subject: it's now up to the sysops to make up their minds whether or not there is enough evidence to decide. As far as I am concerned, I just tried to help protect NPOV here; if nobody cares, I won't either and won't pursue the matter. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Charter School Growth Fund

• Charter_School_Growth_Fund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Acolliercsgf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears an employee edited the page. The account name includes a name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalina3112 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 October 2015

Diego Grez-Cañete

• El Marino (online newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted at AFD)

• la:El Marino (Latin)
• sco:El Marino (Scotts)
• yo:El Marino (2013) (Yorùbá)
• es:El Marino (Spanish) Deleted for spam, lack of notability 10/16

• El Expreso de la Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pichilemunews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted at AFD)

• es:Pichilemu News (Spanish) Deleted for lack of notability 12/2013, deleted as recreated redirect 9/2015
• ru:Pichilemunews (Russian)
• sco:Pichilemunews (Diego Grez-Cañete is an administrator on Scots wiki!)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Marino (online newspaper)

User

• Diego Grez-Cañete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (note block log)

Other accounts

• es:usuario:Diegogrez Indef blocked on eswiki for self-promotion
• es:usuario:Diego Grez C. Indef blocked on eswiki as sock of Diegogrez
• Küñall (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (user page redirected to Diego Grez-Cañete, talk and contribs under Küñall)
• Diego Grez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (renamed to Diego Grez-Cañete)
• Lester Foster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (redirected to Küñall/Diego Grez-Cañete)
• MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (moved to Diego Grez-Cañete, deleted G7 on enwiki, problem history of MisterWiki account) (indef blocked on eswiki)

A conflict of interest has already been established and admitted between Diego Grez Cañete and his website El Marino. El Marino (online newspaper) was a redirect that he recently turned into an article that is a REFBOMB of self-published, self-written, and hyper-local sources. The user has stated that this is ok because COI editing "is discouraged, but not prohibited". It could use some more eyes. Vrac (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A similar concern was already up in 2014 when Diego's site Memoria Pichilemina was discussed. There must be much more conflicts of interest related to this user but since he has moved around 5 different usernames since 2008 or so it is difficult to track all activity. There also reason to believe most Pichilemu people and newspapers/radio stations he wrties about have some relation to him since the town has only 13,000 inhabitants and Diego is very interested in journalism. Sietecolores (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that history; in light of recent developments I would say that AndyTheGrump's analysis at the time was spot-on: he isn't going to stop this gross abuse of Wikipedia facilities for the purpose of personal gratification until forced to - by topic-ban and/or block, as necessary. Vrac (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Added El Expreso de la Costa, WP article created and maintained by Diego Grez-Cañete who has an apparent conflict of interest with this org, being used as a source for El Marino (online newspaper), . Vrac (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Added Pichilemunews, same situation as El Expreso de la Costa. This is a walled garden with these websites sourcing each others' WP articles, all with a conflict of interest. Vrac (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• The issue with Diego is that he tries to promote himself or subjects very close to himself (his newspaper, his school, or his schoolmates?). He has tried to do so over a long period of time. He should by now know the rules, otherwise he is just gaming the system. Another problem is that Diego tries persistently to cover Pichilemu with such a depth that is not compatible with WP:GNG. Do not mistake me. Diego is good editor, who can if he wants create really good content. He just need to stop editing about topics too close to himself and way to local to be relevant. Sietecolores (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Un-retirement and sock puppetry

• Diego has un-retired (not much of a surprise) to turn Pichilemunews into a redirect. I'm going to nominate it for speedy delete G4 but if the past is any predictor of the future, this will probably turn into an edit war. Pinging AFD participants @Sietecolores:, @Softlavender:, @SwisterTwister:, @Scourge of Trumpton:. Vrac (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• Protect if needed as I'm not seeing anything convincing. Muchas gracias por el ping, mi hermano Vrac. SwisterTwister talk 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
• 191.112.27.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Surprise, surprise, the above IP address that geolocates to Chile just reverted my speedy nomination on Pichilemunews. Vrac (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Diego Grez is just Wikipedia:Gaming the system. I find this situation detrimental to both his own interests (be a journalist/publisher) and Wikipedias. Sietecolores (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to see how he has gotten away with it for all these years. Pichilemunews was deleted G4 by one admin, and a different admin declined the speedy on El Marino (online newspaper) because it is a redirect. Diego has created variations such as Pichilemu News and Pichilemunews.cl; this could go on forever. Without consistent support from admins the system is being successfully gamed. Vrac (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• He has created hundreds of articles about the village of Pichilemu, and sourced them all to his newspaper Pichilemu News [19]. All of those articles need to be deleted, and most any article that links to Pichilemu and/or to Pichilemu News should be deleted. In terms of his massively gaming the system, this is a case for ANI (where he has already been called up several times) and possibly also ArbCom. The case is very widespread and intransigent. Softlavender (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• New ANI filing: [20]. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Softlavender, yes an Diego Grez has a more stories back in time (I don't have time to dig into that). It does not matter to have uncivil and disruptive behaviour in the past if the used has changed that. Everybody deserves a fresh start. But Diego has had chances to recover and still he insists in such immature behaviour. PS. let me know about any deletion nomination i would like to see if any content can be savaged. Sietecolores (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sietecolores and others, please check the ANI again, as there is a proposal now. Softlavender (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• If I understood corectly, the user is from the small town of Pichilemu, with only 13000 inhabitants, and is writting articles about this small town, including refferences from the newspaper Pichilemu News and website El Marino, where he is personally involved. Definitely, 99,9% of humankind and 99,9% of wikipedians don't care about Pichilemu, but if we keep in mind Jimbo Wales vision of Wikipedia as a sum of all human knowledge, then articles about this small town have their place here. Nobody will argue against an entire Wikipedia in a language spoken by only 13000 people. As Pichilemu has only 13000 inhabitants, probabily Pichilemu News is the only newspaper there and El Marino website one of the few, if not the only websites dealing in details with events from Pichilemu. If you want to write about Pichilemu, probabily Pichilemu News or El Marino are the best, and sometimes the only sources you can find about this unimportant (for 99,9% of us) topic. I would preffer to see at Wikipedia articles about Pichilemu with sources like New York Times, but what to do if New York Times never cared about Pichilemu? I would say is a conflict of interest if the user is pushing Pichilemu News as a source in Wikipedia articles about New York, but using Pichilemu News as a source for articles about Pichilemu doesn't look so evil to me.MariusM (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This is all well and good except for the fact he apparently writes (or is heavily involved with) that newspaper. Should he be allowed to create Wikipedia articles based on sources he in turn creates? --LjL (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Conley family

• Conley family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Roger Cameron Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ORCA (Internet currency platform) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Around Conley family
Promotional editor who started this page.

• Renzoy16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPAs involved
1. Only edited Conley family

• Waterbot24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RazorbackLaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BillFD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Shomberg2104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scanlinfp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BlackAmericanWest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pharmafacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JohnDElder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ScottGroup (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drsindex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WillStatus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fastfoodtrivia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BuffaloSoldierfacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mechanicslibrary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NorthwesternResearch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2. Those with other edits

• Auburnhill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Only substantial edits are to Conley family
• Buckeyefollower (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also an edit of Mike Conley, Jr., linking to Conley family
• SchmoburgCntr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also an edit of Mike Conley, Jr., linking to Conley family
• EmeryvilleReminder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) also a Conley family related edit at 1911 Kentucky Derby [21]
• CaliforniaHistoricalSociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Other edits include adding a Conley to Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History [22] and another to Moorland–Spingarn Research Center [23] and another to Tuskegee Airmen [24]
• Aucenterlibrary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding the Conley falimly to Hazel Green, Alabama [25]
• WrightCenterArchives (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding Conley family to Steve Conley [26]. adding Conley family to Maurice Cheeks [27]

3. Others

• BluesLover2389 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Blocked sock of MrColorado2014. Multiple edits of Conley family. Created Binford Harrison Conley, Jonas Conley, Paschal Conley II, Houston Conley and Roger L. Wood (father of Roger Cameron Wood, "a member of the Conley Family."
• Dfgaines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Linked Conley family from Larry Elder
• Sportswatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Adding Conley family to Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University [28]
• Exitsource (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Adding Conleys to Vernon Baker [29] [30]
• 67.161.237.129 Adding Conley Family to Vernon Baker [31]
• Tonycja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Adding Conley Family to Eva Beatrice Dykes [32]

Around Roger Cameron Wood, a member of the Conley family

• Ilnyc8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) creator of that page and ORCA (Internet currency platform) which was cofounded by Mr Wood. Had created the previous incarnation of Conley family.

SPAs invovled
1. Only edited Roger Cameron Wood

• Spellsimple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Techsave (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fordsjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gropiusfact (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Suetterlin707 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snbohr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Democratfact (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MichiganAFAMDEPT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ComputerMuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SneakerHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NashvilleHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DallasMornNews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BasketNelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ColumbiaUalummonitor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Erxelpilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Corrections2012 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• USCtechnologyclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cindislist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IABbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikialabama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Web2.0bios (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MorehouseEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sharpedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Erelpilo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2. Those with other edits

• ComputingMuseum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) putting Omnipoint (a company R.C.Wood was with) into Text messaging [33]
• Focalpointfecta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) adding Roger Wood to Wardlaw-Hartridge School [34]. adding Roger Wood to ORCA (Internet currency platform) [35] adding Roger Wood to Amobee [36]

3. Others

• FierceWorldStats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) puting Wood into Push-to-talk [37] and Text messaging [38]

See also the following post from Index theory taken from Talk:Roger Cameron Wood
begin quote "
Sock puppetry?

first try

• Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2007-09-04: Amobee Media Systems ("This request for creation has been declined")
• 13 September 2007: The article "Roger Wood" has been speedily deleted (User talk:Gx2320)

we never give up

• User:Gx2320 started the article Amobee, 6 September 2007
• User:Ilnyc8 started three articles:

1. Roger Cameron Wood, 6 November 2009
2. ORCA (Internet currency platform) ("co-founder Roger Cameron Wood")
3. Conley family (Wood "is the 4th generation of the Conley family members to attend Morehouse & Spelman")

• User:MorehouseEdit (only edits: Roger Cameron Wood)
  • User:Web2.0bios
  • User:Wikialabama
  • User:IABbot
  • User:Cindislist
  • User:Sharpedit
  • User:USCtechnologyclub
  • User:Focalpointfecta
  • User:Delchoness
  • User:Corrections2012
  • User:Erelpilo
  • User:ColumbiaUalummonitor
  • User:ComputingMuseum

--Index theory (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
" end quote

There is other SPAs putting Conleys into other articles that have not edited the above three articles.

What we have here is a mass of paid editing, promotion and sockpuppetry surrounding these subjects. Thoughts? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

My first thought when I saw it was sockpuppetry. It ought to be reported. 00:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Start at WP:SPI, and notify mentioned editors of this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Alleged conflict of interest and attempted outing at Romanian Wikipedia

• Romanian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Romanian Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MariusM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Pafsanias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Turbojet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Accipiter Q. Gentilis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am a Wikipedia editor at both English and Rumanian Wikipedia. I started contributing at Wikipedia at 2006. In 2007 two bureaucrats at Romanian Wikipedia accused me of conflict of interest and made attempted outing against me, based on the fact that I made contributions in articles related with Romanian Revolution. They asked my permaban at Romanian Wikipedia. I didn't make a formal complain about the attempted outing, I thought to let the community to decide if I was wrong. The community decided in my favour. Those two bureacrats were hurted in their ego by the fact that the community decided against their will and continued to harrass me. Other people who were on my side on the debate were also harrassed. Actually, almost nobody who was on my side in the conflict of 2007 is still active on Wikipedia. Myself, I stopped contributing at Wikipedia in 2008, because of harassments, however I had no formal interdiction. After that I made only short returns, almost only with comments on talk pages, not with editing articles. This year I returned at Romanian Wikipedia as I saw that an article about a leader of Romanian Revolution of 1989 was proposed for deletion. After that, harassment started again against me, I was blocked twice for "trolling" (there is a policy at Romanian Wikipedia which don't exist at English Wikipedia, based on which users can be blocked for "trolling"; I asked the deletion of this policy and this was also considered "trolling"). I was again accused of conflict of interest (keep in mind that I had almost no edits in articles' mainspace from 2008), and attempted outing was made again, in several Romanian Wikipedia pages, including my own talk page at Romanian Wikipedia. I tried to remove my attempted outing from my talk page and I was reverted, accused of "vandalising" my own talk page, and the nature of the block was changed, in order not be able to edit my own talk page. (after that, other accusations were made on my talk page but I am not able to answer). Any protest against attempted outing at Romanian Wikipedia is considered there as Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. I've asked through e-mail User:Pafsanias (who is admin at Romanian Wikipedia) to oversight the edits where refference was made about my possible real-life identity (one of them was made by him) and he took no action.

I mention:

• I didn't write at Wikipedia an article about myself or about a family member, while there is at Romanian Wikipedia an admin who wrote articles about himself and about a family member, and nobody cares about conflict of interest.
• I didn't write an article about a personal friend or a person with which I have common commercial interests.
• I was accused of conflict of interest because I suposedly participated in the Romanian Revolution of 1989 and I edit Wikipedia articles on this topic. While I don't want to disclose my real-life identity, I do not deny my participation in the Romanian Revolution. There are hundreds of thousands of Romanians who participated at the Romanian Revolution, and around 20000 registered members of more than 100 associations of former revolutionaries. In my opinion, the aproach from Romanian Wikipedia, to accuse of conflict of interest persons who participated in the Romanian Revolution of 1989 if they are trying to contribute in articles related with this Revolution, while not making such accusations if supporters of the former Communist regime (overthrown by the Revolution) are trying to contribute at same articles, is hurting the NPOV.
• In English Wikipedia my main area of interest was not Romanian Revolution, but Transnistria. I was even involved in the arbitration case about Transnistria where the arbitration comitee decided no sanction against me, but sanctions for all my opponents. It was a good decision, after that edit-warring in Transnistria-related articles stopped. However, in both English and Romanian Wikipedia I made some edits in topics related with Romanian Revolution.

I realized that the accusations of conflict of interest which were made against me at Romanian Wikipedia can follow me at English Wikipedia (recently, after a 5 year absence, I made few edits at Romanian Revolution). I want to know the community opinion, if is indeed a conflict of interest for someone who participated in a big historical event like the Romanian Revolution to edit Wikipedia articles related with Romanian Revolution? But if he is not editing such articles, but is expressing opinion in talk pages or articles for deletion debates (as it was recently my case at Romanian Wikipedia) about articles related with the Romanian Revolution?

Also, I want advice about the attempted outing which was done against me at Romanian Wikipedia. As after 2008 the number of my edits on both Romanian and English Wikipedia in the mainspace of articles is negligible (in English Wikipedia I made 13 mainspace edits in 2010 and 4 mainpace edits in 2015, no edits in 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 [39]; in Romanian Wikipedia I made 1 mainspace edit in 2009, 11 mainspace edits in 2010, 1 mainspace edit in 2011, 11 mainspace edits in 2015, no edits in 2012, 2013, 2014 [40]), I do not consider myself such a danger to Wikipedia in order to justify the attempted outing, even in the eventuality that a conflict of interest exist. While in 2007 I tolerated the attempted outing in order to let the community to decide if is something wrong with my behaviour (and the decision of the community was in my favour), I don't want to accept new attempted outings today (the new attempted outings and 2 blocks for "trolling" against me at Romanian Wikipedia occured after I was against 2 nominations for admins at Romanian Wikipedia). I want oversighted the edits in Romanian Wikipedia which attempted to out me even against the will of admins at Romanian Wikipedia. I don't give specific DIFFs as it will mean to further expose the attempted outing. I will give the details to the person who is willing to oversight those edits.

I know it is not normal to bring problems of Romanian Wikipedia at English Wikipedia, but I don't know how to solve my attempted outing problem, as the Romanian Wikipedian community seems to consider WP:OUTING acceptabile and even positive. I listed 4 wikipedians involved in this case, while only I am involved in a possible conflict of interest (for which I ask the opinion of the community). User:Pafsanias and User:Accipiter Q. Gentilis are involved in attempted outing (Pafsanias also blocked me twice and Accipiter Q. Gentilis asked twice for my blocking, request accepted by Pafsanias), while User:Turbojet didn't make a clear outing, he only wrote that I am a revolutionary and he knows I will deny that I am a revolutionary, but this is wikilawyering (suggesting that my opinion against the deletion of the article about the leader of the Romanian Revolution is not a legitimate opinion; however, at the end the article was recovered). I never ever denied that I was a revolutionary in the Romanian Revolution of 1989 (I didn't confirm it either), but from Turbojet's writings I saw that he trully believes that it is a conflict of interest if I express opinions about articles related with the Romanian Revolution, this is why I listed him as an involved part. I don't list the 2 bureacrats from Romanian Wikipedia who attempted to out me in 2007 because this is an old story and they didn't repeat the attempted outing recently.-MariusM (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

We have no influence over the Romanian Wikipedia here. John Nagle (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

We potentially do have influence if active ENWP users with advanced privileges on the Romanian Wikipedia are outing people in significantly harmful ways (I haven't looked at this enough to tell if it's the case, but even without going to the stewards or something I would feel perfectly comfortable blocking an active ENWP user if they continued to out people on other WMF projects. Obviously blocking them here would only matter if they care about editing here. That said, this is probably a more appropriate matter for the meta stewards or the office depending on the severity of outing involved.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Abhishek Agrawal

• Abhishek Agrawal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Authorabhi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Krish512 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 122.175.163.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

SPAs for article Abhishek Agrawal. Authorabhi not communicated about COI concerns raised on his talkpage a week ago. SPA anon editor recently added same author to list of greats at Indian literature. Brianhe (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Article is now at AfD. – Brianhe (talk) 10:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

EagerToddler39

• EagerToddler39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jassy pal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

articles edited

• Theodore Harold Maiman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y cleaned by Brianhe
• Context Relevant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slidely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Endgame, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Laser bonding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y cleaned by Nagle
• Phobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y cleaned by others; academic refspam for Levinson?
  • Biological theories of dyslexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y ditto? [41]
• Warnborough College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y wikiwashing referenced diploma mill allegations
• A. J. Hackett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hypnosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - refspam for hypnosishypnotherapy.info [42]
  • Psychotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto
  • Anxiety (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto
• Flexenclosure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y cleaned by Smartse
• Worldview Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Coffee preparation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - refspam [43] (cleaned)
  • Enhanced water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto
  • Hydroxycitric acid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto
  • Coffee wastewater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto
  • Home roasting coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto
  • Chlorogenic acid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ditto
• Binary option (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - refspam [44]

articles created - businesses

• Roger Smith Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y cleaned by Brianhe
• High-Tech Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mobile Fun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Swap-O-Matic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crest Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y cleaned by Brianhe
• Mercia Fund Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Computer Troubleshooters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

articles created - businesspeople, professional servicepeople, entertainers

• Kjell Halvor Landsverk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eugene Patterson Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hernan Lander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Soojin Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Horace Alexander Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sean Macias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Carly Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Loree Rodkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Yaariv Khaykin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Marcos A. Rodriguez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jose Roberto Antonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

articles created - other

• Conductive wireless charging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Y cleaned by others
• Sports hypnosis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - refspam for hypnosishypnotherapy.info

There is solid off-wiki evidence that this editor has worked for hire on Theodore Harold Maiman. Reviewing their editing history shows a concentration of topics of commercial concern such as Roger Smith Hotel, Endgame, Inc., real estate developer Jose Roberto Antonio, etc. The edits to Laser bonding look like a virtual advertisement for a particular company (diff).

This pattern has been noted on the editor's talkpage by Bilby (here), Looie496 (here), and Themfromspace (here).

In a previous COIN discussion the editor neither confirmed nor denied paid editing. — Brianhe (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed this editor active at Flexenclosure which rang a bell. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 88#Amalto and others. - Brianhe (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Toned down the Laser bonding article a bit. What else needs attention? John Nagle (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nagle, thanks. I've marked some articles as "cleaned"; pretty much everything else could be reviewed, especially articles created by this editor. I will send them the usual uw-paid template but not sure I'll be able to follow up on it. If other editors could keep an eye on their contribs and userpage, that would be helpful. -- Brianhe (talk) 08:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

One more note. FrenchFriedAnything created the article Worldview Entertainment, which was later expanded almost 50% by this editor. FrenchFriedAnything is a Morning277 sock. – Brianhe (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Found Context Relevant job also listed in the same off-wiki source as Theodore Harold Maiman. There is no doubt in my mind that this is undisclosed paid editing. -- Brianhe (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit history of Slidely is informative. There is just one after another confirmed or suspected sockpuppeteer and/or undisclosed paid editor, starting with Formatpainter, a checkuser-confirmed sock, and including BiH who's now blocked for promo editing. – Brianhe (talk) 11:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Jassy pal edited together with ET39 at Mercia Fund Management, High-Tech Bridge, Mobile Fun. – Brianhe (talk) 11:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify this, EagerToddler39 was doing paid editing for a long time - there's enough evidence (especially offwiki) that there's no question that this was the case. However, as far as I know they having been engaging in paid editing for a few months now - in part, perhaps, because they haven't really been editing. I never saw anything to suggest that they ran sockpuppets or similar - like often happens, you get a fair bit of overlap between paid editors, as a client might hire two-three editors now for a single job, or they might hire different editors for the same article over time. - Bilby (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

FFBFFB

• FFBFFB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chris Christian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Savannah Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Home Sweet Home Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FFBFFB was reported at WP:AIV as a "spammer", but since the behavior of this editor isn't obvious as a mere spammer, I'm bringing it here to defer to this noticeboard instead. FFBFFB's edits are promotional and, in my opinion, they have the appearance of a paid PR effort. I invite more experienced editors here to have a look and respond accordingly. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Chris Christian seems to have problems. It claims he's won several Grammy awards, yet I can't find them in the official Grammy database.[45]. Citations at both Chris Christian and Home Sweet Home Records are very weak. Google searches are not bringing up reliable sources. A Grammy-winning musician should have more press visibility than this. Am I missing something, or is something badly wrong with these articles? Help requested from someone who does music articles. John Nagle (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Referred to WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Chris_Christian. John Nagle (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Columbia Theological Seminary and related biographies

• Columbia Theological Seminary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Every article created by Jcstanley - this is a list of approximately 29 biographies. Apparently all current or former faculty at Columbia Theological Seminary.
• Jcstanley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The most serious problem here is that this user has ZERO Talk edits^{(Tool Labs Report)}, despite repeated attempts to make contact.

Jcstanley activity centers on Columbia Theological Seminary, and a slow steady indiscriminate mass-creation of biographies for individuals connected to Columbia Theological Seminary. Approximately one new biography every 25 days, FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS. The biographies are beautifully constructed from technical standpoint, but they are heavily tagged for lack of Notability and Sourcing. The articles that aren't (yet) tagged are just as bad. Impressive looking "publication lists" include items like blog posts(OMGWTF). "Awards" sections get filled with a long series of research grants. During Deletion of John_William_Harkins there was discussions of mass-review and mass-deletion of these biographies. Discussion continued on my talk page and with three people commenting at User_talk:Jcstanley#Welcome.2C_but_we_have_a_problem. My hope was that Jcstanley's participation would reduce the workload of sorting out the mess, and possibly salvaging articles if any are actually Notable. Jcstanley ignored all comments and pings, and TODAY created Jeffery Tribble and added it to Columbia_Theological_Seminary#Current_Faculty.

I still hope to get Jcstanley's help cleaning up this mess. We need a formal COI, all articles will need COI notices, and I suspect it may take a temporary block to get Jcstanley to use Talk. Alsee (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I dropped a note on his or her talkpage as an uninvolved party urging engagement with the community. - Brianhe (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

They've been given a first warning as of 1 December, and haven't edited since, but it's been less than a day. I proposed Paul J. Johnson for deletion, per WP:NACADEMICS. Let's see what happens next. John Nagle (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've seen similar projects before years. The acceptability of doing this depends on two factors: the apparent notability of the individuals, and the non-promotional nature of the bio. (Copyvio is frequently present in such cases also, but in some instances the individual might be willing and able to give permission, altho the material will generally still not be usable.) As for notability under WP:PROF, about 25% of these are either former presidents of the school , or holders of endowed professorships--tho this is an independent college and not a major university, I'd probably consider such people notable, and if the obvious COI editor had confined himself to them, there would be much less of a problem. (endowed Associate professorships, btw, have generally not been considered to intrinsically meet WP:PROF.) For the others, WP:PROF depends upon publications, and probably a many of them will meet the requirement. (As a complicating factor, we have in the past differed about considering non-scholarly works for this purpose, and often not considered it met by people writing entirely minor pastoral books and the like). And there is always the possibility of WP:GNG. If someone wants to help, the first thing to do is check against the college CV for copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to list a few additional prods, to try to reduce the number that need consideration at AfD. They all will, unfortunately, haveto be considered separately, as they will all have different degrees of notability. I do not think a joint nomination will be fair. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Rhema Media

Paewiki posted to ANI about persistent problematic edits to Rhema Media. Turns out the usernames involved all connect to the organization in one way or another, so seemed relevant to mention here. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Rhema Media. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Trimmed out much of the hype. We need a station list with call signs, transmitter locations, power, and frequencies. John Nagle (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Grace Dieu Manor School

• Grace Dieu Manor School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Gallop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The page on this school, which was the scene of sexual abuse crimes, has had a fairly stormy editing history. A relatively recent SPA is The Gallop, whose latest edit summary reads "reinstated a verified list of previous headmasters supplied by the Trustees of Grace Dieu Manor School". I've twice left a WP:COI warnings on the editor's talk-page, apparently without effect. More eyes, please. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

If there's a source for the list, it would normally be considered appropriate content. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Matthew Causey

• Matthew Causey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Causeym (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A short bio created nine years ago with few sources has apparently become a vanity autobiography, still inadequately sourced. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's a blatant copyvio from https://www.tcd.ie/research/profiles/?profile=causeym. I've stubbed it. Voceditenore (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for finding that. It was even worse when I first came across it [46]. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-notable geezer, vanity article—surely a suitable candidate for AfD? Writegeist (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The article was created in 2006 by User:AJ Raymond, not Causey [47]. I find that often articles on academics are created by their students or colleagues. Causey only started attempting to "improve" it this year. In any case, he might scrape notability at an AfD; he has considerable library holdings and citations. Voceditenore (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy

• Wikipediocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Only_in_death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stanistani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Writegeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SB_Johnny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dan Murphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the article talk page the above editors have declared conflicts of interest. But some have put themselves on the list, taken their own and other names off the list, and essentially played around with the template. My feeling is that anybody can put their own names in the template or other names in the template if those others have openly declared a COI. My hope here is that the COI editors will quite playing around. Possibly the play has gotten to the point of harassment. In particular the possible harassment is directed toward @Coretheapple:, who does not seem to have a conflict of interest (certainly not by any definition at WP:COI) and whose name keeps being added to the COI template by others, with Coretheapple, myself, and 1? other, removing it. My apologies for dragging anybody into this but the COI editors seem to be insisting on it. I'll just inform them by a note on the article talk page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"Smallbones" and another guy ("coretheapple") hate that website and are editing with an agenda against it and its members. That's a conflict of interest, to be sure. But since they're Wikipedia game players, they won't allow the reasonable thing to be done - to recognize that there's plenty of opinions to go around, and that people who hate article subjects with the blazing power of the sun are not fair arbiters of content or conduct. Of course it won't be handled that way - which makes this whole "process" beyond farcical. (Elsewhere, this thing "smallbones" lied and accused me and a bunch of other people of "harassment" - a crime I am not remotely guilty of.)Dan Murphy (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The template is for those with declared COI - so that readers will know who declared. No one else goes there, as much as you hate them (or their POV) or they hate you (or your POV), so put only those self-declared there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:Advocacy is not WP:Conflict of interest. Don't tag people as having such when they don't have one. LjL (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Alanscottwalker and LjL. Having an opinion, whether positive or negative, of Wikipediocracy is not a conflict of interest. No one who has not added themselves to the list should be added by someone else on the basis of having such an opinion. Anyone who has chosen to add themselves to the list should not be removed by someone else without the first editor's agreement. Adding or removing editors in this way is contrary to policy – as is referring to an editor as a "thing". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In my view, the purpose of the "connected editor" template is to alert readers and fellow editors to situations in which someone who is actively editing an article, or has contributed a significant portion of the article, is so entwined with the article content as to raise meaningful doubts as to its neutrality or reliability. In this instance, I'm not sure the "connected contributor" template is necessary, and I am certainly sure that a template with a dozen names is not. This sort of navel-gazing bickering about this particular article is unwise and counterproductive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. COI disclosure is about disclosing COI, so that others can do with that information whatever they think make sense for them. As for involvement, that is also a matter of record, and if a person involved in an article or article talk page wants to declare COI, let them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

NYB: You're right. Not least because we went through the exact same thing in April last year. I pointed that out to "Figureofnine" as soon as he or she had added it back to the talk page, but the hint wasn't taken.  — Scott • talk 13:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sometimes when I make an obviously stupid suggestion I forget there are stupid people who might take it seriously.... But since we are here - the connected contributor template is designed to alert editors that someone connected with the article has edited it. In the case of a discussion forum/blog where the *subject* is wikipedia and its editors itself, EVERYONE who has a registered user there, or has been the subject of threads/blog posts, is connected to the article. When that discussion is largely negative as in the case of say Jimbo, if he started editing the wikipediocracy article, he would have a COI in that any edits he makes are suspect due to the ongoing criticism of him. While AGF assumes that an editor is making constructive edits, when those edits are largely negative or clearly designed to belittle wikipediocracy (see Coretheapple's contributions, an editor who also has been the subject of less than complimentary commentary at wikipediocracy) its not a big jump to go with 'retaliation'. The 'interest' in Core's case is that by reducing/belittling the wikipediocracy article he lowers its reputation, and therefore the perceived validity of anything there (including criticism aimed at himself) thus serving his own interests.

What he failed to realise, is that use of the template means that if anyone makes edits to the wikipediocracy article, all someone has to do is go to wikipediocracy, open up a thread or two about their editing history, and boom, instant connected contributor (this is not a suggestion to do that, but it is a logical outcome of using the template).

Since the only real reason for having the template is to 'shame' wiki-users here (Alison has come under particular harrassment in this regard over an extended period, despite being one of the most trusted users and having an unblemished record of service on wikipedia to be envied) the template is just a bad idea in this case. However since it is used, it should not be used as a weapon to push editors agenda's. Either everyone with a potential COI is gets listed, or no one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what suggestion are talking about. But your statements are incorrect, a COI is a stake or a financial interest. A stake is established by a formal/familial defined relationship with an article subject, wheras a financial interest is determined by remuneration. The footnote in WP:COI is clear that anyone's feelings do not make a COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, would you also say Qworty had no COI? See the Wikipediocracy article for background if you're not familiar with that (as yet unresolved AFAIK) situation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 16:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) As already said above, ADVOCACY is not COI. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Damn the spirit, polish the letter? Wow. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about Qworty, but SB_Johnny, you have a declared COI and you have edited the article nevertheless, and before you declared that connection. Will you undertake now to comply with WP:COI and cease editing the article and make the appropriate disclosures per WP:DISCLOSE? Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was being POINTy. What are you doing? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 02:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec, responding to Only in Death) Hello? I didn't put up the COI template, Figureofnine did. Figureofnine was right. He had no "COI" no matter how much the fans of the subject try to pervert the meaning of the term. If you look at his edit that sparked this torrent of angst from friends and fans of the subject of the article, you can see that he added one editor to the template, the self-declared co-founder of the site, User:Alison. Alison edits both the article itself, the RfC I started on use of the word "investigate," and the AfDs that have sprung up over the years. In any other article this would not result in much reaction. I mean, it's a slam-dunk. It is required by WP:DISCLOSE, which she ignores as if it is some kind of irritating imposition. Well! Such an insult could not go unavenged. That calumny set off a chain reaction of grandstanding. There was a frenzy of "I am Spartacus" dramuh edits by friends of that conflicted editor, trying to show solidarity with her by declaring their COI, to make the connected contributor template as long as possible. I was added, of course, because hell they don't like my edits and this is their article, gosh darn it!

This is fine. They do have COIs because they say they do. (They weren't grandstanding or being disruptive, God forbid). You were one of them, so you have a COI, self-declared. Does everyone who edits Wikipedia have a COI? Uh no,. Does everyone who has ever been mentioned negatively on that site have a COI? No again. For otherwise, what that means is that you give external parties the right to bestow a COI on Wiki editors. I could care less about what someone says on an external site about my user account. It doesn't impede my ability to engage in my livelihood, which is not editing Wikipedia. Yes, it may well be that some of the posts on that site constitute "external harassment" or whatever. Again, we don't let external harassers (if that is what it is) to bestow "COI" on Wiki editors.

My suggestion is that if you feel that my starting an RfC on use of the word "investigate" (a subject first raised by that other editor, not conflicted even by your crazy definition) was such a terrible thing, such advocacy, even though I do believe that my position is supported by a plurality of the non-conflicted editors, then I suggest that you rush on over to wherever it is that such things are adjudicated. Maybe you'll get a WP:BOOMERANG, maybe not. I look at that article talk page and I see all sorts of misconduct, personal attacks, plenty of disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Not everyone who edits wikipedia has a COI in relation to wikipediocracy. Everyone who edits wikipedia and is the direct subject of criticism on wikipediocracy and decides to edit the wikipediocracy article does have one. Due to the potential for biased editing. Which I made perfectly clear above. Its 'connected contributor' template. You are a connected contributor no matter if you self-declare it or not. Its a ridiculous template to have on the talk page due to the wide-ranging scope of connected-ness inherant in a website that is devoted to investigating, exposing and commenting on wikipedia editors. Which should be plain to anyone with half a brain. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No. You do not understand what a COI is. It exists when there is (formal, familial or financial) relationship. It is not a value judgement on anything, nor anyone. It just is or is not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To bring up a point that I don't believe has been raised. @Alison: - I better ping her - the self-declared co-founder of the site has never objected to her being added as a connected contributor in the template. Indeed, I've not seen any comment from her whatsoever on that point. I note also that an effort was made, without success, to coax User:Alison to discuss the subject on her user page and she declined to do so. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this edit by User:Alison, in which she added another user to the template. So clearly she has no objection to either herself or others being added. I assume that the editors who added themselves to the template don't object to their being there, or they wouldn't have put their names there. I see no disruptive intent. I see COI editors (including Only In Death, op cit) making a clean breast of things. Coretheapple (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Edits by conflicted editors

Given that the editors pinged above have declared a conflict on the talk page and/or added themselves to the conflicted contributor template. WP:SELFPROMOTE states "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, friends or foes. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions." Some of the editors pinged above have declared COIs but nevertheless edit the article. This is an active and continuing problem. Coretheapple (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

XacBank

XacBank is a Mongolian financial institution. There is a Wikipedia entry here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XacBank

In August 2015 a user named "Xacbank" made rather extensive edits to the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xacbank

This user eventually was banned, but their edits remain. Should all of their changes simply be rolled back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:301:14F0:E940:9D09:3363:7803 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Neil Palmer Photography

• Neil Palmer Photography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Armvecciol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I just nominated an article for deletion - Wasaphone. Within the opening paragraph, there is a statement that the company is run by "Tom Hackwell of Armchair Committee." I followed the redlink to the article and see it was an article created by the infamous Orangemoody. I will assume good faith at the moment and trust that these articles are NOT connected by socks of Orangemoody. However, here is why I found it interesting. The creator of Wasaphone also created another article - Neil Palmer Photography. From reading some of the history of Orangemoody, I believe there were a lot of photography articles created by socks. Not sure if it is coincidence or something worth closer at. --CNMall41 (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, Neil Palmer Photography looks like it could be AfD'd as well as a not-notable company -- samtar ^whisper 10:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

How about York Place Studios as well? - Brianhe (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of those articles seem to lack WP:ORGDEPTH notability and should be sent to AfD in my opinion. Any similar articles created by SPAs should be scrutinised.- MrX 12:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree - marked both AfD -- samtar ^whisper 13:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)