Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

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 paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template: Wikipedia requested edits Answered requested edits Declined requested edits Implemented requested edits Misplaced requested edits Partially implemented requested edits Talk:365 Media Group Talk:2022 Serbian general election Talk:Agreement on Agriculture Talk:Amnon Aharony Talk:Alfa Laval Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Paul Andrew Talk:Lucius Artorius Castus Talk:Asgill Affair Talk:Axiom Mission 1 Talk:Stewart W. Bainum Jr. Talk:Barrett, The Honors College Talk:Berlin School of Business and Innovation Talk:Better.com Talk:James Bevan (diplomat) Talk:Len Blavatnik Talk:California Health Sciences University Talk:Campaign Legal Center Talk:Cenovus Energy Talk:Center for Documentary Studies Talk:Chanel Talk:Change.org Talk:Cloudflare Talk:Colantonio Incorporated Talk:Comparison of TLS implementations Talk:Conservation and restoration of cultural property Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist) Talk:Cracker Barrel Talk:Tom Crosshill Talk:Mike Curb Talk:Cybereason Talk:Greg Daniels Talk:Walter De Brouwer Talk:Adrian Di Marco Talk:Digital agriculture Talk:Digital Currency Group Talk:Diligent Corporation Talk:Paul W. Draper Talk:Jenny Durkan Talk:Dutch Bros. Coffee Talk:EConsult Talk:Electronic fluency device Talk:EPAM Systems Talk:Epic Aircraft Talk:European Golf Association Talk:Evernote Talk:F1000 (publisher) Talk:Families USA Talk:Free File Talk:Freeport-McMoRan Talk:Frontiers Media Talk:Gregory Garde Talk:Vishal Garg (businessman) Talk:Geriatrics Talk:GoodLeap Talk:Gopuff Talk:Jonathan D. Gray Talk:Phillip Brian Harper Talk:Hauser & Wirth Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Hikvision Talk:Icertis Talk:Illinois Eye Bank Talk:Interactive Brokers Talk:International Institute for Conservation Talk:Invitation Homes Talk:Philippe Jabre Talk:Bawa Jain Talk:James J. Peters VA Medical Center Talk:Jenoptik Talk:Tim Jones (writer) Talk:Judo Bank Talk:R. Alexandra Keith Talk:Reshma Kewalramani Talk:Olaf Koch Talk:Komala Party of Iranian Kurdistan Talk:Karel Komárek Talk:L3Harris Technologies Talk:Marc J. Lane Talk:Leaders for Global Operations Talk:Steven Leath Talk:Marcus Lemonis Talk:Levidian Nanosystems Talk:Steve Linick Talk:List of companies involved in quantum computing or communication Talk:LoopUp Talk:Lufthansa Cargo Talk:Lush (company) Talk:Lyric Opera of Chicago Talk:M9 half-track Talk:Maitreya Talk:Kelsey Martin Talk:Patrick McGuire (solicitor) Talk:Medifast Talk:Chris Meek Talk:Metro AG Talk:Minimum description length Talk:Mobileye Talk:Marc Morial Talk:Mpower Financing Talk:MyRepublic Talk:Vasant Narasimhan Talk:Newmark Group Talk:Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Talk:Martin Ødegaard Talk:Ofer Strichman Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Open banking Talk:Opyl Talk:Dawn Ostroff Talk:Neri Oxman Talk:P. F. Chang's Talk:Park Lane Stables Teddington Talk:The Players' Tribune Talk:Porsche 911 GT2 Talk:Porter Novelli Talk:Presidential transition of Joe Biden Talk:Qnet Talk:Republic Services Talk:Riverbed Technology Talk:Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Talk:David H. Rosmarin Talk:Robert Rubin Talk:Ruder Finn Talk:Austin Russell (entrepreneur) Talk:Sandy Munro Talk:Saskatchewan Research Council Talk:Sculpture Park Engelbrecht Talk:Sequoia Capital Talk:Ruchir Sharma Talk:Terje G. Simonsen Talk:Sixt Talk:Carol Smallwood Talk:Software Guard Extensions Talk:Soil Association Talk:SoldierStrong Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:TechnologyOne Talk:Tenova Takraf Talk:TGT Oil and Gas Services Talk:Latham & Watkins Talk:The Raw Story Talk:The Real News Network Talk:Thompson Coburn Talk:TIPA Corp Talk:Universum College Talk:Uproxx Talk:Hans Vestberg Talk:Vivo (technology company) Talk:Wellness Pet Company Talk:Yahoo!

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 [check this]

@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)

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

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 Wikipedia: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 [8], first in your list of diffs above. Neither that or [9] (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 [10] 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. Wikipedia always requires more reliable sources. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Its Okay to remove this addition [11]. Would anyone tell me the reason of reverting this? IAmAtHome (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Samir Shah

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

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 [12] 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 [current version of the webpage] 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

• California housing shortage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• FinancialCents (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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^Talk 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/wiki/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^Talk 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)

Draft:Sam Brown (veteran)

• Draft:Sam Brown (veteran) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Oh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• X72153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 [his] 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^Talk 21:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Steve Kirsch

• Steve Kirsch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Monsieur Voltaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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^Talk 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^Talk 10:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sudhir G. Pawar

• Draft:Sudhir Pawar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sudhir G. Pawar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Black_hole_information_paradox

• Black hole information paradox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Jacob2718 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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^Talk 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 [16] and Physics Letters [17] 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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/wiki/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

• NanoFlowcell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alemanis2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

• Patrick Roche (Northern Ireland politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DrRochy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• John Junior (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Walker567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stickers1882 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mayhem223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hogroast92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Recyclebean103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cheshitewriter99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Manicmonday22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scooterlife (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gamingnicole305 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Helskini77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jockey8821 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Franmcr89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gamingnicole305 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

I filed a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scooterlife, which is the oldest account of the ones above. This might be the work of one or more sockmasters, or a ring of WP:MEATpuppets that were WP:CANVASSed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Sahiba Ahluwalia

• PTC News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PTC Punjabi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• PTC News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Rabindra Narayan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sahiba Ahluwalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)

Metropolitan College of New York

• Metropolitan College of New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tgeorgiou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

• Child In Need Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kausikmaitra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 . VViking_TalkEdits 12:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Remote (company)‎

• Remote (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Husond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since his recent return to Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia only to edit for hire and is now pushing to defend his actions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I find your obsession slightly disturbing and will not entertain this discussion. Húsönd 08:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I believe that is well. Its native advertising. scope_creep^Talk 08:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• I almost brought this here myself as I noticed Husond basically being resurrected just to spam some non-notable corporation that has been advertising for months for an article. But their insistence that they don't have to disclose leads me to believe that 1.) there's a COI and 2.) they don't know policy. CUPIDICAE💕 18:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  With such strong suspicions I'm surprised you guys are not spending a few hours trying to find actual evidence of COI. Oh wait, maybe you have already.

  On a serious note though, I had no idea the company had been trying to get an article (where?). Irrespective of it, I do think it should have one. It's a $4B business, it's notable, it's sourced, people will look for it on WP. Inevitably we will have to have an article on it. Húsönd 13:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)