Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 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:


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The user Klermodalwonfeyz has refused to answer any questions about their potential COI with Vivek Ramaswamy when asked by multiple editors, and has instead continued to edit the article repeatedly, re-installing the same edits after they're reverted for inserting a non-neutral POV.

On 26 August, User:Neutrality reverted a series of edits made by this user on the grounds of them having a promotional tone and poor phrasing. Klermodalwonfeyz made more edits immediately after this, which Neutrality again reverted on the grounds of POV. Klermodalwonfeyz again made more edits to the article, which were reverted and a question was left on Klermodalwonfeyz's talk page about their potential conflict of interest, due to the promotional tones of their edits.

There was no response to this question, and on 9 September, after clearing their talk page of some notices, they again began editing the article - there were a series of edits that day. The next day, User:SPECIFICO left a note on the user's talk page asking them to respond to Neutrality's question.

There was, again, no response to this question, and the user continued to edit the next day without responding. Having the page on my watchlist, I noticed the edits and the strange phrasing and awkward language that Neutrality had noted in the very first diff in this report. For example, they introduced sentences such as:

  • In after thought during an interview, Ramaswamy reflected "cult like" to some affirming advocacy rights groups 'is what this LGBTQIA+ movement has become'
  • Ramaswamy believed supporting same-sex marriage in the United States when, for example, [...]
  • Ramaswamy did not taken a public position on the [..]

I reverted to the last good version, and went to their talk page to leave a notice about this awkward phrasing, where I saw the two previous requests to respond to claims about COI. In my notice, I mentioned the awkward phrasing, the usage of what appears to be phonetically-spelt English in edit summaries (this edit summary is... "ad sayt. muv bodom tu top.") and again reiterated that they needed to respond to this COI question.

There was, for the third time, no response to this question, as they continued to edit - even having been reverted by multiple users (User:David O. Johnson reverted their changes once and twice to the last good version). When the editor added these changes again, including the chopped-up sentences highlighted by David O. Johnson in his revert rationale, I reverted, noting that they still had not responded to any of the COI questions... only for them to continue editing the article within hours.

After FIVE attempts (three on their actual talk page, two in edit summaries) to ask them to answer this question, there has been absolutely nothing from this user, barring an edit summary in phonetically-spelt English which to the best of my reading ability says something about being asked for "payments of interest" or "ransom", further heightening my concerns. In my eyes this case borders on a WP:CIR one so feel free to direct me to ANI or another venue, but given the clear issue with COI, I'm left with no choice but to file a report here. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 16:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And not even a half an hour after this noticeboard report was filed, the user has again edited the page to reinstall their previously reverted changes. A pageblock from the page above and Vivek Ramaswamy really needs to be considered at this point. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The user's edits are not improvements and the garbled unintelligible edit summaries make it impossible to parse the changes. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The disruptive conduct is continuing and even escalating. I think this is more of an WP:AE issue at this point. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had been tempted to file at ANI before this report, but as the user has now (finally) addressed the COI situation on their talk page but continues to edit disruptively, I would not oppose further escalation - though I'm entirely unfamiliar with AE procedures so I may have to leave that to a more experienced editor. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 17:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eric Johnson (Texas politician)[edit]

The bots at AIV recently caught this heavy editing of the article on the mayor of Dallas. All have come from IPs ... some from a range in the Philadelphia area, the most recent from the static Dallas one linked above. In the last series have been some large removals of sourced content as "inaccurate". It also seems a lot more positive, fluffy content has been added. Per Ad Orientem's comment at AIV, this needs a look from someone familiar with, or willing to get familiar with, the situation to distinguish the good edits from the bad. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with the above comment. The page history, in particular some of the recent editing, raises some yellow flags in my mind. (courtesy ping @Daniel Case) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason for these edits has now become clear: Today Johnson announced he is formally switching to the Republican Party. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Todd Newton[edit]

Editor has been forthcoming that they are Todd Newton. Now we need more eyes to counter WP:OWNERSHIP issues, like overloading images. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see this edit string for a clear statement "My name is Todd Newton ...." - Arjayay (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been going on for years, involving many IPs and at least one other registered account, Carmcarp1 (talk · contribs), now dormant. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That talk page section linked to and this one on their talk page indicate that it is a shared account and I will block on that basis, but of course the COI issues are also glaring. SmartSE (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Singaporean politicians and people[edit]

This user has been editing various Singaporean politician and people's articles, usually adding promotional or resume-like prose, particularly on K. Shanmugam. It may suggest a COI or paid relationship with these subjects. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 02:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted the political career in K. Shanmugam to before these edits. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 10:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have reviewed all the pages they edited and removed the text I found promotional. Darylgolden(talk) Ping when replying 00:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see the editor's user talk page, particularly their not making direct and straightforward replies to questions about undeclared paid editing 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't seem interested in following rules on disclosing. If they come back, the editor should be blocked. I've put the draft on watch. scope_creepTalk 20:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allan R. Bomhard[edit]

The user in question blanking the entire article and replacing the content with unsourced information which pointedly lacks any of the criticism present in the original article. I reverted and left a COI note on his talk page, but that was shortly followed by reverting my revert and putting back the unsourced content (diff of the original and edits in question). The user isn't extremely active on Wikipedia by any stretch but they've been warned in the past for COI edits and their edit history is exclusively a laundry list of COI issues (Allan R. Bomhard is one of the most active authors in both theories, which are typically considered fringe theories within linguistics). I think this is a clear case of WP:NOTHERE, but also there's a nine year gap between the edits in question and today.

Just to disclose my own COI of sorts here, I recently (unsuccessfully) AfD'd the article in question. Warrenmck (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I accepted this draft at Articles for Creation. Off-wiki coordination on the developer's web site was then pointed out to me by User:Ferret. See . I have reverted my acceptance of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To fully document: The founder of the project, Ragnarsvensson, created the article originally, which was deleted in 2014ish by PROD. Masem created a redirect around 2016. A member of the team, Britzl, tried to recreate it in 2020 and was reverted and warned of COI. Following this, Britzl posted as a representative of the team on their forums, offering free games to editors who would create the article for them. This resulted in a draft by WDeri77, which was declined and G13'd. 17 days ago, Britzl again bumped their forum post, encouraging multiple forum members to create another draft, with other official team members encouraging it. This draft was sorely lacked reliable secondary coverage, but was plastered with misleading primary sourcing. That version is now currently back in draft space. -- ferret (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just went through and removed the ad content and sourced as much as I could. Would you give it a second take? HolmKønøman (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:HolmKønøman - Probably not. "Once burned, twice shy." Some of the reviewers are wary of being taken advantage of again. If there was ad content in that had to be removed, then that indicates that you were sneaking ad content into Wikipedia. We don't "owe" you a timely re-review, and if you have to wait three or four months, that is your own fault. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully respect that, and I have no expectation of a speedy review for a niche draft article with a foggy history (I was more looking for feedback to whether I was doing sourcing right because I haven't done it before), but I'd also appreciate if you would AGF with me as I in fact have never interacted with the Defold draft article before, never submitted it for review, and was not responsible for any of the content on the page. All I did was remove problematic content from a Draft page, not the first time I've done it and probably won't be the last. Accusing me of "sneaking ad content into wikipedia", or attributing the state of the article as "mine own fault" without even so much as checking my history seems very argumentative. I am proud of my contributions to WP and while I certainly haven't been around the block as long as you have this isn't my first day. Contributing WP and doing vandalism patrol have been hobbies of mine that I engage in from the back row of the classroom since I joined. At the end of the day I'm here for the same reason as you, to maintain an encyclopedia. Thank you. HolmKønøman (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HolmKønøman:, I am curious how you came across the draft. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been on my watchlist for years, you can check for yourself. I never tried to create or edit it before now, though.
HolmKønøman (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking for a UPE article[edit]

I've found an ad for a job which a blocked user has taken. It contains some information about the subject of the article which has been created recently (last 2 months at most): an author who has written 14 non-fiction books, contributed to many others and had a long career as a journalist with the weekly LIFE Magazine and Cleveland Plain-Dealer. I haven't been able to find the article myself, but if anyone else can work out which article it is, please let me know so I can block the creator and G5 the article. SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smartse Searching for " 14 non-fiction books" reveals
Graham was too long ago, as was Snook, as was Friedlander
Sorry, I was so hopeful and fell at the first hurdle. I presume you have tried this? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smartse More research suggests Ronald H. Bailey. Right time frame. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smartse I used this as my search. If Bailey os not the one, modifying this search may bear fruit 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timtrent: Yes that looks to be the one! Thanks very much! SmartSE (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smartse there were enough clues. You should start an SPI if this is block evasion. There may be more that a CU can fined. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Timtrent: Yep I shall do, but based on past experience with the master, they are unlikely to turn up anything. It's this master in case you're curious. And annoyingly nobody participated in that discussion :/ SmartSE (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smartse If nothing else it will document what has been discovered. We can only do our best. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Casey Donovan[edit]

User who has edited articles without disclosing conflict on interest, potential to have used other IP addresses and user names too. Happily888 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academic spamming: Bartholomew Hulley[edit] A PhD thesis titled French Comics in English by Bartholomew Hulley has been getting cite spammed by various IPs and Phdacademicgenius such as in Special:Diff/1161075974 and Special:Diff/1161082869. Graywalls (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed all instances of Bartholomew Hulley's French Comics in English which were inserted by those two mentioned in this report. Graywalls (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Required disclosure for paid admin advising[edit]

There is a proposal at the village pump to add a new COI disclosure requirement. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising. – Joe (talk) 11:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clif Payne[edit]

The standard autobiographical COI issues--addition of unsourced, anecdotal content, name dropping, etc. I reverted once and left a COI notice, to no avail. This is an interesting promise of intent [1]. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scarlett Harlett[edit]

Huge additions of unreferenced text in their own article. Adding themselves to another article, George Green's School, with a reference that doesn't even mention George Green's School.[2] COI warning on talk page but apparently ignored. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress: user in question is communicating at User talk:ThaddeusSholto. —C.Fred (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard A. Cohen[edit]

Truedad21 has existed as a single-purpose account for editing the BLP Richard A. Cohen, a proponent of conversion therapy, since March 2019. Of their 140 edits, 100% are either edits to the BLP itself, its talk page, or disputes with other editors regarding Mr. Cohen. Many of these edits have been reverted as promotional in nature or otherwise undue. In March 2019 Truedad21 also uploaded two images of Cohen, listing each one as his "Own Work".

After refusing to answer questions about a potential COI with Cohen first raised in 2020, he has recently stated definitively that he has no direct connection with the subject [3] and (after some additional prodding) that he had selected "Own Work" when uploading the images in error [4]. Curiously, these image are labeled as having been created on 19 February 2019, about a month before Truedad21's account was created, yet later he claimed that these images were obtained from the source (PATH) by request. The photo exists on a number of bookcovers and websites independently of me.[5] Were the photos made widely available between February and March 2019, just as Truedad21 decided to create his account?

There have been some accompanying intemperate remarks from Truedad21, though they are not egregious: suggesting that others are trying to "cancel" him [6] and accusing me specifically of acting in bad faith because of an ideological distaste for Cohen's work [7]. Of course I do agree with mainstream psychology that conversion therapy is fringe, but my main concern here is that this editor's behavior really does not seem like that of an uninvolved person. I'd be curious to hear what others on this noticeboard think.

The second account I've listed here, Lukehhuneycutt, is an odd duck. It's made only one edit, a post at Talk:Richard A. Cohen supporting Truedad21's point of view [8]. The account was created four days before its first (and only) edit, which is often considered a red flag for sockpuppetry.

You can read the relevant article talk page discussions here and here. Discussions of Truedad21 and COI can be found at user talk pages here (and following) and here.

Please note that I do not consider any of this dispositive that Truedad21 is lying about not having a COI with Cohen, but I do think that it warrants more eyes on the situation –– and that perhaps CU may be warranted to check against sockpuppetry with Lukehhuneycutt. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur that Truedad21 is likely lying about their connecton with Mr. Cohen, and probably does indeed have some kind of COI. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mad River Brewing Company[edit]

Someone here might want to take a look at the recent history of Mad River Brewing Company and contributions of User:Madriverbrews. At the very least, the username fails WP:CORPNAME. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reported on Usernames for administrator attention. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 04:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Éric Mickeler[edit]

Promotional biography of a commercial auctioneer, written by a SPA. Could use some heavy trimming. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP has deprodded with the nonsensical reasoning that he "probably passes WP:PROF", despite having never published a scientific paper. As such I have nominated it for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Éric Mickeler. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crowdfunded vehicle article slash brochure[edit]

People of the noticeboard might want to take a look at Aptera (solar electric vehicle). I just removed a section on options that was sourced to company brochures. There are other dubious WP:PROMO-ish things going on, especially section Configurations, also cited to the crowdfunding website or the brochures and/or press releases. The article's creator, Fotoguru received a PROMO warning on their talkpage. Their response to my inquiry about a conflict referenced an investment but I'm not going to dig into it; people reading this are welcome to take whatever action is appropriate next. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started but got pulled away. Looks like it can be almost stubified once the unreliable, primary, or non-independent sources are removed. Too much cited to the company website or WeFunder. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added another article, almost exactly half of the references are the corp site also. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cortex Command[edit]

There has been significant edit warring in the aforementioned page (pretty much all of the recent history is that), which I personally believe to be related to self promotion.

For context, there was a recent community schism. One half of the schism is not and has not attempted to link to itself in the wikipedia page, however the other group controls a page that has been linked for some time. I believe that consistently re-adding the link to this page constitutes self-promotion, and that most likely when it was originally added in this edit it was also self promotion then. I cannot prove this as both the original addition of the link and all following edits to re-add it were made by IP addresses, but I believe the high degree of engagement in consistently re-adding the reference in an otherwise relatively inactive article circumstantially implies this to be the case.

There was an attempt to discuss this in the talk section however the edit war has continued without much engagement there from either side. It was suggested by User:Deepfriedokra that a COI be declared and that involved parties stop personally editing the page. I have personally stopped editing the page aside from recently reverting a change made by another person in my community.

I did attempt to find and notify the involved parties, however the only individual who has an actual account was the aforementioned fellow from my own community.

Thanks for any review.

-- (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will note that several of Cortex Command's developers have been directly involved with the CCCP. For example
Weegee and Cavecricket42 have directly contributed (as seen here they are listed on both the CCCP and original Cortex Command credits
Furthermore the project is linked as a pinned post by a developer on the Steam forums (
As such, in my perspective the CCCP project is directly related to Cortex Command and it's developers in a way that mods are not. The existence of a project that's directly linked to both the original developers and is involved with the development process of Cortex Command itself feels like a significant piece of information, and does not strike me as self-promotional. Causeless1 (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll note however that I'm directly involved with the project. I didn't add the reference to the project initially though, and have no idea who did. I initially discovered the project via the wiki reference. Causeless1 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The aforementioned original developers have not been engaged with the project for some time and their contributions are present in both forks. (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is no reliable, secondary source mentioning the follow up project(s), the Wikipedia article shouldn't have mention either. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peso Pluma[edit]

User is repeatedly removing the image on the page and/or adding copyrighted images claiming the artist's team does not want the image on the pages. They have continued making these edits after being notified of a potential COI and is claiming to speak for the artist. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have blocked them 24 hours for violating 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Only edits have been to add content to the Stacy Spikes biography, some of it promotional in tone (writing in Wikipedia's voice with no source that MoviePass is a vital hub whose events offer a unique opportunity for filmmakers and audiences, headed by a person whose work there prompted a reevaluation of the way audiences engage with movies in theaters), some of it publicity photos and scans of book covers, some of it copyvio text from promotional material. No response to multiple talk page messages asking about a possible COI, and they've failed to take on board a uw-advert2 warning asking them to write objectively. Belbury (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Deeply WP:UNDUE edits, poorly sourced and self-interested. User appears primarily to be using these articles to settle personal scores. The only question is how much to revert. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've blocked them: they continued their non-neutral spree after being asked to disclose. If they ever decide to respond, they can explain what they were doing. The bigger question for me, right now, is whether all their edits on both articles should be revdeleted for BLP violations. I cannot decide on that right now: it's been a long day and there's still a football game to play. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thank you. Zacha's been dead since 1998, so even though there's a lot of bile directed at him, it's not WP:BLP related. However, the lengthy spiel at Pirateer goes off about ex-wives who may still be alive, so I'm inclined to think all of that may fall afoul of BLP guidelines and merit rev/deletion. Good luck on the gridiron tonight. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • And board members. And lawyers. Pretty much anyone who done him wrong. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]