Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Johnuniq (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 14 March 2010 (→24.43.20.87: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

London Health Sciences Foundation

• London Health Sciences Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Victoria Hospital (London, Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• London, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Noitadnuof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 142.158.254.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several articles edited by several users who may have a conflict of interest. The IP user's conflict is clear, as the IP is registered to London Health Sciences Centre. The other user is less clear, but note that the name is "Foundation" spelled backwards, and the user has only edited on this one subject. I don't quite have the time to unravel all this so some help would be appreciated. Rees11 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed this (sorry I took so long to get to it, but other more "dramatic" issues were going on). The COI is pretty obvious (not only obvious but the editor pretty much admits to it). The username is a little too borderline to justify a block in my eyes, the word "foundation" is somewhat generic and putting it backward seems to be an attempt to not make it blatant, so I don't think it's too promotional. But the editor is very problematic, just a look at their talk page to see the numerous warnings makes that clear. The biggest concerns I see are copyright violations, followed by the overly-promotional nature of their edits, and lastly the COI itself. London Health Sciences Foundation seems in danger of deletion (it's currently blanked out due to copyright concerns) so it may go away on its own. The other articles probably need to be cleaned up a little to remove the promotional stuff. I think if the editor realizes they're not going to be able to continue with what they're doing, they'll either persist and get blocked, or move on to doing something productive, or leave Misplaced Pages. Any of those situations would be an improvement. -- Atama頭 18:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I got a chance to go back for another look. There are only two editors and I suspect they're the same person. He hasn't been back for a week, and the copyright issue is under investigation, so I think the situation is under control for now. Thanks again for your help, I'll come back here if it seems the COI needs more attention apart from the other issues. Rees11 (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

User:Gonzinuk

Gonzinuk (talk · contribs) claims to be the "owner" of St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur and that nobody else has the right to edit the article. Woogee (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I love the edit summary: "Woogle Talk does not own the school and has no right to comment on the school.. The school belongs to our family and so woogle talk must just back off" . Back off, Woogle Talk! :) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted their last revert. If nothing else, the insistence on edit-warring is a problem, and they're currently 1 away from 3RR right now. I've given them a COI welcome and informed them of this discussion, but their edits so far show a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of Misplaced Pages and I don't have a lot of hope that this will end well. -- Atama頭 17:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gonzinuk is up to 3RR now. It's late and I can't be arsed to report it this instant, but anyone feel free. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I had enough. All of this account's edits were disruptive. Multiple attempts were tried to get him to participate in discussion about the COI and the article, and he refused them all and eventually just started blanking the article. I've indefinitely blocked him as a vandalism-only account. I'm not against unblocking him if he makes a reasonable block request and offers to start communicating, but I don't have a lot of hope for that. -- Atama頭 01:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An update: Gonzinuk has asked to be unblocked, with a threat of legal action unless Misplaced Pages allows them to "control" the content of the article. Without going into how much is wrong with that, I did see one bit of truth in the complaint; we can't verify that what is in the article is accurate. I can't find any real info about the article in any sources, anywhere. Therefore, I've decided to propose the article for deletion. -- Atama頭 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The prod has been removed without any other changes to the article. Edit history says, "all secondary schools are notable, and the directories prove existence please add them." Possibly time for AfD. Rees11 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD initiated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School Udaipur. I can't find any source I'd consider reliable, and now the initial misunderstandings have been sorted, I think Gonzinuk has raised sufficient concerns that the article might be problematical per WP:BLP. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Rockitcargo

• Rockitcargo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blatant advertisement similar to http://www.rockitcargo.com/content.asp at Rock-It Cargo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).   — Jeff G. ツ 07:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to block as a spammer, but I was more lenient and blocked solely for the username issue, they can recreate a new account that complies with WP:ORGNAME. The article in question was deleted already. -- Atama頭 22:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Omarnimri

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

Adding egregiously POV flowery language to Arab Bank. When their edits are reverted, they revert back with We are posting texst prepared by Arab Bank Headquarters in amman, Jordan.. Woogee (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Their edits include such euphonious language as Arab Bank’s history is strongly linked to its founder, Abdul Hameed Shoman (Template:Lang-ar), who although embarked on an extraordinary journey across the ocean to follow his dreams, came back to his country fulfill a bigger vision.. Woogee (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

He's at it again. There is also an IP editor registered to Arab Bank. Rees11 (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Simon Hatley

• Simon Hatley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Robert Greg keeps adding material to the article and citing to a 2010 book, insisting that certain facts in the article are wrong and removing them, relying on a book. I started the article and I can't say whether he is right or wrong (I have not read the book), but the user revealed here that he is the director of the project which published the book, and their author is one of two authors listed as writers on their web site. Basically, their project with respect to Hatley is the only thing featured on their website. I have no idea if he is right to remove the material, factually, but he certainly has a COI! Advise, please.Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

COI or not, the problem is that neither of the parties in this dispute are explicitly citing sources. If it's in a reliably published book, that's fine, whether there's COI or not. If it's disputed, we need precise citations either way (and if historians' views vary, WP:NPOV requires all to be mentioned). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote the article, I added sources, certainly. I couldn't find out much about Hatley, but I added cites and the article went through DYK satisfactorily. What do you propose I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left Robert a note about the COI and verifiability issues. Quite apart from the COI, just declaring a new book overrides previous sources isn't on. It's fair to mention both and say that sources differ, which I've done. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

AUISMedia (talk · contribs)

• AUISMedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Sole edit is to American University of Sulaimani, to chnge the name in the lead section to "American University of Iraq--Sulaimani", which matches the initials AUIS. DES 20:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems more of an issue for WP:UAA than anything else. The sole edit from this account was a good one, and the article has since been moved to the proper name per request. Having said that, I've blocked the account simply due to the violation of WP:ORGNAME. They're free to create a new account without prejudice if the new account name follows our policies. -- Atama頭 21:57, 8 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)

User:Pantea rahmani only edits Pantea Rahmani

• Pantea rahmani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - s.p.a.; only edits her own article, Pantea Rahmani. I gave her c.o.i. and autobiography warnings in March of 2008. Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked over the article and added some info. Currently it doesn't read with any point of view so I removed the COI tag. I left the user a message asking to use the talk page for any requested edits. ThemFromSpace 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Fern Creek High School

Briangmiller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just of the style of wording of HERE check page history Mlpearc MESSAGE 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave the user a welcome template explaining our COI guidelines. I think the article will be fine with some watchers checking over it. ThemFromSpace 21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I should of tagged it myself, but ..... Thanks It's on my watchlist Mlpearc MESSAGE 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Robyn Griggs Lawrence

• Robyn Griggs Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) RSOgden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -Clear conflict of interest editor has copied and pasted from the website of the company he works for. Teapotgeorge 23:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Alipson

Alipson (talk · contribs) in nearly every edit has attempted to include a link to the book "Optical Physics" by Lipson, Lipson, and Lipson—and there is an obvious conflict of interests. I have been removing some of these that are more obvious spam. I'm not sure what to do with the rest of these, so I am posting here for help. Thanks, Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor is likely Ariel Lipson, one of the authors of the book (it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that out). I've left a spam warning on their user talk page. WP:BOOKSPAM can be a real problem, and I'm inclined to treat the editor as a straight-forward spammer rather than getting into the murky question of conflicts of interest. Every single one of their edits has acted to promote their book on Misplaced Pages, and that's not acceptable. I've left an only warning because this seems to be a spam-only account. -- Atama頭 18:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

24.43.20.87

24.43.20.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This IP has repeatedly blanked information from Kathy Freston. There have been complaints on the talk page regarding the behavior. Instead of using the talk page the IP is engaged in a long edit war. The IP finally made a point on their own talk and I understand extra caution is needed since it is a BLP. The IP also did use the talk page at one time to say that they would shut another editor down and that there was some accuracy problems but didn't go into detail. The IP is not using the process correctly. The IP admits to working with the subject of the article so there is a clear COI that is causing disruption. To be honest I don't even know why the info is removed. There might be good reason but it is all sketchy without discussion. Here are some difs. They are continued removal of something going on with Oprah and her being a "self professed health and wellness expert" someone added a long time ago, and a couple other good sources removed and info added with no sources. , , , , , , , , , , , , , Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for a response.Cptnono (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's irritating when an article ends up promoting some subject, but I do think that the tone of this version from a couple of days ago is not adequate for a BLP. We don't say "X is a self-professed Y": either we have a source that X is a Y, or we omit the statement. I do not think mention of an abusive relationship is helpful unless there is some reason for the information. I doubt it is satisfactory for us to link to a search as a source for the statement "There is no record in the state of New York of her being a licensed therapist." There is a fair amount of fluff that should be removed, including the para "Freston promotes a body/mind/spirit approach to health...": statements like that belong on a personal website. Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 14 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