Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (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:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Rebekah Dawson Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Drama Juniors Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Infillion Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Orit Ishay Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Chris Kubecka Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Oasis Management Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Joely Proudfit Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Seagull Trust Cruises Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:Squishmallows Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Wikimedian of the Year Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Neotu

• Neotu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Neotu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Neotu is a SPA who created the article on the Neotu art gallery. He has admitted that he was had a major role in the creation of the gallery, but he keeps removing the COI tag placed on the article. On User_talk:Fabrictramp#NEOTU he has defended his moves, saying that the term "conflict of interest" is very offensive where he is from. He seems pretty adamant on keeping the article tag-free as evidenced on my talk page, and Fabrictramp's. I thought further discussion was due in order to establish a wider consensus. Themfromspace (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been peripherally involved already. I've tried to explain what the COI tag is and is not, and that it just alerts COI patrollers to keep their eyes out for any POV. Not being a French speaker, I can't say either way about how the term COI is perceived in that language. Since the user is willing to have a text tag saying essentially the same thing, but without using the actual term "Conflict of Interest", I'm willing to take him at his word there. As far as the article goes, it is relatively factual, albeit uncited. There's 1 peacock'y line in the designers paragraph, but the rest of the article seems relatively neutral. As mentioned, I've been involved already, so I'll defer here to other responders. Just filling in some blanks up to now (see my talk page for the full convos). Arakunem^Talk 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I can echo everything Themfromspace has said. I am a French speaker (used to live in France, but not in Paris and I never encountered this gallery), and I know of no such issues in French with the term. However, everyone reacts to phrases differently, so this may be Neotu's particular take on the phrase. (Interesting that it took him 6 days to bring that up.) Trying to look objectively at the article (which I may not be able to do, given how much this editor has tried to provoke me), the first paragraph is definitely fine, but the Designers, Exhibitions and Bibliography sections are a bit excessive and are the reasons I think a COI tag should be on the article. Yes, those sections are simple statements of fact, but in such detail and length that they become unencyclopedic.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Note I notified Neotu that his username was against guidelines and he's currently seeking to have it changed. He put in a request for "Neogejo" (another company he's affiliated with) and that request hasn't been acted upon yet. Just a heads-up that his username will soon be changing. Themfromspace (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an art gallery catalog. I could imagine an informative article about the gallery, backed up with some things that reliable sources have said about it. But if you look at the article, it's a data dump. I suggest that the article be proposed for deletion. That would allow five days for further work to be done on it. If you don't have time to read the article, this one sentence will give the flavor: Neotu promoted excellence in contemporary furniture since its conception in 1984 until it ended in 2001. That's about all you will get, except for a bunch of lists. No objection if someone wants to attempt an article rescue, but you'd need to start from practically zero. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Neogejo is not the name of a company. It is my AVATAR as a writer in e-writing, poet in e-poetry and as a designer in Graphic and Website design you can check/search on Google: Neogejo and/or Gerard Dalmon. I do not agree when it is said that the Neotu article is an "art gallery catalog". So far the article gives a list of Designers who had worked for the Gallery. A chronology of the exhibitions, and a bibliography which could be very useful for people for want to make research on the avant-garde furniture design in the 80's and 90's . I am welcoming any contributors to bring critics regarding the past activity of Neotu. To make comparison with other art gallery please could you check the article Gagosian Gallery. Is this article also an "art gallery catalog"? This gallery is still "alive" and running business in London, New York, Los Angeles and Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please find below a list of external links refering to Neotu. This could be an excellent material for future contributors who would like to bring more content in the introduction of the article

• New York Time Magazine November 8 1990
• New York Time Magazine October 31 1996
• The Washington Post September 24 1992
• France Magazine Summer 2001

etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

These articles are a start. At least there are some verbal descriptions of the furniture. It would be good to see some pictures. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on this article since beginning of November. It is not finish. Also I am a beginner in Wikipedia, these are my first steps. I agree pictures of furniture are missing. But I do not how to add them. Anyway you can see a selection of furniture which are a part of the French Museums collections. This is a tiny selection of what Neotu Gallery has shown and also MANUFACTURED. Because before being a gallery Neotu was first an avant-garde furniture manufacturer.

• Collections of the French Museums Put: Neotu in the search. You will get two pages of photographs of pieces which are in different museums in France included the Pompidou Center which is a Modern Art Museum in Paris.
• Collections of the Museum of Decorative Arts in Paris

• Just one more question. Do you know in Wikipedia contributors or experts in Contemporary Furniture? I could get in touch with them to ask advice and see if some are interested to collaborate to the Neotu article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotu (talk • contribs) 12:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it's getting down to specific content discussion, probably better to take that side of things to Talk:Neotu. These are useful links.

That said, I think we still need to be careful to keep on the right side of WP:COI here. The original tone of communication at User talk:Fabrictramp#NEOTU didn't suggest sufficient neutrality toward the subject, and I get a little jittery when Wikipedia presence is too closely tied to the aims of some external website (i.e. User:Neotu is here to "try to trace the history of Neotu galleries" and at Neotu.com is a holding page with "Coming soon the future website of Neotu which will trace the history of the galleries" [1]). Maybe it's a mutual interest that does no harm, but it feels like conscription to do someone's homework unless it's very clear that Neotu is not the arbiter of content/tags/etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My user name is no longer Neotu. It is now Neoge. I will delete the neotu.com link in the external links section since you think that this might be a problem. neotu.com site is in progress. When completed this site will provide a list by designers of photographs of the pieces that Neotu has shown and/or manufactured. That will be more than 1000 photographs organized as a data base. The site will provide also as PDF all the catalogues of Neotu from 1984 to 2001.--Neoge (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased that Neoge is considering ways of improving the article, and his direction sounds reasonable. Before we close this discussion, the current contents of the article still seem to be over-promotional, and I do not believe it should be kept unless the unhelpful lists of exhibits are greatly reduced. I invite Neoge to say if he would agree to such shortening. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of the exhibits is short and was not finished... Between 1984 to 2001 Neotu uses to have at least 6 shows a year only for the Gallery in Paris. Just make the math. I though that was a interesting information to bring to the public in this Encyclopedia. But if "everyone" there thinks that this list of exhibits has no interest, is too long or whatever, I am ready to delete it. I am giving up. I do not know who I am talking to. Everyday there is a interlocutor who has a new point of view, a new suggestion... So I am really lost. I invite you, if you have not read already this novel by Franz Kafka The Castle (novel) to read it. I have this feeling of being "K." the protagonist of the novel who "struggles to gain access to the mysterious authorities of a castle who govern the village where he wants to work"... Please try to read this book. The reading might reveal you how sounds the "Wikipedia bureaucracy" for a novice arriving in your "Castle". Yours --Neoge (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think we are as good as Kafka, you do us honor! There is an ongoing problem in creating good articles about artistic topics, perhaps since the art world is not yet comfortable with the internet. You've tried to add an article that seems to us promotional (which is why it arrived here at WP:COIN). Your work could be redeemed if it were truly informative, which it is not. There are no pictures of actual furniture in the material you've added! You cite many exhibit catalogs that are probably not real publications, since they can't be ordered from a publisher. The whole article seems like a tease, because it claims that this is an important gallery, but we have no idea why our readers should care. If you have the rights for any pictures, and are willing to clear them through our system, I could work with you on that. Our copyright rules are quite serious, and do require some patience. EdJohnston (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a relevant WikiProject? Neoge, could you perhaps post references for your gallery there and ask somebody else to write about it. Your chance of success will be improved if you help Wikipedia by writing about other art topics that interest you. Jehochman ^Talk 09:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably WikiProject Visual arts; I've posted a note there.

BTW, I've restored the standard COI tag and added an Expert tag. The point of such tags is allow people who might help to find articles with the tagged problems. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To EdJohnson I did not make any comparison between Wikipedia and Franz Kafka. The only comparison was between K. (the protagonist of the novel "The Castle" by F. Kafka) and myself who feels as K. struggling with Mysterious Authorities. Regarding the bibliography that I provide: I give 90% of the ISBN. If you have time please check them. The books are real and not from a library found on Second Life. If you are curious about the books you can order them from Amazon or Alibris etc.. you can also consult Google Books just put Neotu in the search, you can also go the Library of the University of Michigan which has a lot of books and publications regarding Neotu. This link Pompidou Center la galerie Neotu" is it real? Or is it something born in my imagination? I am afraid that "Wikipedia bureaucracy" is very suspicious when something new (artistic topics for ex) is brought to it and believe me I feel very comfortable with the Internet. Yes I will put some pictures of the furniture online when I know how to do. But do you really think that pictures are more real than writings, references or books? I am also surprise that you write and doubt that "our readers should care" about Neotu. Do you know so precisely "your readers" to know so exactly what they are looking for? If think that the interest of Wikipedia is to bring a lot of information regarding different fields which are not common or trivial subjects. This is the real WEALTH of this Encyclopedia. --Neoge (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

To Jehochman: there is some one who is an expert of Neotu. Her name is Ms Constance Rubini. She works at the Decorative Art Museum in Paris. She just wrote an long article in AZIMUTS#29 - ISBN:9782912808073 regarding Neotu. But I am not sure that this person is familiar with Wikipedia and can add something in the article. Nevertheless her book is for me an excellent source of information. --Neoge (talk) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

user Cathorserobot, website speakaboos.com

Resolved

 – User self-reverted links, website link can be dealt with on its pagetedder (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Cathorserobot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - apparently affiliated with site/entry Speakaboos.com, has been adding external and internal links across many celeb pages. (a) is Speakaboos notable, (b) are the entries notable, (c) should they be reverted due to NPOV or left alone because of notability? tedder (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I am the user in question here. Wanted to explain that I was unaware of how specific the conditions were for external links. I saw a variety of different links to interviews and videos of various works by the actors whose pages I posted on, and similarly thought users would be interested in their work for Speakaboos. I have since undone these external links. As for Speakaboos, I believe it is very notable as a new children's website and I believe that the article is well-cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathorserobot (talk • contribs) 14:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a note to your talk page pointing to a guide for adding ISBN links to include book references in articles. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I consider this resolved- the user has replied and is aware of COI now. Notability of Speakaboos can be taken care of on its page. tedder (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

POV content by suicide victims father

Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The parents of two of the suicides at Deepcut have for some time been making POV insertions in this article using either IP contributions or single purpose accounts. One of these Des James (talk · contribs) has now created an explicit account with the declared intention to reflect accurately the facts as they stand.

I have previously sought to identify the risks here and have this morning been more explicit.

I would be grateful for some other eyes on the article.

ALR (talk) 09:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A second new account is now inserting significant POV material in the section about another of the suicides. Vonny2005 (talk · contribs)

ALR (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult. Obviously he deserves the utmost sympathy (and you've handled it extremely diplomatically so far): but when you put together a major COI, original research, unjustified removal of sourced content, borderline personal attacks [2] ("ALR should declare his/her obsession with this case"), assumption of bad faith [3] and accusations of bias [4], it is getting to cluebat time. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over it.

ALR (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I see the edits have stopped for the moment. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone

Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This section is sourced entirely by forum posts on a fansite by DrSturm (talk · contribs) who is also a poster on those forums.Mr T (Based) (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please note discussion at WT:VG on this. -- Sabre (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suburban Express

• Suburban Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obviously COIage going on here, as admitted in the article's AFD, along with perceived sockpuppetry and persistent editwarring. There has also been a benign legal threat made on the article's page, which was reported to ANI (however, may have been in error). MuZemike (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fulcrum Gallery etc

• Actual Art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Terry Fugate-Wilcox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fulcrum Gallery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Fvlcrvm (talk · contribs)

Sorry to bring this back here: see previous WP:COIN#Terry Fugate-Wilcox.

Fvlcrvm has self-identified as Valerie Shakespeare, wife of Terry Fugate-Wilcox and founder of the Fulcrum Gallery. Previous WP:COIN discussions were settled seemingly amicably (because of her direct knowledge she was given unusual leeway in directly editing these articles). However, just having read the articles prior to an attempt at cleanup, I'm not sure it's working: she's main editor on all three to an extent that's well outside WP:COI's "avoid, or exercise great caution", and I'm not comfortable with the general relationship to Wikipedia (writing one's own Wikipedia articles, then using them as external sources elsewhere - see About us).

Another new element is what looks like considerable promotion-via-citation (as well as use as a major source) of an unpublished memoir It's the Artist's Life for me!. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write either the article on Fugate-Wilcox or the article on Actual Art. I did write the article on Fulcrum, because the gallery was of some significance, in it's day, has been closed for nearly 7 years, and was referred to in several other articles in Wikipedia about artists, (that I had nothing to do with writing, either) but with no further information or reference. The new info I added to Fulcrum, was about how the name came to be, which I found in an old article, from the early '90's. Since there was so much confusion about the name, early on, I thought it would be good to include. The other thing I add, (which only I CAN add), is photos, because only I hold the rights to same. I think photos are extremely important in articles, especially about art. Not only do they make the articles interesting but make abstract descriptions of difficult imagery, easy to understand.

I have been extremely diligent about using only factual material from verifiable sources, avoiding opinions & generally trying to follow wiki guidelines.

As for referencing Wikipedia, as a way to learn more about Tery, as an artist; or to learn more about me, as a person who once ran a gallery in SoHo, I did not know that was prohibited. I thought refering people to Wikipedia was a good thing. I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia, & refer people to it constantly, not just for art, but for information on a wide range of subjects.Fvlcrvm (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I did not write either the article on Fugate-Wilcox or the article on Actual Art.

Errm, you created the Actual Art here and have been its main editor, and wrote the bulk of the content for the TFW article since this Jan 2008 edit. It's not sufficient that sources be verifiable - it needs to be seen that they're being put together in a neutral manner. It's not you personally I don't trust; it's that I don't trust the dynamic of anyone, especially anyone in an essentially promotional line of work, playing such a major role in collation of material about themselves. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we actually have some testicles about this? There's an increasing tendency here to let artists who won't take the hint just go ahead and edit their own articles. Does WP:COI apply or not? It seems to me completely unacceptable that Fvlcrvm is continuing, even after COI warnings, is still majorly editing articles about her gallery and husband. If there's no censure about this, we might as well scrap COI guidelines. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Got those pages on my watchlist. I'll do my best to prevent COIcreep from taking over. Themfromspace (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the gallery has been closed for nearly 7 years. It is an article of historical context. The newest edit I made that caused this new COI issue was how the name "Fvlcrvm" came to be, which I found in an article, someone sent me. Since there was so much confusion about the name, initially, I thought it would be a good quote to add.

As for Fugate-Wilcox, I have mostly added images, which only I own the copyright on, so only I can add. I believe they make the article much clearer & more interesting. I have been very diligent about avoiding any promotional or positive opinion material. If I need to ask other people to add material, that they bring to my attention, I will do so.Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoever changed all the references on the San Andreas Project to it's website, created an inaccuracy. The quotes & info do not come from the website. They come from verifiable, published articles in reliable publications. To change all of those sources to one website, is to belittle the historical context of a major, conceptual work of art.Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the Google Book reference back. I was going to try to do it but really appreciate you doing that for me. Please do not delete the edits I made today. There was no COI involved... only specifying the references where requested or adding a citation where the tag said "Citation needed". The COI guidelines say to use common sense. That should apply to deletions as well. I do appreciate your help.Fvlcrvm (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads up on CJ Follini

This was bought to my attention while reviewing the article's AFD. This article has been extensively edited by the subject. I pointed this out in the AFD discussion, tagged the article with {{autobiography}}, and posted my concerns on the talk page. After this, editing switched to another account with no other edits besides this article.

Since the AFD was closed "keep" (it really couldn't have been closed otherwise) what it needs at this point is more eyes on it and the attention of a few more uninvolved editors. Besides the taggers, the article is only being edited by SPAs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Glover

• Andrew Glover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - [5] removal of cited content by Andrew Glover (talk · contribs), repeated after request on talk page to note WP:COI and WP:Autobiography. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to see what they say at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - I've cross-posted it there. That aspect looks borderline to me, as he may be within his rights to remove it as contentious and unreliably-sourced (i.e. it's not corroborated so far in newspapers other than the tabloid Mirror).

However, the material on works and style added by User:Andrew Glover looks a distinctly peacock-y synthesis. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Bennett Lebow

• Bennett Lebow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The following users: 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3, against whom a sockpuppet report has additionally been filed, appear, based upon their postings, to be affilated with at least some of the companies: Vector, New Valley; and also Mr. Bennett Lebow, whom they have directed their remarks toward. It is my BELIEF, based upon the following evidence, that the above user(s) are, as mentioned before, affiliated with this person and these companies, and are merely using Wikipedia as the equivalent of a "public relations brochure" and means to bolster the image of at least Mr. Lebow, as is evidenced by the other investigations that have been requested.

Please note that nearly all of the remarks made by 71.190.203.37, Kansas7474, and Simpsonj3 as noted in their contributions are directed to the above executive and the affiliated companies: Mr. Lebow, New Valley, Vector, and Liggett. Given that these are not "popular" subjects, it is extremely unlikely that an editor without a conflict of interest as noted above would make these remarks.

I believe that the remarks that I have made, that have continually been deleted by all three of the above users, should be locked and made permanent, especially in view of the fact that other Wikipedians are essentially attempting to form a consensus by reverting to my edits; and also the fact that even Kansas7474 has admitted they are accurately sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alygx026 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The filing user here is extremly anxious to return to edit the page which I protected due to his edit waring with these possible COI's. There is a checkuser case pending which will likely clear all of this up. I do not see that a SSP case has been filed, at least it is not showing when I look. JodyB _talk 22:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My SSP was filed yesterday, although it was not properly saved (this is the first time I have done this) so I refiled it today.

Alygx026 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:BILLmesitrell.jpg / User:Lumal

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

Per Admin suggestion I am re-posting this here. I found Image:BILLmesitrell.jpg and tagged the image {{di-no source}} as it is a collage of images. But the image is sort of like a wallpaper and has a website URL on it that takes you too Money Well Spent, which appears to be a marketing business. It is not a website about the subject of the image, but this is where it gets more interesting. The site is very hard to navigate but I stumbled upon this page which contains the statement "WORLDWIDE "BRAND NAME" PROMOTIONS". This same page also contains a link that says: "Our WIKIpedia edits contributions" which, when clicked, takes a person to Special:Contributions/Lumal, who is the uploader of the image. This seems to imply that working on Wikiepedia articles is a service they offer and leads me to believe that the image is a somewhat disguised advertisement. FYI the image is used in the Bill Meistrell article. And for the hell of it I dug a bit more and came across one of his clients - Bill Meistrell. If you take a look at this website you will find links to Body Glove, Bill Meistrell and a link that did go to an article on Dive N' Surf but now seems to be a part of the Redondo Beach article. A photo in this article shows Dive N' Surf and contains with a link to the Dive-n-Surf website, which is another client, and Image:DIVEnSURFlogo.jpg also has the moneywellspent.com watermark. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User Lumal's primary activities on Wikipedia promote his websites lumal.com and moneywellspent.com, his clients, and the services he offers on those websites. He seems not to see a clear distinction between a free encyclopedia and a free webhosting service. His user page duplicates content from lumal.com and promotes it.

From http://www.lumal.com/fees.html:

I or we manage websites as publicity startiing [sic] @ $700 per year

We generate content as bait for publicity starting @ $250

We organize a variety of systems to maximize exposure 4 our customers. EA priced separately and as groups starting @ $100 EA

We rank phrases & keywords in the largest search monsters roaming the universe starting @ $1500

The username violates Username policy#Company/group names policy. For starters, I'll post* on Usernames for administrator attention. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)   (done)*

Y Blocked. The Helpful One 23:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that was appropriate (I posted {{Uw-spamublock}} notices in Lumal's userspace).

Content added to the enclopedia from the Lumal account still needs attention and perhaps removal as Soundvisions1 posted above, e.g. promotional articles, images with embedded promotional website urls / watermarks, etc. Some should be speedied, some XfDed. — Athaenara ✉ 02:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than post long lists here, I posted {{Li}} and {{La}} links, for images and articles which may need further attention, on Lumal's user talk page. The images with eye-grabbing embedded moneywellspent spamlinks* should be a deletion priority. — Athaenara ✉ 08:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• (The {{db-g11}} tag would be appropriate.*) — Athaenara ✉ 21:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ThanksForLettingAllUsernamesBeTaken and MikeOS

• ThanksForLettingAllUsernamesBeTaken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MikeOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Obvious COI as noted on the user's userpage. User has taken extreme ownership in reaction to the article possibly being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MikeOS. MuZemike (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dan Debicella

Reporting this to BLPN and COIN.

An article about a state senator is the subject of an extended edit war by two IPs. One is pushing a very favorible POV version of the page, another is pushing a fairly negative POV version. From the edit comments it appears quite possible that the IPs are the subject himself, and one of his political opponents. Short semi protections have done little to stop the warring, so I've semi-ed it for a month this time. But I suspect that'll not be much of a long term solution either. Could really use additional eyes on this, and maybe someone skilled in coming up with some sort of NPOV middle ground version. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Luisa Fortes da Cunha

• Luisa Fortes da Cunha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Luisafcunha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Blatant autobiography. I tagged the article half to death, and cautioned the creator at User talk:Luisafcunha. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it should go to AfD? Themfromspace (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

John Kennedy O'Connor

There are a large number of articles (50 plus) where the main content (i.e. not as a footnote) of those articles includes the phrase "Author and historian John Kennedy O'Connor notes in The Eurovision Song Contest — The Official History that...." A full list of these pages can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=John+Kennedy+O%27Connor&go=Go

My view is that the articles are being used to promote the book and the author. I would be interested in hearing views from others and have no problem being told that my view is wrong.

In a nutshell: Is this approach acceptable within Wikipedia?

David T Tokyo (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Observation: user JKMMOC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) wrote a John Kennedy O'Connor article which was deleted in March 2008 (deletion log). Various anons, including 70.137.156.133 and 68.164.34.49, have added the phrases described above to quite a few articles.

If the book is a genuinely reliable source, it may be used as a reference and cited inline as such, otherwise not. I've no clue myself about what the reliable sources for Eurovision-related matters are. — Athaenara ✉ 09:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Athaenara - much appreciated. I wasn't aware of the full background - it's clear that others have headed down this path before. To answer your question, the book is a source for Eurovision-related matters. I wouldn't like to comment on its reliability but have no reason to doubt it.

My issue, as you know, is that if it is constantly being cited by the Author (and JKMMOC is a pretty strong clue that is his hand that is behind this), then self-promotion, advertising and COI all enter the equation, undermining the integrity of those articles. I fully appreciate that there is information in this book that could be useful. However, in the end it just feels like a bunch of articles have been hijacked for someone's self-interest. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

R.L. Crow Publications

→ see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Gainer

Articles:

• Bill Gainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• William S. Gainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wiilaim S. Gainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bill gainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• After Hours Poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Neeli Cherkovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paul Fericano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors:

• Wsgainer (talk · contribs)
• Editor395 (talk · contribs)
• 24.10.8.50 (talk · contribs)
• 70.133.86.90 (talk · contribs)

The WHOIS for R.L. Crow Publication's website lists "Bill Gainer" as registrant. User:Wsgainer created the article Bill Gainer and the article After Hours Poetry about a poetry genre that appears to apply to Gainer's poetry. Bill Gainer was quickly tagged as both COI and an autobiography, but the tags were removed by the article creator. After I replaced the tags, they were repeatedly removed by User:24.10.8.50 and User:Editor395. One comment in the edit summary was "This article was created by the editors at R.L. Crow Publications and is not an autobiogrphy". Another was "We believe the issue of confilt of interest has been resolved. One of our writers personal information was mistakenly used to create an account here. Our editors have corrected the error. Thank you". The conflict of interest is clear. All accounts involved appear to be single purpose accounts promoting Bill Gainer and/or R.L. Crow publications. So far, the involved editors have resisted attempts to get them involved in the discussion on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You might want to add Yossarian Universal News Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Sinatra, Sinatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to that list as part of the Gainer/Fericano set... Richard Hock (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Editor395 has posted a message here [6]. I don't know if it should be copied here, but I wanted those looking into the situation to be aware of it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've started the AfD process. Without the self-published sources, these articles clearly lack reliable/verifiable notability. Rklawton (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Dave Albo

• Dave Albo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Davealbo has made 15 edits to this article over 3.5 months. He refers to it as "my site entry," and reverts any modifications that are critical of him as "vandalism," sometimes replacing the whole article with the content of his campaign webpage. He's been warned by several users over several months that his modifications violate COI standards. I've been trying to clean up the entry, but I fear I'm making it worse with the ping-pong edits. (I have my own COI: I'm a Democrat, and Del. Albo is a Republican. FWIW.) I don't think that I should continue to work with Del. Albo on this problem, since clearly I'm not doing a very good job. WaldoJ (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba neglected article due to driving away COI editors

Can somebody please improve this article. After all the perceived COI editors (incl. me) were driven away, the article suffers from major neglect. I am posting this here because I think that contributors who are concerned with COI should also take responsibility for the consequences of banning perceived COI editors. Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ShockerHelp

This user has made no edits except in an Article Shocker Toys which is part of their user name and only in articles that have to do with the company Shocker Toys. They point to forum posts that have been spammed around the internet by a user with the net name Domu which appears to be the same person. They have contributed nothing to Wiki except edit wars and many reverts with multiple edits. I think that an article cannot be fair is a person acting under false pretenses.--JMST (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment This has been discussed already here, and at a long drama-filled AfD. Themfromspace (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Purdue Pharma

Purdue Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - This article is the target of an ongoing POV campaign by an aggrieved mother, Marianne Skolek, who holds the company responsible for her daughter's 2002 death. Third party coverage of her efforts is here. After two bloggers began reporting/implying that the company was reverting her edits, I attempted to set the record straight here. As you can see, Ms. Skolek more or less stated her intention to continue inserting POV into the article regardless of Wikipedia policy. It could use more people watching it. Dppowell (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I requested the page to be protected temporarily. Themfromspace (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: if the incident is notable (is it?), then a separate article about the lawsuit may be appropriate. Of course, WP:NPOV needs to be followed there as well. But adding this one incident to the company's page probably violates WP:UNDUE. For comparison purposes, we have do have a FAC article on Burger King legal issues... Pcap ping 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The Oxycontin issue is notable. It should ideally be covered at one place--at the present thee is partial coverage at the drug company that patented it and at the particle on the product. Either is OK, but it should not include detailed discussion of individual cases. such material is not encyclopedic. The present version of this material seem quite reasonable. But there is also at present a paragraph in the article about another product of theirs, one that does not quite seem to have the same degree of notability and recognition, and would appear not suitable for inclusion. It deals with a single human asserted case that could not be confirmed by investigation. The single lab study dealing with possibly related matters also appears remarkably minor in context of more serious concerns. I have removed them as undue weight. DGG (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote it before you removed it, so at least it wasn't misleading, but I also found quite WP:UNDUE (and tagged it off-topic myself). I also posted a heads up message to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Purdue_Pharma. Let's keep the discussion on the article's talk page: it's easier to find there. Pcap ping 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)