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

vivo (technology company)[edit]

Hello - I have a question about the process of requesting an edit for users that have a conflict of interest. I work at vivo and there is a lot of information on our page that is outdated or incorrect. Following the Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia process, I have made requests to update the information with uncontroversial, accurate information on the vivo Talk Page with a disclosure of my conflict. I have received a response from an editor and they made one of the requested edits, but the editor has not engaged on the others without citing an issue with the content. While I understand that editors are volunteers and there are a high volume of edit requests, are there any issues with the requested edits or can anyone share guidance on how best to update our page? I am committed to following Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules and I want to ensure that our company issue accurately depicted on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any assistance with this process and let me know if there are any questions. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by COFFEELOVERS2022 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for respecting and following the COI guidelines. As you have already noted, the backlog is substantial and for this I can only suggest patience. Glancing at your edit requests on the talk page, I might suggest that you read about WP:Reliable sources as some of your suggested references seem to fall a bit short of the mark. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I'll be sure to review Wiki guidelines and make further adjustments on the references accordingly. Meanwhile, is it possible that we can have an estimated timeline? Would you be following up with us re the request? Appreciate your help and welcome any questions! COFFEELOVERS2022 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russian banks whitewashing[edit]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam § Russian banks whitewashing

 – — Newslinger talk 05:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Russian PR specialist Sergey Kalenik told on his Fb page that he turned a Russian bank into a Luxembourgish company to help the bank avoid the sanctions([1]). Here is the real correction where some Russian bank called Luxembourgish(Special:Diff/1075118299/1075558220). This edition may have signs of an undisclosed paid edit. Maybe there will be other attempts of derussification of other banks. --BogdanShevchenko (talk) 10:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BogdanShevchenko: That Facebook publication is private. If it contains evidence of Kasfe's edit being directly connected to a PR op, please, send it to paid-en-wp(at)wikipedia.org. Other than that, the diff you posted may be questionable, but within the bounds of editorial dispute at Talk:Sovcombank. MarioGom (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MarioGom: it wasn't private when i sent that link, and now I only have screenshot of that post. But, as I said before, there was a phrase "yesterday we turn a Russian bank into a Luxembourgish company and help the bank to avoid the sanctions". There was nothing about Kasfe. I only think, than this statement and that edit could be connected. I doesn't have any tools to check it deeper. --09:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) BogdanShevchenko (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:IAmAtHome[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

I suspect canvassing here by IAmAtHome. Hajrakhala (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. In your first example, @IAmAtHome added a cite where there was a ^{[citation needed]}. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By first example I meant [9], first in your list of diffs above. Neither that or [10] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That said, @IAmAtHome this one [11] 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)[reply]

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 [12]. Would anyone tell me the reason of reverting this? IAmAtHome (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Meg Hansen[edit]

• Draft:Meg Hansen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Briggsfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This draft for Meg Hansen was created in January by a user who has exclusively edited the draft and an article for the organization that Hansen is president of. Hansen is currently running for office in Vermont and this article may be an attempt to promote her. The editor recently asked me: “Are only Wikipedia pages for white men allowed?” I was insulted by the implications of this question. I would appreciate others to take a look and see if Hansen appears notable. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

Please do look into the matter. Thriley has shown bias over my article since Day 1 and refuses to answer legitimate questions about notability.

Before I get into that, let me share that I am new to Wikipedia. I have to start somewhere! There was a lot of talk this year about Meg Hansen running for US House, which is an electoral race of great interest as VT is the only state that has never sent a woman to Congress. When I saw she didn't have a page, I thought of creating one about her. Then there was news she had joined Ethan Allen Institute Board of Directors. So I wondered if EAI had a page and found it. I tried editing it by updating the page to see if I could do it. I am learning as I go. Hansen was then named as President of the Ethan Allen Institute. I don't know if she will run, most probably not, but I thought my first attempt of creating a page might still work.

Is Wikipedia such a closed circle of writers and editors that no new person is welcome? Thriley has been accusing me of having a conflict when I have nothing to do with any of these people. I was trying to make a page and hopefully go from there on Wikipedia. I live in Vermont. I was taught to write about what I know. I know what's happening in Vermont and when I saw a gap, I tried to fill it. What is wrong with that?

Now, to ask the questions that Thriley refuses to answer.

Thriley says the Ethan Allen Institute is a small non-notable organization. I find that insulting. Everything in and about VT is not small and non notable.

EAI is part of the nationwide State Policy Network which has state-based think tanks in every state. For example Maine Policy Institute, the president of which has a wikipedia page. What is so notable about Matthew Gagnon? Thriley won't answer.

So can someone tell me, what's the difference between Matthew Gagnon and Meg Hansen professionally other than the color of their skin and gender?

Wikipedia has entries for the presidents/ CEOs of various major center-right think tanks in the country.

What is notable about this woman? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Platt_Liebau

Or these men?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Greenberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Vokal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Williams_(Washington_politician)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaylord_K._Swim

Why are these people "notable"enough to warrant pages but not Hansen?

I hope someone other than Thriley will answer these questions. I don't understand this exclusive gatekeeping and unwarranted accusations toward me. If the idea is to bully me out of trying to write and edit on Wikipedia, then it is working.

∼∼∼∼ Briggsfarmer (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I never said the EAI isn’t notable. I stated that “EAI is a relatively small organization that wouldn’t generally confer notability onto its president.” I explained that elected state officials are notable. I can’t say that about the others that have been brought up, they look like there’s been a great deal of reliable coverage, but I think others should offer input as Briggsfarmer has accused me of “bizarre bias” and being an “arrogant gatekeeper of Wikipedia”. Thriley (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Briggsfarmer. I can understand how frustrating it is to write an article on a topic you are passionate about, only to be accused of having a COI; it has happened to me, and it positively infuriated me. Wikipedia editors in general are hypersensitive to the possibility of individuals using the website to promote themselves and acquire money and/or power, as it happens every single day here, so they tend to assume that anything and everything is evidence of a conflict of interest. Try not to take it personally. Regarding notability, Wikipedia's notability requirements can come across as convoluted and arcane to new editors. One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the word "notability" has a special meaning here which is different from its normal usage in English. To be notable, a topic usually must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. For example, this source which is in your draft would not count towards notability, as it only contains a single sentence about Ms. Hansen plus a quote; this fails the requirement of significant coverage. However, this source seems pretty good to me; an in-depth profile from a source which seems to have good journalistic practices is a strong indicator of notability. My best advice would be to keep looking for similar sources and including those in your draft. Good luck! Mlb96 (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Briggsfarmer (talk) 05:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvindickinson[edit]

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

Kelvindickinson appears as a WP:Single purpose account - only adding external links to the "The Paul Rudolph Institute for Modern Architecture", a private organization that focuses on Rudolph, with some office space. I don't see why every Rudolph-designed building needs a link to this institute, nor a link to the institute's entry on each building (some seem to actually have less information than Wikipedia). I don't mind this link as much as the generic institute link, however, given that some useful relevant content is found in their entries.

For these unhelpful additions, the fact that this is the user's only goal, and their matter-of-fact edit summaries ("Added relevant external links to the Paul Rudolph Estate and the project archive of the Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation"), I suspect there is a conflict of interest at play. ɱ (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also see now, it seems they attempted to create and then publish Draft:Paul Rudolph Heritage Foundation. Does this have any promotional wording that could indicate a paid relationship? ɱ (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki evidence suggests a strong connection to the foundation. --SVTCobra 01:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this. --SVTCobra 18:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed these elements, seems pretty clear-cut. Can someone act on this? ɱ (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Željko Krušlin & Ivana Radaljac Krušlin[edit]

• Draft:Željko Krušlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ivana Radaljac Krušlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Latinozvuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor is ignoring mandatory disclosure requirement for paid editing posted on their page and continuing to edit. Pattern of editing, including claim of 'my article' found at c:Commons_talk:Abuse_filter#Report by Latinozvuk, suggests close afiliation with subjects of the articles which are edited. In addition, there is a music industry company of the same name, Latinozvuk, based in Zagreb, Croatia. See here and here. Further, uploading a professional headshot of the subject, previously unposted on the internet based on my reverse image searches, suggests close affiliation with the subject. Could a sysop please review account activity and consider appropriate enforcement action? Melmann 16:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content of Draft:Željko Krušlin also states that this person is affiliated with a musical group called "Latino". Also, the word "zvuk" translated from Croation means "sound" according to Google Translate. So a business named "Latinozvuk" seems to imply a management company for this group. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Not just affiliated, the article subject is the founder and singer of the band, it's their band in a sense (although they do, to some degree, maintain a separate brand from the band). The username literally translates to 'Latinsound' from Croatian (the -o suffix is a grammatical case form required in Croatian). Melmann 15:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed them at WP:UAA as a WP:CORPNAME violation, and left a link to this discussion. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monisha Shah[edit]

• Monisha Shah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monisha Shah (2nd nomination) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• MichaelMaggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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)[reply]

Note:Self block for a week. scope_creep^Talk 08:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Samir Shah[edit]

Spellck[edit]

• Opelika, Alabama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Spellck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has made 94 edits over four years, almost all to Opelika, Alabama.

Several edits have added long unsourced press release-type text promoting Opelika's economic development, such as [14][15][16][17]. With this edit, their edit summary even stated: "Press releases March 2019 Economic Development".

Their Commons uploads have all been personal photos of Opelika, including this drone shot of an industrial park.

With this edit, Spellck removed a comment from the article's talk page which read: "This entire article reads ridiculously like a blatant city ad, which can be said for most Alabama related articles on this site. Someone please filter excessive business info and add historical or social information, such as why the vast majority of the poor population is African American".

I left a COI warning on their talk page, and Spellck responded: "I am not compensated for any edits." Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

California Housing Shortage[edit]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@FinancialCents: Can the template you have put in. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Tapasyam the great[edit]

• User:Tapasyam the great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tapasyam the great (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Draft:Sam Brown (veteran)[edit]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Canvassing articles with NGO reports using non-specific links[edit]

• Various pages; examples diffs: Health_in_Surinam,Kiribati,Education in Madagascar.
• Emilyhdsn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 ^Talk 21:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Steve Kirsch[edit]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sudhir G. Pawar[edit]

• 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)[reply]

Black_hole_information_paradox[edit]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]