Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:43, 13 April 2022 editDrm310 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers110,927 edits →Child In Need Institute: Disclosed← Previous edit Revision as of 21:48, 13 April 2022 edit undoChris troutman (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers54,800 edits →Remote (company)‎: new topic (CD)Next edit →
Line 262: Line 262:


:Now disclosed {{diff2|1082495497|here}}. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 18:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC) :Now disclosed {{diff2|1082495497|here}}. --] <span style="color:red">🍁</span> (]) 18:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

== Remote (company)‎ ==

<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. -->
* {{pagelinks|Remote (company)‎}}
* {{userlinks|Husond}}
<!-- Copy and use the templates above if there are more users or articles. --><br>
Since his recent return to Misplaced Pages, Husond created an article about an HR company that does payroll and employment verification: subjects not known to attract edits from ardent fans. {{u|Jeepday}} speedy deleted it but {{diff|User_talk:Jeepday|prev|1081514164|Husond complained only hours later}}, so Jeepday restored the article and {{diff|Remote_(company)|1081604169|1081604093|draftified it}}. The next day, Husond {{diff|Remote_(company)|1081616777|1081616384|moved the draft back into main namespace}} and then {{diff|Remote_(company)|1081617482|1081616806|removed the tag questioning subject notability}}. I ]. Husond has not disclosed a CoI even after I pressed him on the subject, opining that {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Remote_(company)|prev|1082388615|he doesn't have to disclose}} and even if he did {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Remote_(company)|prev|1082560969|I'm not allowed to ask}}. It would seem to me that Husond came back to Misplaced Pages only to edit for hire and is now pushing to defend his actions. <span class="nowrap" style="font-family:copperplate gothic light;">] (])</span> 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:48, 13 April 2022

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Numismatics.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     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-wp@wikipedia.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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:2020 United States Postal Service crisis Talk:Academy of Achievement Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Anaxam Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:Neil Barofsky Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Bobbie (company) Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Gráinne de Búrca Talk:Cannabis in Germany Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cloudinary Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cognita Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Covivio Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dell Technologies Template talk:Editnotices/Page/List of Nintendo franchises Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Genuine Parts Company Talk:Dan Gilbert Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Group-IB Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Hilary Harkness Talk:Hearst Communications Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Elizabeth Koch (publisher) Talk:Scott Kurashige Talk:Andrew Lack (executive) Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Modern Meadow Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Ornge Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Philly Shipyard Talk:Polkadot (blockchain platform) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Prabhakar Raghavan Talk:Michael Savage (politician) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Tamba-Sasayama Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:TKTS Talk:Trendyol Talk:Trócaire Talk:Lorraine Twohill Talk:Loretta Ucelli Talk:Ughelli Power Plant Talk:University of California, San Diego School of Medicine Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    User:IAmAtHome

    continous spamming islamansiklopedisi.org.tr to various Islam related article despite revert. Their past 100 contribution can be checked for evidence of spamming. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

    Can you give 2-3 diffs of edits you especially disagree with? It would seem that İslâm Ansiklopedisi could be a good source for Islam related articles, but as always, context matters. Also, why do you think there's a COI? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Again they have started spamming

    @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:: You can check their past hundred contribution where they have spammed nearly dozen of articles by adding those links either by changing the further reading section to bibliography or as source. Hajrakhala (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    I suspect canvassing here by IAmAtHome. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ok. In your first example, @IAmAtHome added a cite where there was a . The cite supports the info asked for, and is a WP:RS in context. Why do you see this edit as problematic? Fwiw, I wasn't canvassed here. And you didn't say why you think there's a COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    You might like to read Misplaced Pages:Spam, which states, Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Often these are added not to verify article content, but rather to populate numerous articles with a particular citation. Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work, and people replacing good or dead URLs with links to commercial sites or their own blogs. Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia. thanks. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    also my first example was not regarding adding citation, but it was on spamming further reading section by replacing it with bibliography and insertion of link at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, please check carefully. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    By first example I meant , first in your list of diffs above. Neither that or (earlier diff) seems obviously "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product" to me. They are on topic and I'm not offered to buy any goods or services. Is your hypothesis that IAmAtHome is part of whatever org that runs the İslâm Ansiklopedisi? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    It looks like you need to read wikipedia:spam again, in their past 50 contribution they have excessively used only that website as source or link spam, please check again, Citation spamming is the illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes, or references. Citation spamming is a form of search engine optimization or promotion that typically involves the repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor. Hajrakhala (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    It continues: "Citation spamming is a subtle form of spam and should not be confused with legitimate good-faith additions intended to verify article content and help build the encyclopedia." Can you give a diff example where they cited İslâm Ansiklopedisi in a way that didn't verify article content and helped build the encyclopedia? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    That said, @IAmAtHome this one looks odd to me. You're putting something under References that's not used as a ref in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know why you are taking TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi as spam. @Hajrakhala: Plus I'm not an agent of İÂ as you thought. You were also taking the use of İÂ source as vandalism.(see). Beshogur also used it sometimes. Although its in Turkish, but it mentions authentic and reliable historical allusions and it also contains analysis of credible authors sometimes, so I used it. Other encyclopediac sources (like Encyclopedia Britannica, World History Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Iranica, etc) are also used for citations. Cplakidas also agreed adding this in contents bibliography and further reading is useful. Misplaced Pages always requires more reliable sources. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Its Okay to remove this addition . Would anyone tell me the reason of reverting this? IAmAtHome (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    Monisha Shah

    This is to clarify a situation. Monisha Shah is Chairwoman (or Chairwoman-elect?) of Wikimedia UK. As MichaelMaggs has declared 1079637152 he has has no interaction with with Shah, stating: "One of the subject's current roles, namely chair of Wikimedia UK, is a role I occupied some years ago. I have never met Shah nor interacted with her in any way." He has not edited the article but has participated in the XfD, with Joe Roe stating " And given the COI concerns in the last AfD, I don't think it's a "good look" that WMUK people have already showed up to circle the wagons here." at Special:Diff/1079715716. So the question is does MichaelMaggs have a COI that prevents him from !voting or updating the article should he choose to do so. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    Note:Self block for a week. scope_creep 08:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Djm-leighpark: Obviously not. I have no love for WMUK, but MichaelMaggs has acted entirely appropriately here by pointing out that he has an indirect connection with the subject, and thus allowing participants to judge his opinions accordingly. Just having done the same job as an article subject doesn't create a conflict of interest to the point where someone isn't permitted to participate; by your logic, nobody who'd served in the military would ever be allowed to even participate in discussions of the biographies of former soldiers. ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

    Samir Shah

    I've indefinitely blocked OliverSeager as a compromised/shared account and followed up on their talk page. Hopefully the person most recently operating the account, if they create a new one, is now aware of and will stick to the COI guidelines. If not, yes a partial block would probably be in order. – Joe (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

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

    Samir Shah is an article created by OliverSeager as this draft who has made no edits outside the article and the draft was refused at AfC. I became aware Samir Shah was likely a notable figure and improved the draft and took it so mainspace as the AfC was long and their were existing poor quality redirects occupying the mainspace target name. In that process I became aware likely had an undeclared paid coi with the article (probably not trying to be deceptive about it), and challenged him on that point, but he has continued to add unsourced but likely WP:V continued contribute to the article. at e.g. Special:Diff/1079790593 which is to a agree promotional, especially given Shah's production company. I'm reluctant to keep reverting and need other eyes on this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

    If I am not mistaken a snapshot of Shah's Juniper website from 16th March 2022 is a strong indicator of an undeclared paid relationship in the team at that or an earlier point. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

    Propose page block for OliverSeager on Samir Shah as in apparent position of (former) PA (Personal Assistant) really needs to have editing on the article restricted unless they can demonstrate no COI/PAID connection. Edit request on talk page via {{Request Edit}} would be welcome. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

    There has been a response at Special:Diff/1080932411 and I'd be grateful if someone else could ensure they have matters handled with due diligence and respect. I need to micro-wikibreak shortly on :en:WP after adding some sources I've just found to a draft article. It is just possible a page block could be avoided. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    Notice that the person who responded with the OliverSeager account calls himself "Tomos Harrison", who claims to have "taken over" from Oliver Seager as Shah's assisstant. Looks like there are some WP:ROLE account concerns here. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    The above is compatible with that claim. The easiest way out of this will likely be indef OliverSeager and require the current account operator to create another account properly declaring the COI from the start. But that's really up to the user which may they want to try to handle this situation. Thnakyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    How can I resolve this issue? I really would like to avoid having the page come down completely, and would appreciate any advice from you. I'm not overly-familiar with using Wiki, so am unsure what the best options are at this point. Thanks again for your help. OliverSeager (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    California Housing Shortage

    Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. FinancialCents (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

    This topic is presented as factual but is rather a biased point of view. I have made an initial attempt to edit the article and present that there is an opposing viewpoint. I was told to create a separate page. But, this keeps the topic of the "California Housing Shortage" in the hands of those promoting the viewpoint as factual. What would the separate page be? Developers and others in real estate and construction-related industries are poised to receive massive funding and highly profitable advantages, under the guise of "affordable housing" which largely fails to benefit the populations purported to be central to the state mandates. Agencies referred to as "experts" are advancing overly simplistic Supply-Demand models which need to be replaced by more sophisticated and up-to-date Queueing Theory models recognizing the dynamic nature of demand, such that additional supply will simply attract more people to the state that is already drought parched and strained in resources and infrastructure. I need a source - other than those maintaining this biased article - to allow inclusion of the opposing viewpoints. I will add the required links to reference article. First I need to be allowed access to this page to make the edits. FinancialCents (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

    @FinancialCents: Can the template you have put in. Thanks. scope_creep 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Hi, please pardon that I am not completely sure what you are asking me for. Do you mean the existing article page on this topic? https://en.wikipedia.org/California_housing_shortage Or do you mean the edits I am attempting to make to the page? I am following what Slywriters says that I have to begin with the sources and then add the text, so I suppose I will need to do some searches for fairly major obvious ones. FinancialCents (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    @FinancialCents: Is the California Housing Shortage a draft. I made an attempt to fix the template but doesn't seem to be an article there. Can you please take a look at them. scope_creep 08:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sources are your friend. You can not just add what you perceive at the truth, you need to provide sources that WP:Verify the information you are adding to an article.Slywriter (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

    User:Tapasyam the great

    This user uses its user page to promote a person named Tapasyam. Seemingly duckable. Pavlov2 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

    In the future, just tag such pages for speedy deletion under U5. --SVTCobra 01:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    Draft:Sam Brown (veteran)

    Normally I would not be overly-concerned about CoI in a draft but when I noticed this post I took a look at Draft:Sam Brown (veteran). It really reads promotionally (not unusual for a draft) but years ago the author removed unflattering but cited material and, having been reverted did it again on the bio of another veteran involved in politics. When I pressed them on this they repaid me thusly. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    Because, somehow despite all your free time, you refuse to explain *how* the article comes across as promotional. Despite the fact that I removed the sensationalized content associated with mainstream media outlets. Instead, I parsed those down to just straight facts (as dull as they may appear to read). And when I pressed for constructive feedback or how to improve the article, you had nothing to say and nothing to contribute. And...you won't even agree to meet up for coffee or a zoom. I would have more respect for you if you could constructively articulate how to make the article less "promotional" and more fact based.
    You should take note, because the other gentleman who declined the article, that person made a beautiful assessment and said simply "candidates usually do not qualify for notable persons. Will re-assess if he wins the General." You know what that is called? Constructive feedback. It makes sense. I understand it.
    You, however. Not very direct and you can't back up your testimony with facts about how to change the article or what needs to be removed as "promotional." X72153 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    X72153 the entire draft reads as though it was written by/for the candidate himself, i.e. promotionally. For just a couple of the many examples, you have "While many outlets and pundits have described candidacy as improbable" with no source whatsoever, and then just a link to the FEC page on contributions but with the wording "more than" and "just" - words that imply a point of view ("isn't this remarkable!") rather than merely stating facts. Wording like he has "spoken to a long list and wide range" of groups is meaningless puffery, as well as completely unsourced. While the article cited uses the words "grassroots" and "knocked on doors" combining them into the sentence "His grassroots, door to door campaign" is entirely the kind of thing that would be written on his own website, not how an encyclopedia should read. There are many more examples of this kind of thing - but this is really not the place to discuss them. Suffice to say, it needs a complete rewrite and if you can't understand why, you should read more of the guideline on WP:NPOV and WP:V, as well as respond clearly to the WP:COI concern. Melcous (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    Melcous, that helps a lot. Truly. Thank you. From your explanation I can see why the article needs to be re-written and also needs to have more sourced cited. For me, something as innocuous as “door to door” doesn’t seem that bad to write, but if someone hasn’t watched all of the interviews or seen his Facebook or read his Twitter feed, then it would be hard to justify “door to door.” It comes off the wrong way (and I need to provide plenty more citations). I will pull down the article and work a rewrite focusing on the constructive feedback given here. Thank you. This makes sense now. (And I will read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you! 71.113.184.124 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    Melcous, that helps a lot. Truly. Thank you. From your explanation I can see why the article needs to be re-written and also needs to have more sourced cited. For me, something as innocuous as “door to door” doesn’t seem that bad to write, but if someone hasn’t watched all of the interviews or seen his Facebook or read his Twitter feed, then it would be hard to justify “door to door.” It comes off the wrong way (and I need to provide plenty more citations). I will pull down the article and work a rewrite focusing on the constructive feedback given here. Thank you. This makes sense now. (And I will read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Thank you! Sig by user:71.113.184.124. Added by scope_creep 21:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

    Canvassing articles with NGO reports using non-specific links

    I placed a COI notice as well as a note about canvassing references (especially references lacking links to the specific data added to the article) on this users page a few weeks ago, but there was no response. They are canvassing a large number of articles about countries and sub articles with data from Human Rights Measurement Initiative, which is hosted by "hosted by Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, Wellington, New Zealand" and RightsTracker.org, which is affiliated wtih HRMI. While including data from non-commercial organizations like this isn't particularly problematic, it is unfortunate that the references being added just link to the main pages of those sites, so it's quite difficult for the reader to verify the content being added to the articles. I'm not a fan of canvassing like this, even for non-profits, but I'd like to solicit more opinions before taking any further action. OhNoitsJamie 21:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    I agree, just because the links are to non-commercial (or even respected, helpful) sites, I do not think this kind of editing behaviour without response/discussion to concerns raised is appropriate; and nor is linking four times in each article to the same home page without any of the specific data that is being included in the article, and putting this in the lead section (or even as the opening sentences) of various articles. I have removed those that I thought were most egregious, although Rathfelder has disputed a number of those. Melcous (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

    Steve Kirsch

    The editor left a message on the talk page of the Steve Kirsch article, suggesting the article was biased. The latest of probably, now about 6-9 editors who have came in, in the last few months and tried to alter the article, or suggested altering in a way that breaks neutrality. The article has recently undergone a consensus based update with a group of editors and is largely accurate based on the source and within NPOV. This editor seems to think its ok to break NPOV and I believe they have some kind of coi. scope_creep 10:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    Atm I don't get why you think this is an editor with a COI rather than an editor with an opinion. Per definition, WP:NPOV doesn't apply to a talkpage comment, and they haven't edited the article, not yet anyway. The SK talkpage edits are their first edits this year, afaict they're far from disruptive. What action against this editor are you hoping for? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    I doubt this is stkirsch (talk · contribs) (who is indefinitely blocked). Probably just someone who read one of Kirsch's social media posts complaining about the article. MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
    Possibly. There has been six to eight people in the last couple of months trying to change the article. That is a pattern. scope_creep 10:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

    Sudhir G. Pawar

     Looks like a duck to me Pavlov2 (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    Black_hole_information_paradox

    It seems that jacob2718 is an active researcher in the field of black hole information. His edits have mainly supported the (sometimes disputed) conclusions in journal papers listed below, see the article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Black_hole_information_paradox#Technical_details

    1) "Lessons from the information Paradox", PhysicsReports https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157321003720

    2) "The Entropy of Hawking Radiation", Reviews of Modern Physics https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.035002

    According to Misplaced Pages policy, jacob2718 should declare a COI regarding edits to this article, or clarify that he or she has no conflict of interest with respect to the article. Signature by user:Xcalmet User talk:Xcalmet Added by scope_creep 19:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

    • I don't understand what the COI is. The fact that he's an active researcher in the field of black hole information is a good thing; we want more subject-matter experts editing our articles, not fewer. His talk page posts seem to be suggesting that the article should cite more to actual scientific research than pop science media outlets; again, this strikes me as a good thing. So what is the COI? Is he adding links to papers he authored or something? Mlb96 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
      Black hole information is an area of active research, and there is sometimes sharp disagreement between experts as to what is known or not known, what has been rigorously established, etc. It seems that Jacob2718 is using this Wiki article to advance his own opinions. He is not fairly describing other work in the field. For example, the work in
      "Lessons from the information Paradox", PhysicsReports https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0370157321003720
      of Raju et al. have been criticized and are not widely accepted, see e.g. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.04947.pdf. But this work features prominently in Jacob2718's recent edits.
      Jacob2718 eliminated a discussion in the Recent Developments section about the work of Calmet et al. He moved mention of published papers in top journals like Physical Review Letters and Physics Letters into the Popular Culture section. It appears that the original reference to this work, written by Jacob2718 himself, described it as supportive of Raju et al.'s earlier papers. It is strange that it has now been moved into the entirely wrong section.
      How can Jacob2718 justify first citing Calmet et al. as (presumably) important work in the Recent Developments section, supporting Raju et al., and now claim it is only an example of Popular Culture? This is not only unjustified, it shows active bias at work. Xcalmet (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
      Being biased is not the same as having a conflict of interest. Based on what you've posted, I do not see any evidence of a conflict of interest. Your concern seems to be about NPOV, not COI. Mlb96 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
      My interpretation of the Misplaced Pages page on COI is that self-promotion (in this case, promotion of the research of Jacob2718) falls under the definition of COI. The information I provided above documents bias. The likely motivation of that bias is self-promotion.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest
      "Readers expect to find neutral articles written independently of their subject, not corporate or personal webpages, or platforms for advertising and self-promotion."
      It is also true (as discussed in my previous post) that Jacob2718 does not exhibit a NPOV, and I will make a separate note of that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard Xcalmet (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      @Xcalmet:, I do not see any "Jacob" listed as an author or researcher in any of the sources you have mentioned. So how exactly do you classify it as self-promotion? I think you were closer to the mark in your previous comment when you used the phrase "active bias". --SVTCobra 15:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      Jacob2718 cites certain work preferentially and hence one can easily guess who they might be. Xcalmet (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      There are two sources which you listed and say Jacob2718 is giving preferential citations and thereby is self-promoting. Those two sources do not share any authors, either. So what am I missing? What am I supposed to guess? --SVTCobra 10:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    nanoFlowcell

    User seems to have edited nothing but that particular page... but something more suspicious happened last October when they completely shortened the article that also happens to remove negative information of the company, which should make anyone suspicious of what they're doing. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 01:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    They've also deleted a post on the company's talk page criticizing the company. Suspicious.... Miracusaurs (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    Patrick Roche (Northern Ireland politician)

    Identifies as the subject of the article, and persists in editing despite a COI warning. FDW777 (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    @FDW777:, please notify the user of this discussion per the instructions at the top of this page. Thanks, --SVTCobra 12:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

    John Junior

    This is only a partial list of suspicious accounts as there are many. The subject of this article does not appear to be particularly notable judging from the number of followers on various social media. The length and number of edits to the article thus seems rather odd. Particularly so when one considers that a number of the main editors have only ever contributed to this one article. It seems possible that one or two individuals, potentially with conflicts of interest, are setting up multiple accounts to edit this article while attempting to avoid detection. 2A02:C7C:362C:4B00:6925:230E:1318:36E8 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

    May meet notability via breath of coverage, but the article has serious flaws and the number of SPAs is staggering. At a glance, this needs attention. --SVTCobra 00:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

    User:Sahiba Ahluwalia

    User seems to be employed by the subject of these articles as suggested by their message on my Talk Page and a quick Google search. No disclosure of paid editing even after multiple notices. Entire editing history promotional in nature and devoted to these articles. Tow (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

    Outgoing confession

    Hi, my name is James Lawrie and I operated the Pug of the day account and it’s associated sock-puppets from 2018 to 2022. Something tells me I won’t be around for much longer. It’s not just Misplaced Pages who want me dealt with and this SPI compromised my RLI. So incase you’re wondering, here’s some of the pages that I created and edited for money.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Gordonstoun

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/St_Edmund_Hall,_Oxford


    Crossposted at User talk:Pug of the day (here) and at ANI. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    Metropolitan College of New York

    This editor is a single-purpose editor who only edits this article. WP:OUTING prevents me from saying exactly who this editor likely is and their relationship with the college but I trust that anyone else who spends a few seconds looking into this will come to the same conclusion. They have not replied to a Template:Uw-coi-username template left on their User Talk page. Their continued editing appears to be a clear violation of WP:PAID. ElKevbo (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

    Webhelp

    Article about a large "Bpo/Business process outsourcing" company. Recent editing clearly in favor of it. Geheimnisenthüller (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    I just restored the article to the last version that wasn't edited by obvious COI editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

    Note: - User has been blocked by Ponyo. --SVTCobra 01:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

    Child In Need Institute

    This editor has an undeclared COI and continues to add promotional, unsourced, and/or poorly sourced language to the Child In Need Institute Even after multiple warnings . VVikingTalkEdits 12:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

    Now disclosed here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

    Remote (company)‎


    Since his recent return to Misplaced Pages, Husond created an article about an HR company that does payroll and employment verification: subjects not known to attract edits from ardent fans. Jeepday speedy deleted it but Husond complained only hours later, so Jeepday restored the article and draftified it. The next day, Husond moved the draft back into main namespace and then removed the tag questioning subject notability. I nominated the article for deletion. Husond has not disclosed a CoI even after I pressed him on the subject, opining that he doesn't have to disclose and even if he did I'm not allowed to ask. It would seem to me that Husond came back to Misplaced Pages only to edit for hire and is now pushing to defend his actions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions Add topic