Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:17, 22 March 2010

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 Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. 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 edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

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.

User:Rabhyanker, company trademarkia.com

Rabhyanker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

trademarkia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

User edits articles about well-known American companies, adding an extremely detailed history of the company's trademark or service mark filings, cited by one or more reference links to trademarkia.com. User states on his user page "I am an IP attorney, interested primarily in trademarks and patents in Mountain View, California". Has had warnings from various editors as a SPA and for COI, and has had Trademarkia, an article he created, deleted. A few diffs showing links being added to trademarkia.com, by company:

• to Tiffany & Co.
• to Chanel
• to Honda
• to Kleenex

--CliffC (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, what's added smells like original research - for example,

The Gillette brand is synonymous with shaving and personal care products. As such, trademark protection becomes invaluable to distinguish a company's products and services from its competition to the public.

--CliffC (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The trademarkia website lists Raj Abhyanker as a contact for Australia, Europe and Canada and also lists the American address as being in Mountain View. Rabhyanker lists his website as http://www.rajpatent.com/ on his userpage, therefore clearly indicates that they are adding references from their own website to wikipedia. It looks like it is being done in good faith, but it remains original research and refspam regardless. Now that it has been bought up I think that Rabhyanker should refrain from adding any further links to http://www.trademarkia.com. I'll notify Rabhyanker of this discussion. Smartse (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it's Raj Abhyanker. I have made it clear that I am a co-founder of Trademarkia, that I am an IP attorney, and that my law firm supports the site on legal issues. Trademarkia offers unique historical information that adds value to existing Misplaced Pages pages. I make my affiliation with the site open and transparent. Why then should I be stopped from improving Misplaced Pages? Sure, my edits may in some way benefit Trademarkia, and I have a personal interest in its success. However, my edits also benefit Misplaced Pages and I have a personal interest in making Misplaced Pages a success. I have invested lots of personal, non-billable time in improving Misplaced Pages, and I find Misplaced Pages's inaccuracies related to trademark and brand information quite appalling. Trademarkia uniquely helps to solve a gapping hole in the accuracy of information posted on Misplaced Pages. As such, I should be allowed to continue improving postings on Misplaced Pages. I have fixed and edited dozens of articles that have simply been wrong, inaccurate, or incomplete when it comes to historical brand information. You can audit my record over the past few months, its value stands for itself. Rabhyanker (talk) 01:04, 29 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll see from the editor's talk page that others have raised concerns about the conflicts of interest, and you'll even see a warning from me from last year regarding some links added to the iPhone article. But when I looked into the matter further, it seemed like Trademarkia might fall under the COI exception for archivists. This was discussed a little on the COI guideline talk page, where another editor opined that Trademarkia was exactly the kind of place that people had in mind when they implemented the exception. See WP:COI#Subject and culture sector professionals where the exception is mentioned. Since Raj seemed to be adding relevant, helpful links to articles, and was completely open and honest about who he was and his connection to the organization. Because of all that, I considered the COI to be of no concern. On the other hand, if the site isn't considered a reliable source, then the links shouldn't be added. That might be more of a question for the reliable sources noticeboard than this one, however. -- Atama頭 17:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have considered questioning the reliability of trademarkia.com as a source at WP:RSN. In my opinion it would fail the test – as the simplest example, searching Google News for "Trademarkia" returns only three references in English:

1. A Trademarkia press release
2. A brief mention in the Washington Post's "TechCrunch" column
3. A press release from a competing IP attorney in which he states "he was outraged with sites like LegalZoom and Trademarkia offering low-quality trademark registration services"

So, IMO not very reliable, but the site's free (if inexact) trademark search engine seems to provide some value, so I'll not list it for review at RSN at this time. Others may think differently. What brought this user's edits to my attention, and what I object to beyond the admitted COI, is the length and extreme detail of the edits, some of which violate WP:WEIGHT; their placement within the articles (sorry, but the unspoken practice here is to either greatly trim long sections not of general interest, or put them toward the bottom of the article so as not to interfere with readability); (here using Accenture as the example) adding logo images that don't improve on the logos in the article infobox and whose captions add even less; adding multiple untitled "reference" links that end up repeating the site URL over and over in the References section. Sorry if I sound angry but I am pretty fed up with businesses, not just this one, using Misplaced Pages as a free advertising venue. --CliffC (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Trademarkia is a HIGHLY credible site and its data is very reliable. CliffC (talk), you are simply wrong and not citing appropriate web authority. Trademarkia licenses all of its data officially through the United States Patent and Trademark Office through a paid subscription made available to it under the Freedom of Information Act, and the data is daily synchronized to it . Trademarkia's data is fully licensed from the USPTO, and you are welcome to contact a person at the USPTO's Bulk Data Licensing Divison to verify Trademarkia's accuracy and integrity. Trademarkia's search has indexed both TESS and TARR databases, and hence people can search from the year 1870 on Trademarkia, which is a larger search than the USPTO's TESS database, which goes back only to the year 1932. You will find that Trademarkia has been mentioned in more than 1000 highly credible blogs since its launch on September 15, 2009 , and achieved a Page Rank on Google of 5, indicating that it is a HIGHLY trusted site. You can install the Google Toolbar to verify this. Furthermore, Trademarkia has grown to become an Alexa and Quantcast top 125,000 site in its first 5 months, which is among the fastest growth rates ever for a search site of this type, further showing its value and importance of Trademarkia . Lastly, if you check Delicious, Trademarkia has been bookmarked by more than 500 people in its first 5 months, setting a record for sites of this type of social bookmarking, further indicating the Trademarkia's value . Rabhyanker (talk) 09:54, 06 March 2010 (UTC)

1. That "outraged attorney" post is a paid press release by a Trademark search and filing service through a paid Press Release through PR-USA.net. That attorney (who incidentally PAID for that press release as you will notice) is upset because the trademark search service that he charges for is now in jeopardy. He can no longer charge for that service because of Trademarkia. You should also note that I am also an IP attorney, a member in excellent standing with the United States Patent Bar for more than 10 years, the State Bar of California ,the State Bar of Minnesota<ref<http://www.mnbar.org/</ref>, someone who has received more than 40 endorsements from peers on LinkedIn (more than any other U.S. patent and trademark attorney in the United States), and a Co-Founder of Trademarkia . I would like to continue to add value to Misplaced Pages in this transparent way. Please let me know your thoughts before I continue improving Misplaced Pages edits. Rabhyanker (talk) 09:54, 06 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that the press release of the "outraged" attorney be taken seriously as a source, any more than any press release should be, Trademarkia's included. Your good standing with the various bars is undisputed but not really of interest at Misplaced Pages until mentioned by a reliable source. Another editor has commented on your talk page here regarding the value of Quantcast, Alexa and Google page rank as metrics, and I don't believe blog mentions or bookmark counts are regarded so far as Misplaced Pages measures of reliability or notability. As I said above, I think your free search engine has value and I have no plans to question your site's reliability at RSN. Where you say "I would like to continue to add value to Misplaced Pages in this transparent way", I do not agree that your edits are transparent at all, I think they are overweight and obtrusive and I recommend that you at least consider the objections above (search for "what I object to") before you continue editing. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cliff, many have commented to me how my edits have added tremendous value to Misplaced Pages. There are simply many things incorrect on Misplaced Pages. For example, the Coca-Cola post indicated that "Coke" was generic trademark in the public domain, which it has not been since 1944. I have edited and added value to many posts such as this one, and per the general consensus here, I will continue editing in a responsible and transparent way. I will be sure to continue being unbiased. Occasionally, others (such as yourself) may object to some edits, as is possible with any editor. I will continue to promptly respond and comply with such requests. That being said, I will consider your comments in future posts. Rabhyanker (talk) 09:54, 09 March 2010 (UTC)

Cliff, I see that you removed my Kleenex edits based on "conflict of interest and non-reliable source". What strikes me as odd is that the ONLY other remaining reference on the Kleenex post is one of the website of parent company Kimberly-Clark, which is the article's now (with your removal) sole source! Based on your own provided rationale, is there not a conflict of interest with parent company's website? Surely, they are more biased than Trademarkia? In fact, Trademarkia is the only place on the web where you can find this information, as the USPTO's Tess database only goes back to the year 1932. Trademarkia's licensed database from the USPTO goes back to the year 1872. Rabhyanker (talk) 09:54, 09 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to consider those comments in future edits, please think of them as constructive criticism in spite of their perhaps exasperated tone. However, please don't consider the opinion of myself and one other editor here at the COI noticeboard as any sort of general consensus that future edits won't run into similar difficulties; you have already received some feedback from others on your talk page.

• Regarding Coca Cola, these edits illustrate both the positive and the negative -- they correct the erroneous statement that Coke is a genericized trademark, citing Trademarkia, but go on to stuff additional trademark details and two more Trademarkia citations into the middle of a section on package design.
• Regarding Kleenex, (1) I reverted this edit not for COI (although you acknowledge one) but with edit summary "original research sourced to a commercial site not a reliable source"; those blue links represent the areas being discussed above and perhaps in future elsewhere. Company web sites can be acceptable sources for their own articles, there is no automatic conflict of interest. (2) Your repeated defense of Trademarkia's methods is probably best reserved for the reliable sources noticeboard if the subject is raised there. (3) If you will reread your suggestion that I am somehow affiliated with Kimberly Clark I think you will agree that it is lacking in logic and withdraw it.

--CliffC (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• It just seems strange how the only source remaining on that Kleenex page is the company's own website. Furthermore, I stand behind the integrity of each edit I have made. In my view, Misplaced Pages is a place for relevant information, not just a collection of summaries of corporate websites. My edits reflect thoughtful, original research related to corporate history. Many have commented that they add value. Beyond being a commercial venture, Trademarkia is an immensely valuable resource that is full of historical brand information and research not found anywhere else. For example, Trademarkia offers the only way to search for U.S. Trademarks before the year 1932. This historical information is not published on the web by the US Government but has been made available to Trademarkia under the Freedom of Information Act. As I have mentioned before, Trademarkia offers unique historical information that adds value to existing Misplaced Pages pages. I make my affiliation with the site open and transparent. Sure, my edits may in some way benefit Trademarkia, and I have a personal interest in its success. However, my edits also benefit Misplaced Pages and I have a personal interest in making Misplaced Pages a success. It is expensive to run a site like Trademarkia, and the organization needs some revenue stream to survive. I will continue editing and referencing back to Trademarkia in a thoughtful and transparent way. Objected to edits will be removed as appropriate. Raj

--Rabhyanker (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Raj, what has some of us concerned is the undue weight some of your edits give to the trademark aspects of articles. Unless one is interested in the topic, either professionally or as a hobby, trademarks are not that big a deal within the global aspect of a corporation's history. For example, your edits give more weight to copyright issues with Coca-Cola than to the history of allegations that the corporation's affiliates in some third world countries have been involved in murders of labor organizers and the like. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback OrangeMike. In my view, the strength and value of Misplaced Pages derives from the collective whole of educated and diverse contributors sharing their own expertise in this collective forum. Many experts of these diverse areas (including myself) would otherwise have no other forum to collectively contribute toward the betterment of history and knowledge. As a Partner and founder of a multinational law firm representing more than 200 companies, I am a recognized and qualified expert in the area of intellectual property law, international intellectual property, trademarks, patents, and copyrights. My edits reflect areas of my expertise. To certain companies such as Coca-Cola, their success, brand identity, and corporate equity is directly tied to the value of their trademarks. Without documented history of their trademark rights, corporate profile history for companies with famous, valuable brands (whose trademarks are notably one of the biggest factors to their stock value, market capitalization, success, and brand identity), a big component of their history is omitted. My contributions reflect thoughtful additions to that history. That being said, I agree with you that humanitarian and human rights concerns of business practices of such corporations is equally important. However, I am no expert in such topics. I reserve the opportunity for experts in such areas to contribute and enhance relevant articles. By sharing collective knowledge and expertise, we can together make Misplaced Pages into a credible resource for historical information. Misplaced Pages needs contributions from experts in their respective fields. When done in a transparent and honest way, such efforts should be applauded, not dissuaded. Raj Abhyanker, JD --Rabhyanker | Talk 8:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.167.25 (talk)

(outdent) The aggressive placement, overly long and detailed content and two links to trademarkia.com of today's addition to Gap (clothing retailer) suggest to me that Rabhyanker is not really listening to anything said here. The article already had a "Trademark dispute" section, but he chose to park the edit near the top, between the sentence "In 1974, Gap began to sell private label merchandise in its stores" and the "Brands" section which immediately, and logically, followed. With its excessive detail (in part, trademark serial numbers and calendar dates granted are not of general interest), and the two illustrations of virtually identical past trademarks, this edit is no improvement over Trademarkia edits that have been discussed over the past several months. --CliffC (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the edit and I have the same concerns with Rabhyanker as you which I've outlined here. --'NeilN'

04:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be in any way aggressive. It will take time for me to figure out exactly what the community feels as acceptable. I will make the necessary edits to the articles mentioned above consistent with your recommendations. Rabhyanker (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Forward Thinkers

• Forward Thinkers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This paid lobbyist for one side of the gun issue in the United States is doing massive non-neutral edits to articles like concealed carry in the United States, in spite of repeated warnings about NPOV and COI. This is a highly contentious issue in the U.S., and I am not going to inject my opinions; rather, since I was the one who initially blocked this user (because of an old username matching that of the organization he/she lobbies for), I have been asked as a neutral third party to bring this issue to the attention of the community. Orange Mike | Talk 14:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just saw your comment, Orangemike, and your concern is certainly a legitimate one. Let me say, though, that I've made sure my profile identifies me clearly and I have made no effort to hide my affiliation (dating back to my original username). I am 100% committed to putting the priorities of the Wikpedia encyclopedia ahead of my personal and professional interests. My interest here is in making sure that content is balanced and that it conforms with Misplaced Pages's rules, including Neutral Point of View and Reliable Sourcing. I have significant expertise about certain topics and this expertise provides awareness of reliable primary sourcing, and third-party sourcing, which is available. I think you will see that my edits reflect that. In regards to my edits on the concealed carry in the United States article specifically, that primarily involved a reorganization of existing content (which was redundant and repetitive in multiple instances), not a significant addition of new content. My goal is to help the Misplaced Pages project and balance out important views on both sides of all issues, including this one. I remain confident that I can do this with total commitment to remaining neutral, by separating my personal and/or professional interests from the interests of the encyclopedia. I think my record here, to this point, demonstrates that. Thank you for sharing your concerns and I look forward to working with you to improve the content on this website. Best regards. Forward Thinkers (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I have been following this saga pretty closely for the last six months or so. I agree that the concern about risk of conflict of interest is real here and red flags are up. It is a fine line to walk: On one hand we do not want to jeopardize the reputation of the encyclopedia by being improperly influenced by editors who hold a conflict of interest, while on the other hand we can benefit from the expertise of editors who are extremely familiar with specialized subject matter like with this case. ForwardThinkers has explained that he understands the distinction, and claims that he can keep his personal and professional interests subjugated to the greater interests of the encyclopedia. Actions speak louder than words, and his record of edits seems to prove that he understands the distinction. Looking at his edit history I see a consistent record that his edits are supported by citations to solidly reliable sources, and that he has an above average record of engaging discussion on the talk pages explaining his rationale for WP:NPOV edits, showing a spirit of collaboration, and prior to actually making the edits in the article space. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And I'm sure that you would be just as quick to defend an NRA employee who was making substantial changes to gun-related articles, wouldn't you. You would probably even issue them an apology on their talk page if they were blocked per WP:COI policy. --Hamitr (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems wrong to me that someone with a declared COI would make such a large change in the article with very little discussion. The single edit is so huge it's impossible to tell what was removed and what was re-written just from the diff. Rees11 (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify here. I did engage in substantial discussion on the concealed carry in the United States article before reorganizing the content there. The editors at that page seemed to agree that the page would benefit from the elimination of redundant/repetitive content (and I believe it has, the article is much more streamlined and readable now). There were no dissenting voices in that discussion. The record will reflect that. Best regards. Forward Thinkers (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Rees11, WP:BRD is pretty standard. Usually people are encouraged to be bold even before discussion at articles. FT discussed the matter ahead of time, two other editors agreed, nobody else objected, and 4 days later the edits were completed. I think that's a pretty reasonable approach, even for someone with a COI. Frankly, what I see are objections to the edits by FT in principle due to the COI, but no objections to specific edits. I don't see where anyone has pointed out any specific disruption by this editor.

There's a bigger issue here, though. FT is not the only editor at the concealed carry in the United States article. There are a few other regular editors at the article. None of them seem to have an objection to FT's edits. If those edits are truly slanting the article, and others are approving the edits, then that would imply collusion between editors trying to inject a POV into an article about a politically controversial subject. In that case, the entire article should have oversight. -- Atama頭 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome oversight of that article. Though I disagree that a pattern of edit similarity implies collusion. Speaking for myself and I suspect many others: I routinely monitor the edit contribution history of the editors of articles on my watchlist. Both those I tend to agree with and those that I tend to disagree with. A side effect of my contribution history monitoring like this is that I often drop in on related articles on my watchlist whose interests I share with associated editors. This is not collusion, but rather an artifact of my paying attention to the editing environment around me. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Christopher W. Walker

Christopher W. Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article appears to have been created late last autumn by someone identifying themselves as "Christopher W. Walker", and still substantially consists of material initially added by that editor. FYI A prod template was applied to the article on March 11 and has been subsequently removed without explanation by another editor. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the PRODder - it appears to be WP:ARTSPAM although I wasn't sure if it was blatant enough for CSD G11. Most of the content is unverified (the citations are just links to homepages and don't actually verify the content). Not convinced on the notability of the subject either, searching turns up mentions in the Washington Post although not what I consider significant coverage. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I've upgraded the PROD to AFD: see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Christopher W. Walker.

I had a brief snip at it, but I can't find verification for much of it. And "supporting" something isn't notable unless you're demonstrably a major-league supporter (e.g. bankrolling the presidential campaign). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Shlomo Sawilowsky

Shlomo Sawilowsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - The article is created completely by unregistered users (probably the same person with different IP addresses) who only work on that article, that quite obviously have a close connection with the subject, in some cases specifically posting as the subject. They are here for promotional purposes only. The subject does actually meet notability criteria and deserves an article, but the editor thinks that this means they can write as much as they want, because everything the subject does is then notable. Much of the content is original research and primary sources.

Moreover, whenever registered, experienced users try to fix things, the unregistered user attacks them from the various IP addresses, undoes all edits, calling them "wiki warriors" and now actually accusing us of Anti-Semitism! For example, they will not let me delete names of books written by authors who have been associated with Shlomo in the past, but where the books have nothing to do with him other than that fact. Again, the article should remain, but these IP addresses should not be allowed to completely control it given the COI. Some moderation is needed.Iulus Ascanius (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just on quick glance (it's late here), I agree that attention is needed. We're talking about

• 141.217.105.228 (talk · contribs)
• 68.43.236.244 (talk · contribs) who has self-identified as the subject

Certainly it looks as if WP:OWN is going on, and there's a deal of material there that's pushing the envelope of original research and notability. Books by the guy's students? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a mess, at present it is far more like a CV than a biography. I've had a look for some sources to use and can't find any so added {{notability}} - If no sources appear soon I think it needs to go to AfD. Smartse (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where does 68.43.236.44 "self-identified as the subject"?141.217.105.228 (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In the link provided - saying "response from the Prof" makes it pretty clear. Could somebody who is not invloved please take a look at Talk:Shlomo_Sawilowsky#Notability_tag? I feel rather attacked for suggesting that WP:ACADEMIC is not met and could do with another a third opinion. Thanks Smartse (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is getting pretty daft. There was no need for 141.217.105.228 to gut the article because people wanted some parts of it to be less aggrandizing. Smells of WP:POINT. I've removed the AFD notice; that too looks like making some kind of point, since 141.217.105.228 added it without creating an AFD entry. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yea I'm pretty baffled by their behaviour too, I was trying to make it more compliant with policies but I guess that they took offence at me questioning the notability of him. Smartse (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't hard to find some information about him. I've made a start. AJRG (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added the categories. BTW, WP:AIV] declined to treat destroying the article as vandalism; but if 141.217.105.228 disrupts the re-creation, they're on a final warning . I have a bad feeling we're going to get a lot of WP:SOUP-style wikilawyering from those IP accounts. 68.43.236.244 is now arguing the toss over the image, claiming "no copyright information given that this image is in the public domain" despite the clear assertion on the upload page. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done a little more research, with some interesting results. Consider the following points:

1. 68.43 self-identified as the subject once

2. 68.43 asserted ownership of the image, which would either owned by the subject or by his company, where the image was taken from (). And now they are saying "oh, wait..."

3. The article is quite similar to that website.

4. The article has been noted by multiple neutral editors to be euphorically positive towards the subject, and the two IP addresses are fighting any modifications that they themselves do not make. Quite angrily, to the point of calling me an Anti-Semite.

5. The two IP addresses that are doing the WP:OWN? The 68.43 address is from West Bloomfield, MI (), which is the home address of the subject.() The 141.217 address is from Wayne State University (Google "141.217 wayne state" for a bunch of hits), which happens to be where the subject works. If you look at their contribs, you will see that 68.43 contributes on the weekends, 141.217 on weekdays.

6. When an editor noted on the article talk page that everyone should state COI position, the 68.43 address simply said "OK by me" and avoided the question.

7. Some of the details in the article would take a large amount of research for anyone other than the subject, such as the list of all topics the subject has been interested in, and the distribution of all past graduate students.

I hate to say this, and did not expect it... but I think the writing is on the wall. Thoughts? Iulus Ascanius (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the blanking thing has stopped; I've posted the standard COI advice template to both IPs; and there seem to be conciliatory moves at Shlomo Sawilowsky. Another editor agrees with me about what needs trimming. I'd say wait and see what happens when we do. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheeseburger in Paradise (restaurant)

Cheeseburger in Paradise (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I've just tagged the article with a COI template because I've been noting a fair amount of material with a distinctly promotional tone being added to it today, by an editor with the user name "Cheeseburgerinparadise2002" . I've also placed an appropriate template on that contributors page to advise them that their name could be perceived as indicating that they were in some sense 'representing' the restaurant chain itself. I'd like to request some extra eyes and opinions on this situation please; the amount added is fairly substantial relative to the size of the article, and definitely appears to be promotional in nature. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Spam + username violation = indef block, per WP:ORGNAME and WP:SPAM. I've done so. -- Atama頭 22:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the material that was added by that editor from the article and will be removing the COI tag from it as well.Thanks for your help. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kathy Freston

• Kathy Freston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 24.43.20.87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Was there another response besides this? I agree there were problems but the IP was preventing any collaboration. There does not appear to be any respnse so I am going to again attempt to edit the article. I don't believe the IP should be editing since they have been disruptive.Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It's nearly impossible to tell who said what on the article talk page since the editors insert comments over other editor's signatures (this, for example, is a comment from 74.100.22.216 that looks like it's from 24.43.20.87). The only user with an obvious COI is Cclimetree (talk · contribs), who has self-identified on the talk page ("I work for Kathy Freston"), but has not edited the article. This seems more a disruptive editor(s) problem than COI. Rees11 (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

April Storm - paid editing by a PR

• April Storm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nikki Benz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ashley Steel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (deleted}

After deleting Ashley Steel per WP:CSD#A7, I got a complaint from an IP: "Hey I am Ashley Steel pornographic actress and model. I had hired my publicist to do my wiki page, along with many other things. She did Sunny Leone, Nikki Benz and others that work along side me." Sunny Leone has been in since 2003, but Nikki Benz and Ashley Steel were both created by this new user. I have issued a COI warning. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

ACE Adventure Resort

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

This article has been almost entirely created by User:WELDwiki. It now appears that the copyright on the ACE Adventure website is held by a group called WELD, which makes it look as though the whole thing was written by a representitive of the company. In my opinion the article is very close to being promotional, even without this knowledge. I would welcome comments on a way to proceed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You're on the right track, posting here, putting a warning on the user's talk page, and reverting the worst of the promotional material. I would suggest using the standard uw-coi template, which someone else has already done. Note that the user is not forbidden to edit but is strongly encouraged to follow the COI guideline. Also it's not appropriate to put "who are you" on the user's talk page, as that amounts to attempted wp:outing. I'll go take a look at the article now. Rees11 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and vandalism on nationalistic basis

Dear admins! I'm talking about two issues: 1. The page Tadeusz Kościuszko. 2. The collage at Poles.

The thing is, Tadeusz Kościuszko was at least partly ethnicaly Belarusian, which I referenced in the article about him (he was even baptised in an orthodox church). Now he was also born on the territory which is Belarus, so I entered him into categories like Belarusian nobility. I also deleted him from the collage at Poles, because the article talks about the Poles as an ethnic group, and Tadeusz Kościuszko was not ethnicaly Polish (I wrote it on the discussion board. I mean he was born in Belarus, he was ethnicaly Belarusian, he was born on a territory which was part of Lithuenia then, so he was Polish only by citizenship). Now the user User:Marekchelsea started reverting me on both pages, without writing anything, which is rude. I was warned before signing to Misplaced Pages that there are few Polish nationalists here that do those stuff, but tell me, can't you admins do anything about it? It's really discusting when referenced information gets deleted, and when someone wants to steal to his ethnicity someone who wasn't of his ethnicity. Free Belarus (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

And now there is user User:Stephen G. Brown writing to me "Busy yourself with Belarusian pages and leave Polish subjects to the Polish" on the Poles discussion page, not refering the topic. Common, where are the admins when needed? Free Belarus (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia

I am Conservapedia Sysop User:RobSmith. Per Misplaced Pages:BFAQ#ATTACK, I believe my organization is under attack. Factual inaccuries. Notice templates removed. Sockpuppetry. I believe the page has been taken over by RationalWiki editors, cited within the entry itself, "According to an article published in the LA Times in 2007, 'From there, they (Lipson and his fellow editors) monitor Conservapedia. And—by their own admission—engage in acts of cyber-vandalism.'"

We have blocked at least 10,000 sockpuppet vandals over the past three years. I beleive these same sockpuppets and vandals have shaped and controlled the article content. Can we get some help for a modicum of fairness and NPOV. Thank you. nobs (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/notices/lctbd.jsp
2. http://www.uspto.gov/products/catalog/trademark_products/page2.jsp
3. http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=trademarkia
4. http://www.google.com/intl/en/toolbar/ie/features.html#pagerank
5. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/trademarkia.com
6. http://www.quantcast.com/trademarkia.com
7. http://delicious.com/url/d8d2fdee14b9f1d011817ef8ad855dbf
8. http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=trademarkia
9. https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/
10. https://www.calbar.ca.gov
11. http://www.linkedin.com/in/uspatentattorney
12. http://www.trademarkia.com/about-trademarkia/about-us.aspx

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution