User talk:Earl Andrew/Archives 20

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Canadian federal electoral redistribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chezzetcook.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Christian Tolusso for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christian Tolusso is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Tolusso until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SL93 (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Earl Andrew!

Happy New Year!

Earl Andrew,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring on Mykola Kostomarov

Hi. I picked your name at random from the list of recently active admins, to ask for assistance rather than writing up a huge explanation at AN/I.

I’ve been trying to get the lead paragraph of Mykola Kostomarov to reflect the subject’s notability for well over two months. He is considered a founder of Ukrainian national identity. Including this in the article or giving it due prominence is opposed by Ушкуйник (talk · contribs), who is a serial de-Ukrainianizer of biographical articles about people in the Russian empire that had anything to do with Ukraine.

At this article our discussion came to an impasse, despite my offering sources supporting. I asked for a 3rd opinion, then an RFC, and now a second RFC because the respondents in the first did not address the entire question. I have edited the lead to conform to the text recommended by the 3rd opinion, which was supported by the 1st RFC.

The offending editor keeps changing it to minimize the subject’s chief notability as being associated with Ukraine, disregarding what came out of the dispute resolution:

• My edit to conform to the 3rd opinion text.[1]
• Their revert.[2]
• My undo.[3]
• Their revert again.[4]

The article is subject to discretionary sanctions under the Eastern Europe and the Balkans subject area.

Thanks if you can help.  —Michael Z. 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac: Hello, I'm not sure I'm the best person to arbitrate this, as it seems to be a debate as to whether to list Ukrainian or Russian first, and that's not something I can make a decision on. It doesn't appear that a consensus has been reached on the talk page yet.-- Earl Andrew - talk 03:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you.  —Michael Z. 04:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Farry Island for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Farry Island is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farry Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

–dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Canadian federal electoral redistribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Scarborough North.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Entry on Portal:Current events/2023 February 10

Hi Earl Andrew,

I wanted to let you know that I have reported a IP to SPI, relating to a recent revert of an entry you placed to Portal: Current Events. I believe that the IP may be related to evasion of a recently placed block.

You may add any further information/thoughts that you may have to the SPI and follow-up conversation relating to the block itself.

Carter00000 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Riverview Alternative Public School

The article Riverview Alternative Public School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails GNG and NSCHOOl. On the Wikipedia:All high schools can be notable, it states that a elementary school needs to be notable, or have a notable event to stay or become a article. This one is clearly not notable, its just a regular public elementary school.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. `~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 15:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Shaun Collier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shaun Collier is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaun Collier until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SecretName101 (talk) 01:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 Alberta general election

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 Alberta general election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Gouzenko Affair

On 27 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gouzenko Affair, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that the Gouzenko Affair marked the beginning of the Cold War in Canada? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gouzenko Affair. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Gouzenko Affair), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2023 Word Men's Curling Championship standings

Template:2023 Word Men's Curling Championship standings has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rob Lobel

The article Rob Lobel has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 Canadian federal electoral redistribution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silverthorn.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Ridings

Hi. I am working on updating the articles on the Saskatchewan ridings in advance of the upcoming provincial redistribution. I saw some of your recent edits and was wondering if you would be able to help establish a standard on which of the "new" ridings created over the years (starting with recent history) are actually new and which are just existing ridings that were renamed. I am less familiar with the urban constituencies than I am with the rural ones, hence is why I have saved the most difficult for last. :-) Look forward to hearing your insights. Thanks. Brycecordry (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Brycecordry: There really is no standard that I'm aware of, but I do know we should try and avoid original research when it comes to these things. Personally, if the plurality of a predecessor riding's territory can be found in the new riding and vise versa, then I'm fine with them sharing the same article. This was not the case for the Regina riding's I split up. When creating new articles myself I usually have a stricter policy (90% of the territory in common) but this is admittedly arbitrary, but at that threshold it's pretty clear it's basically the same riding. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. So for the upcoming changes, I would say that Regina Mount Royal is a new riding, and Regina South Albert is a re-creation of the old Regina South that was dissolved last redistribution. Do you agree?

I am also torn on what to do with Saskatoon University-Sutherland and Saskatoon Stonebridge. University Sutherland is very similar to Saskatoon University, which itself strongly overlapped the 2003-2016 Saskatoon Sutherland. And the changes between Saskatoon Stonebridge were no different than when they shrunk in Saskatoon Southeast last time. But the changes there are drastic enough that it could be considered a new riding.

Brycecordry (talk) 03:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Brycecordry:, if it were up to me, I would be creating new articles for all of those electoral districts, as none of them are close enough to their predecessor ridings to share 90% of their territory.-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for this insight. I have created/updated all the articles for all the ridings. Most of the urban ridings I just added the switcher for the map to display the old/new boundaries. I also created the pages for the new-created ridings and updated the pages for those ridings being dissolved. The only one I deviated from your suggestions was Regina South Albert...the new boundaries are close to 90% similar to the 2003-2016 Regina South boundaries, so I count that as a re-creation instead of an entirely new riding. At your convenience, could you go through the articles and check my work? You seem to know more than I do, especially with the rural areas and I am getting involved in more things outside of Wikipedia. Thanks again for your work on these pages. Brycecordry (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Brycecordry:, I checked with ridingbuilder.ca, and it doesn't appear to be 90% similar, but it's similar enough that I don't think anyone will care. I'll probably have a better look at these articles at the next election. Keep up the good work! -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "The Maritimes"

Greetings and felicitations. I noticed that you reverted my edit to The Maritimes without comment. What about my edit did you find objectionable? —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Pardon me—not "without comment", but without giving a reason. —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@DocWatson42: Hello, my sincerest apologies. I was on a bumpy train ride while looking at my watchlist, and I must've accidentally hit revert. I've reverted my revert. Cheers. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Standard Templates for Ottawa Elections

Hi. I've noticed that you've been involved in editing articles related to Ottawa municipal politics. It appears that the election result templates are not standardized. For instance, compare Shawn Menard and Ariel Troster. I was wondering if you had any sense which template is correct or better. I note that 2022 Ottawa municipal election uses the template in the Troster article. Additionally, do you know if there is a committee or project for these articles? Thanks Andwats (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Andwats:. Hello! Nothing formal has been decided for election templates for municipal elections, that I'm aware of. The ones used at 2018 Ottawa municipal election were created by me, while the ones created at the 2022 article were created by someone else. That's the only real difference. As for places to discuss this issue, WP:OTTAWA exists, but is pretty dead these days. WP:CANADA is fairly active, and there's WP:WPE&R, so if you really want to to open up a discussion, I would start there. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll check them out. It would just sort of look nicer. Andwats (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 Canadian electoral calendar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint-Alphonse, Quebec.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Category:Triple Gold Club has been nominated for deletion

Category:Triple Gold Club has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. User:Namiba 16:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:When the Rubber Meets the Road.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:When the Rubber Meets the Road.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. — Ирука¹³ 07:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with copyright law, any way you could help me out with this? The sculptor is Gerald Beaulieu. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You either need to prove that the artist released the sculpture under a free license, or re-arrange the image as non-free. You can use this file as an example. — Ирука¹³ 13:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

PWHL Draft edit

Hi Earl Andrew,

Re: Hannah Miller in the 2023 PWHL Draft article, as far as I know, there has been no definitive statement about her having Chinese citizenship, just speculation. It is known that a lot of the athletes that competed for the men's and women's hockey teams at the 2022 Olympics did not renounce their other citizenships, which would typically be a legal requirement to obtain Chinese citizenship. Furthermore, the PWHL itself listed her citizenship as merely Canadian. But the whole situation with those athletes is definitely lacking in clarity. My instinct, given what we know, is to list only Canadian citizenship, but I think it's a fair discussion and I'm not too fussed about it! Other justin (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. FWIW, I noticed Sportsnet listed both countries for her. But anyway, I don't think we should be speculating about her citizenship, we should be using reliable sources for her nationality. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ekos Research Associates

Hello, Earl Andrew. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Ekos Research Associates, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. I note here that you created the page in 2005 and have routinely edited this page over the intervening years, often adding unsourced content or unreliable content sourced directly from the company's website. This content was often of a promotional nature that seemingly only an employee or other close relationship could be aware of. Your user page acknowledges that you have an explicit connection to the company. Please abide by WP:COI. I assume good faith and am happy to discuss the facts. Balancingakt (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

== Proposed deletion of Ekos Research Associates ==

The article Ekos Research Associates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original creator of the page has an explicit conflict of interest as an employee of the company, as noted on their user page. The article struggles with WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT using business promotional language and its only sources from the company website itself. The business the article is about lacks significance in third-party, reliable sources. The article itself is fruit of a poisoned COI tree.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Balancingakt (talk) 04:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting here, Earl Andrew, that you edited my rationale for proposed deletion to remove reference to your conflict of interest. That is wildly inappropriate and I have reverted the edit. Your repeated disregard for WP:COI, despite repeated good faith warnings, is very concerning.

Understand that you are in direct, material conflict as an employee of Ekos and you need to refrain from directly involving yourself in edits to the article, including the proposed deletion. The media has several times drawn attention to companies that engage in COI editing on Wikipedia (see Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia), which has led to embarrassment for the organizations concerned.

Final warning. If you continue to disregard WP:COI, this will be escalated to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for further investigation and action. Balancingakt (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I edited the template, not the article itself. You used widely inappropriate and inaccurate language in the template, which doesn't do your case much service. But whatever, you've clearly got a bee in your bonnet, and are trying to correct some perceived notion of impropriety that doesn't exist. All the power to you. It is not worth my time to engage with someone with such an absolute vendetta. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The language you removed was: "Original creator of the page has an explicit conflict of interest as an employee of the company, as noted on their user page" and "The article itself is fruit of a poisoned COI tree". None of that is inaccurate and the language is careful and civil.

The record shows you claimed in the talk page that you were not in conflict when the article was originally created. That may be true. Regardless, the fact remains that you made numerous, substantial edits to the article in the time that you did acknowledge you were in direct, material conflict as an employee.

There is no vendetta and to suggest otherwise is uncivil and in bad faith. You have been unable or unwilling to see that your article lacks notability, sourcing, and is essentially a promotion for your employer--all starkly against Wikipedia policy. Now you have attempted to edit my words and rationale to remove all language making any reference to your conflict of interest--very inappropriate and raising further concern as to your intentions.

I spoke with you respectfully and in good faith throughout this process, in recognition of your substantial long-term contributions to Wikipedia. From what I have seen of your behaviour and self-awareness, I am increasingly worried that your contributions may be doing more harm than good. If your intentions are to assist Wikipedia as a source of truth and public good, rather than a platform for advancing your personal interests, please try to learn from this experience. The policies are in place for a reason. Balancingakt (talk) 17:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The statement "Fruit of a poisoned COI tree" is ridiculous beyond belief, and not the proper language for such a template, which is why I removed it. I have been very open and transparent about my work history at EKOS, and have made it very clear that I have not made substantial edits since taking my current position. To suggest otherwise is an outright lie on your part. Am I assuming bad faith on your part? Absolutely! You have given me no reason to believe otherwise. You think I'm part of some conflict of interest plot to promote EKOS; your reasoning sounds downright conspiratorial. You have not been respectful to me; you have been quite patronizing to me, suggesting I am not familiar with basic Wikipedia policies, as well as suggesting that I am trying to advance my own personal interests, and doing more harm than good. If this were the case, I would have been banned from this site a long time ago. At this point, I do not wish to engage with you any further, because I do not think we can see eye to eye at all on this matter. Your conspiratorial views, outright lies and patronizing language has made it impossible. Good day. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Where's the conspiracy? You claimed you joined Ekos in 2006. The record shows you made 13 edits to the Ekos article since that time, preserving your original version and adding substantial promotional content while in direct, material conflict as an employee of Ekos.

Fruit of the poisonous tree is a common legal metaphor. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the "tree") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as well. You may not agree with the metaphor and can note that in the talk page. Editing my rationale to alter the record and remove any reference to your conflict of interest is extremely inappropriate.

While your original creation of the article may or may not have been made while in conflict, the fact remains that the article is tainted by substantial edits you made while in direct, material conflict. Further, the article itself does not meet the test for notability, has zero sourcing, and its primary informational purpose is to promote a private business--all valid reasons for it to be deleted.

I have been respectful, receptive, and very patient with you throughout. You seem to be unable or unwilling to recognize the clear violations of Wikipedia policy in the article and in your behaviour. There is no conspiracy or personal attack in any of this. It all comes back to clear, existing Wikipedia policy. The choice is yours if you want to learn and improve from this. Happy to discuss further. Balancingakt (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2016 Tim Hortons Brier logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2016 Tim Hortons Brier logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Peter Julian & Bruce Hyer COIs

Hi Earl Andrew,

Related to our discussion on your connection to Ekos Research Associates and its ownership, your user page also acknowledges that you interned in the offices of Peter Julian and Bruce Hyer. Histories indicate that you also have a long record of making substantial edits to those individuals' pages.

I understand we can get sensitive about having conflicts brought to attention and/or our contributions questioned in that light. You may not believe me, but my intention is not to attack you. My intention is to ensure accuracy of information and adherence to Wikipedia policy and to help other contributors (and myself) improve in the process.

I want to reach out to you in advance of any activity or warnings on my end. Given your disclosed connection to these individuals, what in your mind is the appropriate response in light of WP:COI? Balancingakt (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to run through my edits to those pages. I interned for Peter Julian (mostly as a volunteer) from 2006 to 2008 and Bruce Hyer from 2011 to 2012. I acknowledge I had a conflict of interest at the time, so you will want to review my edits during that period for neutrality. I have always attempted to make neutral, unbiased edits, even while interning for them. But, understanding my COI, not everyone may see it that way. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You do not believe that a conflict exists beyond the specific period you worked in their offices? You sought out a position working for those individuals, likely developing some form of continuing relationship and personal rapport (positive or negative) with them. Beyond a relationship, it seems likely you would now have some personal investment (positive or negative) in the representation of their political legacy given your work as part of it.

Do you believe that background should be clearly disclosed to other Wikipedians working on those articles? Balancingakt (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't made any substantial edits to the Peter Julian article since 2010 and the Bruce Hyer article since 2012, so no I do not believe I have a current COI. As stated, you are welcome to review all of my edits to either article and review them for possible bias. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy states that one should disclose one's COI when involved with affected articles (see WP:COIEDIT and WP:DISCLOSE). Either the conflicted individual or a third-party can make that disclosure on the talk page. Do you believe that should be done in these two cases? Balancingakt (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have found Earl Andrew to be a competent and neutral editor in my interactions with him. Do you have particular edit differences that highlight his continued COI? Bkissin (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Bkissin

Wikipedia has clear policy on Conflict of Interest. Individuals should not make any edits to any articles to which they have an external relationship (see WP:COI). Earl Andrew, to his credit, flagged on his talk page that he has external relationships to several articles he has been involved in, including one as a paid employee of that company. We are sorting out now how to ensure those pages meet WP:COI and other policies. Balancingakt (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I certainly see what you mean. WP:COI does mention that editors are strongly discouraged from making edits on pages in which they have an external relationship. While EA may have slipped up in this particular aspect (thirteen years ago), is there anything within those edits that is egregiously WP:NPOV? (one of the biggest concerns we are looking for with COI editors).

While I understand you are currently on this particular case, if you are interested in fighting COI editing, I invite you to join us at articles for creation, where we face a nearly daily deluge of COI and PAID editing. But I definitely understand if you'd rather go after individual editors instead. Bkissin (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation Bisskin. I look forward to join you at articles for creation.

I do not need you to change your view. However to ensure an accurate record: this is not just a single slip up from years ago. Earl Andrew over several years and until very recently made multiple edits of a promotional nature to the article on the company he works for, the article on his boss/employer, and has added links highlighting his current company in other articles. That is only what I have found to date, barring his work editing the articles on politicians he has worked for. He has been concerningly uncivil and unrepentant when this has been brought up. You may disagree but I believe Wikipedians generally and the public that uses Wikipedia expects better. WP:COI is clear and it exists for a reason. I commend you for identifying and abiding by that policy in your own areas of conflict. Balancingakt (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You have failed to cite a single one of my edits that were of a "promotional nature". I have been quite open about my past conflicts of interest, yet you keep hounding me about it. It has gotten to the point where I feel you are personally targeting me, so you wonder why you feel I've become uncivil? You want me to be repentant? Fine! I do regret making conflict of interest edits, however benign they were in nature. Because I feel you are beginning a WP:WITCHHUNT against me, I no longer wish to discuss any of this with you directly.-- Earl Andrew - talk 12:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I have identified multiple of your edits that are promotional and, more concerningly, in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. WP:HOUNDING and WP:WITCHHUNT do not apply here and are not meant to be used as bad faith shields against legitimate criticism. This is not a broad, punitive investigation of your entire Wikipedia history. I am trying to work with you to understand and resolve only the specific violations of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy that you identified. If you do not want to civilly engage in resolving things, that is of course your prerogative. The record will reflect that choice and your behaviour for others to consider.

The potential violations of WP:COI remain. I reached out here as a courtesy, before acting on solutions in line with policy. If you are disengaging from any discussion or resolution, is it safe you say you do not object to the course of action for solution (eg flagging the conflicts on the article pages and/or raising this situation with the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard for input)?

Be well. Balancingakt (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)