Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
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 does not meet a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connections with article topics. An edit by a COIN-declared COI editor may not meet a requirement of the COI guideline when the edit advances outside interests more than it advances the aims of Wikipedia. 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. Sections older than 7 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:
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.
  • Be careful not to out other editors. Wikipedia's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.
  • 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.
  • Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the What is a conflict of interest? list. 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}}.
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, MiszaBot II will automatically archive the thread when it is older than seven 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 does not meet 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:Requested edits is where COI editors have placed the {{Request edit}} template:


John Basedow[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Warnings given [12] [13] etc but no attempt from editor to engage in dialogue, continues to WP:OWN article and talk page. Widefox; talk 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I've looked at the article, and put it up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow- couldn't find many more reliable sources about this person, most sources I could found were self-published or selling websites (e.g. Amazon). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Smartse Laddypat has removed tags and AfD [14] after final warning given. Widefox; talk 12:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm involved now, so I've asked at ANI for someone else to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe. I should have used ANI, I filed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Laddypat_reported_by_User:Widefox_.28Result:_.29. Widefox; talk 13:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Blocked. Can close. Widefox; talk 13:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

There was a puzzling amount of forum shopping. It is much easier to discuss an article at one noticeboard at a time. As Laddypat (talk · contribs) is now blocked, we can add the article to our watchlists, and continue the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Basedow. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See WP:FORUMSHOP. I raised editor / COI here, another editor raised article deletion at AfD. The AfD will be closed as delete and the article and talk deleted. Widefox; talk 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Owned article for 7 years?[edit]

Of general COI note...how we can have such a poor indef semi-protected (BLP) article, WP:OWNed by an WP:SPA with minor edits since 2008? Seven years! Several editors have remarked about the state of the article at Talk:John Basedow but for years their comments were just removed. Widefox; talk 09:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This happens quite easily I think: a low traffic article has few people watching it. I am a little disappointed the recent changes patrol didn't notice the edit wars were part of a pattern, nor the talk page vandalism. It leads to a bad experience all round. What can we do to improve that? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yup, the talk page vandalism (and marking edits as minor). A BLP too. Seems noteworthy. Widefox; talk 10:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There are probably thousands of articles like this unfortunately. Even articles that are tagged with {{coi}} or {{autobiography}} can go years before they are cleaned up. Look at Marjan Šetinc for example, tagged as an autobiography for 7 years with no substantial changes! SmartSE (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Marjan Šetinc is a former MP, so IIRC inherently notable. Another example? I was thinking more with an aggressive owner removing talk. All the red lights flashing but nobody batting an eyelid. Widefox; talk 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Biotecnika Magazine[edit]

Resolved: blocked Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming convention, content of user page, and possible COI. 7&6=thirteen

As the user has not edited any page except their own user page, there is no COI, and thus nothing for this board. I have flagged the user name concerns to the proper location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Blocked. 7&6=thirteen () 15:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The Gettysburg Address (film)[edit]

Resolved: article deleted Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of the edits at the page are being done by a username that matches that of a director of the film. He is adding unsourced information, including on tie-in products. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

yep. removed all the unsourced junk. went looking for sources and didn't find much. i put it up for speedy delete promo. Jytdog (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
and it was speedy deleted -- see here. That was actually the 2nd time it had been created and then speedied. The COI problem has not really been addressed as the creator never talked to us, but problem solved for now. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I was trying to be gentle with him, but things had gone on for long enough. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks for bringing this, Nat. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi[edit]

Resolved: article cleaned; additional eyes on it if the hoards return. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sarfaraz K. Niazi is a gentleman of many accomplishments. The descriptions of these have over the years been contributed, at considerable length, by near-SPAs Kitabparast and Sarfniazi; and by SPAs Andrewbourgoin, Jachurd, Jachurd2 and Skniazi.

The OTRS notice on the talk page is evidence of the biographee's hand in his article. (I'm not an OTRS volunteer and therefore have no idea of what was communicated.)

It's splendid that those in the know can offer readers so much; but I think that much of the material in this article is prolix, hagiographic and unsuitable. However, removals of such material are reverted. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. That's an impressive resume, but a rubbish encyclopedia article. I'll get my hedge-trimmer out and see what happens next. More eyes would probably not go amiss. SmartSE (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It turned out that a great deal of the content was copied from his personal website. I've removed the worst content, but more unsourced content remains. Given the multiple SPAs that have edited it recently, I'll start an SPI as well. SmartSE (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts and after some googling, it seems much more likely to be meatpuppetry rather than socking and it is so obvious that SPI is unneccesary. Blocks will be needed if they persist though. SmartSE (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your good work. ¶ Yes, there's one obvious meatperson. As for the others, it wouldn't surprise me if they were all socks of each other. But if they were, so what? As long as they don't support each other in arguments, evade blocks, or similar, they'd be doing nothing wrong. It's not obvious to me that an SPI is called for. -- Hoary (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I worked this over this morning. interesting guy. sorry if i stepped on your toes there, Smartse - we started going at it at the same time. all clean and sourced now. no puffery or unsourced left, i think. but yeah we should watch out for the pufferiers to come back. Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for the help Jytdog! SmartSE (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Good work, chaps -- but please see the talk page, and comment there. -- Hoary (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Castle Rock, Colorado[edit]

An editor is continuously removing an article section critical of the town of Castle Rock, Colorado. The editor has claimed to represent the town, but has failed to disclose any paid editing or COI despite being warned to. Attempts to address the editors concerns with a lack of neutrality in the article have been met with violations of WP:3RR and removal of the information citing "inaccuracy" despite the information being based upon reliable news reports. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything User:Winner 42 said above. To me, it seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, removing content simply because it makes the place look bad. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so this is not okay. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please understand this has nothing to do with making the place look bad. My concern is singling out one specific event. There are various stories about Castle Rock that can be sited from news sources. I have no problem including this event if other news stories are also included. Listing only one event makes this article biased by nature. My hope is that we can come to a mutual agreement. talk to me! 21:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:CastleRockChick - this implies you do have a connection with the topic. I can see no disclosure from you. Do you have a WP:COI? If so, you must follow the guidance there. Widefox; talk 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
User:MelanieN is right - the talk page is the right venue to discuss and reach consensus once any COI has or has not been declared. Widefox; talk 10:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Carmen Chu[edit]

Recent expansion of biographical article, into a format that looks a bit like a campaign brochure--not every accomplishment here merits encyclopedic mention, nor do we need this many photo ops. Beyond that, now requires removal of a lot of external links. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed the excessive images on the page. You are right–the page read like a brochure just by the overwhelming amount of pictures alone. Meatsgains (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted their edits as they were clearly promotional and unsourced - the previous version was much better. If they visit this thread, they're strongly advised to follow WP:BESTCOI. SmartSE (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. 2602:302:D89:D609:31BC:992E:2F19:A52B (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sugar Mountain Farm[edit]

Pubwvj is the self-declared owner/operator of the business described by this article. After apparently authoring and editing the article for a period of years he did declare his ownership of the business a few days ago. Has ignored efforts to get him to stop directly editing the article. Has disruptively and repeatedly asked/demanded that only editors he approves edit the article. Bruceki (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@Bruceki:, when you report someone here, you must inform them that you've done so. I've informed them now, but if you report people here again, you must notify them ASAP- the easiest way is to add {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I've came to Sugar Mountain Farm via WP:3O and suggested these two users come here. Bruceki did notify Pubwvj (Albeit not on their talk page) when he posted the notice on the article talk page and pinged Pubwvj [15]. As to the case I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of it but I do believe both of these editors are way to close to the subject to be neutral. Although I do believe they are both have good intentions. Jbh (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies, I looked on the user talkpage and couldn't find it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Talk:Sugar Mountain Farm gives good examples of the issues here. These two users seem not to get along at all and know each other in real life. Pubwvj has been using edit requests since I told him about them but wants Bruceki to be required to do the same. There are also a lot of accusations going back and forth loaded with a lot of off-wiki baggage that I have no real clue about. Jbh (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that neither Pubwvj or Bruceki should be editing the article. They appear to have been involved in a real-world dispute for years (see for example this 2009 blog post by Bruceki who outs themselves on their userpage). Pubwvj is right to be agrieved by Bruceki's harrassment here and it needs to stop now. Hopefully now that there are more eyes on the article, they can both sit back and let us edit it instead. SmartSE (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that talkpage, I strongly agree that neither should edit- one has a massive positive COI towards the company, and one a massive negative COI towards the company. I've added @Bruceki: to the COI editors list above because of this. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
aren't you supposed to put something on my user talk page @Joseph2302:? Per this discussion I will restrict my input on that article to the talk page. Thank you all for your time. Bruceki (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been quite clear from the start of who I am and my relationship to my farm. Bruceki on the other hand has hidden that he has a massive negative COI which he fails to mention which stems from his years of attacking me. Examples of his behavior are widely available on the web should references be necessary. Contrary to what Bruceki misstates above, I have been working with JBH and OhNoItsJamie on the talk page and they have been making the edits to the article. Bruceki has a history of being warned against doing WP:SYNTH and of attacking other farms. Additionally, Bruceki lacks knowledge about the topic and has been repeatedly written false statements in to the discussion and page be it that these falsities arrive from his purposeful choices or simply he doesn't know what he is talking about is moot. Bruceki should stick to talk at most and not be making edits. The page in question is long supported by Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture and Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I have received guidance from people over the years to improve the page and I look forward to the help that people can give to further improve it to make it be a better part of Wiki. Pubwvj (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You have never disclosed your connection to the farm on the sugar mountain farm wiki entry. I did that. You did not change your user page entry to disclose your connection to the farm until april 19th 2015.[1], 6 days ago. When you created your account in 2008 you were explicitly warned about COI issues[2] but chose to ignore that and edited the entry for the next 7 years. During that time you were repeatedly warned about adding links to your blog and various content issues but continued to edit it despite a fairly clear COI; which has been supported by the comments here. I'm glad that you now recognize that you have a COI and hope that you agree with the conclusion here that you should not be editing that page from here on. Bruceki (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

There's a difference between disagree wtih a statement or content and a person. Some of your statements about farm operations appear to be exceptional (as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL , and I've pointed that out where you've made them. That has nothing to do with you as a person; you are probably a fine fellow who kisses your wife and doesn't kick puppies every often. Bruceki (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Break: Notability[edit]

I've culled through the article's sources (all 30 or so) and found almost none that were acceptable. Most of them were blogs, primary sources, advertisements, brief mentions, did not mention the article-subject, or did not actually directly support the article text. Some were from credible news outlets, but just linked to the front page of the news site, not to an actual news article about the farm. What was left after my culling were local sources and Voice of America, which RSN archives suggest is a questionable source. Typically we expect at least one strong national level source to verify notability.

I'd encourage that in circumstances like this, notability needs to be considered before other issues; otherwise editors waste a lot of time, energy and emotional investment into an article ultimately headed for the trash bin. In a large number of articles where a COI is involved, this is the first thing we should look at. CorporateM (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Nossiter[edit]

The user has claimed to be Jonathan Nossiter's assistant here. Despite discussion on their talkpage, they continue to make edits which break WP:MOS, and add in POV content. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Joseph2302, I've tagged the talk page of the article accordingly and left some explanation there, including the Terms of Use requirement. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I love the username. must not be a nice person to work for. :) Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Dear All,

I'm appalled by the snide, gratuitous and uncivil comment from jytdog (above). (in fact the production company is called Goatworks films and I am an assistant!) Surely this sort of sophmoric commentary is unwelcome on your board.

Wikipedia is taken seriously and that's why the innacuracies and lacunae on the Jonathan Nossiter page needed adressing.

Never having done this before I understood that I made several errors of judgement, but I corrected them swiftly. If there are others, thank you, those who wish to help in a constructive way, for your comments. However, would you kindly restore the factual emendations (including that Nossiter is a Brazilian and American citizen inter alia)? And while I fully understand and respect that flattering comments about a given work are as unwelcome as spurious criticism, how can you justify leaving the only comment about a book that has been published in 8 countries and has won two awards as that posted by a partisan wine writer close to Robert Parker, one of the targets of the book's attacks with a vile, anti-semitic slur (Parker, not Jewish, accused Nossiter, who is Jewish, of Gestapo techniques...and all of this in a blog comment!)?. There are significant reviews from many of the world's major newspapers. Why include a wholly unrepresentative and specious blog attack as the only opinion about this book? And you say you wish for balance? Surely this is anything but neutral and encyclopedia-like. At any rate, thank you for restoring what is factual and neutrally descriptive so that you have a more complete and accurate page rather than an incomplete and misleading one. Your sincerely Alberto Rigno Assistant at Goatworks Films (!!!) ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goatassistant (talkcontribs) 12:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

my apologies, i agree that was snarky and i should not have written that. struck - my apologies again. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
that said, the article as it stands has a lot of problems that need to be fixed. please do not edit it going forward, per WP:COI, but instead use the "edit request" function on the Talk page going forward. thanks. Jytdog (talk)
@Goatassistant: If you can provide corrections in the format below, then ping me on my Talk page, I will review them.

In the ___ paragraph of the ____ section it says "_______________" [http://www.example.com The source] does not actually support this and/or is not an authoritative source for this information. In [example.com this] credible, independent source from an authoritative news publication, book, academic, etc. (not his website) you can find the correct information about ____-way down the article

I'm afraid this is time-consuming and we shouldn't make it so difficult to correct errors, but inevitably editors that work on behalf of the article-subject tend to attempt to correct errors, and in the process add promotion, then get their edits reverted and the whole process is very frustrating, so it is better to explain the errors clearly and make it easy for us to correct them.
CorporateM (Talk) 01:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

AnastasiaDate[edit]

The entire history of the page, if you look at it, is paid editors who are trying to mask the company's fraudulent business practices. It's not neutral because any neutral point of view is systematically deleted and replaced with propaganda.98.155.181.243 (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There is very little recent editing activity. Are there any particular user's contributions you think should be investigated or reverted? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Note, this site cropped up twice at this noticeboard in 2013:
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stefie Shock[edit]

here they have admitted to being the social manager of Stefie Shock. Similar linkspam on Francis Cabrel suggests they may well have COI with them as well. They're currently blocked for username vio (it's a website), but if they come back, we'll need to deal with the COI. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No COI in Draft space?[edit]

I was surprised at the advice given in response to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Can we add a page for our company if it is completely neutral and not promotional, and does not give external links? Is there some sort of unwritten agreement that our guidelines do not apply there? And what happens to those COI pages when they hit mainspace? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

COI is COI, but part of meeting our guidelines is to go through draft for review. If and when they hit article space then any edits should conceivably be done via edit requests, not directly. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know how things away back at AfC. Joseph2302 works a lot there and picks up COI there - I don't know how he handles thing. For my part, my wish would be that if it seems pretty clear that the person creating has a COI, that folks working with them, would:
a) call their attention to WP:COI and the Terms of Use, nicely, and ask them to disclose any relationship they have with the subject of the article.
b) put the connected contributor tag on the Talk page and a COI tag on the article itself, with a section on the talk page noting the COI and tagging.
(pause) it is pretty clear to me that the part of WP:COI that says you should not create or edit if you have a COI gets blown off at AfC - as far as I know, nobody just stops conflicted editors cold and tells them they can only work via the talk page. right? so we should probably change that part of WP:COI since it is ignored in practice. But it would be very good if folks working at AfC would:
c) inform the conflicted creator (that could be a useful term if we do amend) needs to be ready to step away from the article once it goes live
d) move the article to mainspace only after it has been carefully reviewed for NPOV and decent sourcing (per the COI tag). the tag should be taken off and a note put on the Talk page in the COI section, that the article was reviewed by whoever took the tag off and moved it to mainspace.
that seems workable - it manages the COI but allows new article creation.... what do you all think?
i wonder if we should somehow have a chat with the folks who work at AfC and see what we can agree on. (i have no idea how much of a community those folks have) Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not an expert, I've only been doing AfC 2 days, and so far, I've seen 1 or 2 COI articles only, and they were way short of being accepted- massive POV/advert issues (so won't get accepted until NPOV). If there's a clear COI, then I've left the COI notice on their user talk, and tagged the draft talkpage. Suggestions c) and d) seems sensible though IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, giving my own personal view, Draft space is exactly the way a COI editor should proceed. It is the advice I have always given, and the advice I have always seen given by volunteers at OTRS. As long as the COI is clearly declared accourding to our Terms of Use, there will no confusion about the nature of the edits. Draft space is not indexed in the googles. It does not work for publicity purposes until it is moved to mainspace.
Obviously, the reviewers moving it to mainspace have the responsibility for ensuring the article complies with the basic requirements. Many of them have not done so in the past, but that's another problem. These reviews do not I think bypass NPP (at least, they certainly should not), and all articles actually submitted get scrutiny by the same standards. When a page is moved, it should carry the possible COI tag, and I think it should continue to carry it, whether or not it is judged that the article is currently actually npov. I have no hesitation listing a page moved from draft space for speedy or prod or afd as appropriate.
As I personally understand it, there is no policy that people with COI in general are forbidden to contribute to the encyclopedia, and there is no policy that paid editors or those with a financial conflict of interest are forbidden to contribute. Whether or not there should be is another question, but proposals to that effect have never attained consensus.
I think the only practical solution at this time is to actively follow individual articles and to actively participate in afd discussions , to prevent items brought there being closed as no-consensus or even keep because of lack of participation. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I find {{Connected contributor}} to be very helpful in flagging COI on a draft's talk page. I am also usually easily able to suggest that the COI editor self identifies and deploys it themselves.
What I would like to see is a formal policy statement that sets out the difference between Draft: and main namespaces and the different ways COI editors may/should behave in each.
I should state that I am in favour of good quality paid and COI editing, via the WP:AFC route, and am wholly opposed to bad editing from whatever source. I most assuredly feel that COI editors must disclose. It annoys me to discover one masquerading as a bona fide unpaid/non COI editor. IN this I do not include those who genuinely do not know we deprecate main name space COI edits. Fiddle Faddle 23:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Venu Govindaraju[edit]

Came across this article, which contains unusually flowery prose ("pre-eminent computer scientist" etc.). Did some digging, and it reeks strongly of COI (self-promotion).

The primary user Suo Motu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA created just for editing this article. The other user who edited the article, ESobczak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is an employee of the department to which this person belongs: see here. This is not an "outing", just obvious information from the Internet.

If the IP addresses of the users are analyzed, you will most likely see that they belong to the University of Buffalo (IP address range: 128.205.*.* ; see the 128.205.0.0 line here). In short, it appears that persons affiliated with the subject of this article and/or the University of Buffalo are editing this article, which is a violation of the TOS of Wikipedia.

ADrakken (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind[edit]

Had multiple discussion with editors, especially @NeilN: about how they must be right because their edits are "what Kent wants" or "Kent says this correct", although they don't seem to have given a proper explanation of their COI. Multiple edit wars on that page too. Tagged the article as per usual. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

What Kent wants and discussion on my talk page --NeilN talk to me 01:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)