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:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Rich Barton Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Bound (2023 film) Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) 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:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Latvian ISBN Agency Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:David Nirenberg Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Pendragon (role-playing game) Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Grey Knight Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Edward Trobaugh Talk:Maria-Ana Tupan Talk:UK Biobank Talk:Carla Ulbrich Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Up TV Talk:Veris Residential Talk:Versapay Talk:Terry Wahls Talk:Dashun Wang Talk:Washington University Medical Center Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Mark Weisbrot Talk:Xavier University Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zillow 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.

Editor operating a site which he wishes to use as a primary source in Wikipedia

User:Gibnews is the self-confessed webmaster of gibnews.net, an aggregator of press releases of organisations based in Gibraltar, which he wishes to use as a primary source in Gibraltar related articles. There has been a discussion at WP:RSN about the reliability of this source [1]. I have asked a series of questions there which got dismissed by some editors (I should have raised it here first, but I didn't know about this page). For example, I asked whether there was any financial relationship between the organizations his site archives press releases for, the site and himself, and this was dismissed as "out of line". To his credit, Gibnews has answered the questions. However, I don't think the COI matters are being treated with the seriousness that they deserve by some of the responders. There appears to be a view that because we "assume good faith" about editors, this automatically transfers to anything the editor does outside Wikipedia. What concerns me most is actually the "campaigning" aspect of COI rather than the financial aspect: the editor is unabashedly pro-Gibraltar and against any return to Spanish rule, and he wishes to use this website as a source. If editors here think there is no COI issue then I will drop the matter, both here and at RSN. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware that being a web developer is actually a crime, or money for it needs to be declared to anyone apart from the tax authorities. Since our first encounter on wikipedia some years ago The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has been in my face about everything. He has attempted to get me banned alleging I am a banned user engaged in sockpuppetry which is not the case, and complained that the website gibnews.net is not a reliable source. These things have been resolved and this is yet another manifestation of his harassment.

For the record I wrote the scripts and templates for gibnews.net. The domain is owned by a company. That is a separate legal entity to me. I find it to be a useful resource and others do too. It has primary sources which are not available anywhere else. The information is from significant reliable entities, for example:

• The Government of Gibraltar
• The Police
• The Governors office
• The Opposition
• The Ministry of Defence

The content is provided by the above and the site terms of use make it clear that content is not edited and that it is a free service. I do not consider there is any conflict of interest. The fact that I have a similar username on wikipedia is a co-incidence - I chose the name some years ago and its not been a problem. Its as good a name as any, and less pretentious than some.

Neither the content providers, or myself are using links on wikipedia for promotional purposes and given the nature of the above, who comprise the largest contributors and most likely to generate useful links, are of a non-commercial nature.

As regards the suggestion of a political motive, Yes I am totally against 'returning' Gibraltar to Spain that is as absurd as 'returning' Florida to Spain. Its no secret, and its a view that 99.3% of the Gibraltar population share. I fail to see a conflict of interest except with the above editor who may feel differently, but he lives somewhere else, and its none of his business.

If anyone else wants to ask questions, please do. --Gibnews (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You give the impression that the above organizations are giving the content to you and have therefore endorsed your site as an accurate and complete repository of their historical press releases. This is not the case (for the organizations above). You take material from their site (which would be a reliable source) and archive it on your site (which may or may not be a reliable source), and you use it in the Gibraltar article (which could present a COI). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've posted the terms of service of gibnews.net several times, and explained how it works I do not take material from websites it is supplied to Gibnews.net either directly by the content providers -or- by email so what goes happens is with the explicit consent of the providers. That is what it says and that is what happens. Although do I appreciate your twisting, as you did trying to accuse me of sockpuppetry,But I really think its time to give it a rest. If you want to 'scrutinise all my edits' as you claim on my userpage, the next forum will be the one that deals with wp:harass. --Gibnews (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I first came across this on the reliable sources noticeboard, and have previously expressed my concerns about The Red Hat's interaction with Gibnews (the editor) (see WP:RSN#Gibnews.net and User talk:Thryduulf#Personal Attacks. Based on everything that Gibnews has said at the reliable sources noticeboard, I don't see that there is any basis for suspecting that Gibnews (the editor) has a conflict of interest when using press releases by third parties hosted at Gibnews.net. Thryduulf (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This should not be a problem. I see no COI. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine on the COI then. However, I must say that it's a pity that Thryduulf is unable to separate in his mind scrutiny and personal attacks. It might do him well to remember that we wouldn't even have had this discussion had Gibnews not twice threatened legal action against me (now retracted) for suggesting that his site was not a WP:RS. Anyway, that is the last I shall say on the matter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like forum shopping to me. Keep it at the reliable sources noticeboard. Pfainuk talk 18:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake. At the RS board an editor said it's a COI matter, and as I said in my post "If editors here think there is no COI issue then I will drop the matter, both here and at RSN." I just said "fine" above, did I not? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. My browser for some reason didn't warn me of the edit conflict there. Since you seem happy with the response here, I have no issue. Pfainuk talk 18:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm starting to sense harassment here. Tan | 39 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

On what basis exactly? Don't reply here, reply on my talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No reply, so I take this to be an unjustified accusation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to come to this late, but I'd say the chief problem here is that gbnews.net is clearly a partisan personal website. A skim through its content shows that it exclusively aggregates news within a framework sympathetic to continued British ownership of Gibraltar ("We invite organisations based in Gibraltar ..." guarantees such a bias). Individual news items are verifiable, but the selectivity makes it de facto an advocacy site, and I'd treat it a) as an unreliable source and b) in conflict of interest for an editor to want their own advocacy site as a primary source. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews.net is not an organisation that authors primary source material, it is organisational that hosts and provides permalinks to primary source material authored by third parties. As such I do not think that it matters whether the collection is partisan or not - many sources used in Wikipedia are partisan, we use them to cite that $organisation said/did/thought something, and use a different source to cite that $otherorganisation said/did/thought something else. If one organisation only hosts material from one side of a disagreement, then we just cite the other side using material hosted elsewhere. It is our articles that need to be balanced, not our sources. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside any personal problems between editors, I think that I to agree with Gordonofcartoon that it really isn't the best source and that it is worrying that an administrator of the site is using it as a reference in controversial topic areas. I found this page linked on the list here - it is clearly not a reliable source and should be treated in a similar way to a blog - i.e. removed. Smartse (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this specific link is on a talk page, not on an article, and it is one of the rare occasions where it was not Gibnews himself adding the link. However, what you have found there does raise another issue which I'm currently mulling over, and may have more to say on later. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why this Gibnews guy hasn't been hit with a spamusername block long ago? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews explained what happened here [2] "For the avoidance of doubt, I registered my username here shortly after doing some work designing templates for that website, and it seemed a good idea at the time, not realising the amount of hassle I might encounter on Wikipedia from some editors. Later realising there might be some confusion - although its a sufficiently general term - I tried to change my username to something else but it did not work." The general view on that page was that, because he's been editing for so long with that name, it would be silly to do something about it now. Despite my issues with him sometimes, I agree it would not be a good move. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Orange Mike - my understanding was that only new users could be taken to WP:UAA and therefore gibnews can't be blocked for a violation of new username policy. If we found a new editor doing this now they would be instantly blocked without question. It seems a bit stupid to me. Wikipedia:ORGNAME does state "Since usernames that are the name of a company or group create the appearance of intent to promote that group, accounts with a company or group name as a username are indefinitely blocked." so maybe they could be blocked. To be honest it doesn't seem like that would really help matters though, although if gibnews continues to add more links after warnings then action should be taken. Smartse (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the reason for such blocks is that they can create the appearance of a conflict of interest, and it has been established above that Gibnews (the editor) does not have a conflict of interest with the organisations that produce the sources (e.g. the Government of Gibraltar) hosted on Gibnews.net (a source that the reliable sources noticeboard has declared reliable - it does not alter the press releases), why would they be blocked for this? If they were adding sources about gibnews.net or editing an article about that site, this would be a different matter. However (afaik) nobody has even suggested that gibnews.net is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, so this is moot.

Whether the individual press releases are appropriate citations is a matter for the editors on the talk page of the article(s) concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the username is sufficiently generic that their could not be an objection to its use in any context. Indeed it has also been used by another unrelated Gibraltar news organisation, Panorama and is their email address on another server. However, at one stage I tried to change the user name and wikipedia is not very good at that. I think this is more a case of looking for excuses to ban me for something. --Gibnews (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI: it's actually pretty simple and straightforward to get your username changed. Although, your talk page signatures don't get updated, if that is what you mean. Also, if you are referring to me there, please note I spoke out against a block on your username above. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnet.com

There is another site in Gibnews' portfolio, which does NOT fall into the category of a neutral press release archiver, and which has been prolifically linked to on WP. [3] It has pages like this [4] with headings such as "The Struggle Continues" and words such as "Despite the 'best efforts' of Spain and at times the UK Labour Government, We campaigned and we won the right to vote.". And this [5]("It was a demonstration for the old people, who turned out in force. It was a demonstration for the children, who came on foot and on wheels. It was an event that everyone came to, including the workers that the MoD tried to discourage from participating.") used as a reference for text at the Disputed status of Gibraltar. Surely this can't be OK to be appearing in External Links sections and ref cites of articles? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the reliability issues with this site at [6] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnet.com is a long running website which is in a number of parts. The section of reference texts are presented 'as is' most of the other material which he objects to consists of commentary on events in Gibraltar. Yes getting to vote in European elections was a struggle, because Spain attempted to block it happening. That is a matter of record. The section there has original documents and links to support everything said.

The description of the 2002 demonstration is moderate and factual. I thought Wikipedia preferred secondary sources and this is one.

Lets face it, this editor has problems with anything from Gibraltar and me in particular. This is just more forum shopping and harassment. --Gibnews (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't. Yes, Wikipedia uses secondary sources, but ones that are reliable as defined by WP:RS: ones with known reputation as sources (e.g. quality newspapers where there's known editorial oversight and fact-checking).Gibnet.com is just a personal (or at most small-company) website. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the information presented in the documents section of Gibnet.com is not available anywhere else online and its good enough to be cited by the House of Commons library. However this is the COI noticeboard rather than a discussion of reliability, and I see no conflict of interest in the way original documents are presented there. --Gibnews (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to reluctantly agree that if you have any control over the information at the Gibnet site, then linking to it is a conflict of interest because it can be seen as a form of self-promotion. -- Atama頭 16:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think someone adding links to their own website is a COI issue for exactly that reason. And a site owner being hostile about the idea of excluding such links - for instance, treating consensus that they fail WP:RS as "a lynch mob" [7] - is not seeing the issue with the required neutrality, which is exactly the territory that WP:COI exists to address. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record I designed the site. I did not create the content referenced. Its like banning references to a newspaper made by the man who operates the printing machine. RH has a long history of disputing everything I do on wikipedia and has tried to get me banned, gibnews.net banned and now gibnet.com banned on various noticeboards. He is now removing links without replacing them and the next step will be to remove the content referenced until the pages support a different view of reality. His allegations of me using an IP to revert him are unfounded. --Gibnews (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, I suggest you help me find alternative sources for the links you have posted to gibnet.com. I've already started and am finding it relatively easy. e.g. [8] I noticed another helpful individual chipped in with another almost immediately [9] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Its very easy to delete things, but unless you replace links with ones that are as good, its very negative. --Gibnews (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, I asked that references which were not appropriate were removed, as such references give an incorrect sense of accuracy. Indeed, they should, preferably, be replaced by a better reference, but an inappropriate reference or no reference is similar, the information in Wikipedia is not asserted. I see that you started helping finding alternative sources where possible, if you think that there are specific sources which are un-replaceable, then please, report them to the talkpage (and if you wish, to me), and we will see. Note that the last two references that were added and removed were both very likely replaceable! It would be good if the person removing the reference would help in finding an alternative, but the inclusion and proof of it being worthy of inclusion is still with the person who included the information. When that is disputed, revert and discuss. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an aside. Gibnews has claimed in the past to be the owner (not the designer) of the site (you can see the funny story of Gibnews complaining about an alleged violation copyright conditions of his site (with regard to an official document) here (comment of 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC), where it's stated that I am the owner of the website www.gibnet.com). Just for the sake of clarity. --Ecemaml (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that he's not the owner of the site. However, that does mean that his claims in that Wikisource discussion were false. Either way it's troubling. I've warned people about claiming false authority before, about it biting them later, even recently on this very noticeboard. I'd say to drop it, but if Gib ever tries to claim ownership of the site again you can point out that he's not the owner. -- Atama頭 20:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He's not the legal owner because he has registered both sites under a company name. He is, however, blatantly the de facto operator of both and that can be proved. Another matter he was economical with the truth on in the gibnews.net discussion (nb not gibnet.com) was his links to one of the organizations that gibnews.net archives content from. The only reason I did not raise this before is that I could not find any links to his organization's press releases on Wikipedia. However, the fact that he did not disclose this and portrayed himself as an uninvolved archiver of OTHERS' material deeply concerns me. It was on that basis that many people at WP:RSN accepted gibnews.net as a source. I suggest we treat it like gibnet.com. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is bollocks. I have already explained that gibnews.net archives press releases, and that the documents section of gibnews.com has electronic versions of original documents. I design websites and write scripts for all sorts of people and organisations. The material linked on wikipedia consists of content created by others. RH is on a crusade and its becoming harassment. --Gibnews (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Voice of Gibraltar Group and gibnews.net

Yet another undeclared COI: Gibnews is a spokesperson for the Voice of Gibraltar Group and added an external link to it plus text in the article [10].

However, what is even more concerning is that this Government of Gibraltar press release [11] which is critical of the VoGG is nowhere to be found on gibnews.net, the supposedly neutral archiver of organisations' press releases, including the Government of Gibraltar. It is concerning because Gibnews is a spokesperson for the VoGG, and operates gibnews.net. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming a obsessive one man campaign against me. Its hardly surprising that a press release from 2001 is not on gibnews.net as it started in 2005.

The diff given by RH above shows him removing all references to pressure groups in Gibraltar including the Women's association and the Gay Rights group. Both have an international profile. ---Gibnews (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This diff? [12] That's you adding all that stuff. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

London Health Sciences Foundation

Resolved

 – main article deleted, editor gone for now Rees11 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• 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 Wikipedia. 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 - Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia pages. I make my affiliation with the site open and transparent. Why then should I be stopped from improving Wikipedia? Sure, my edits may in some way benefit Trademarkia, and I have a personal interest in its success. However, my edits also benefit Wikipedia and I have a personal interest in making Wikipedia a success. I have invested lots of personal, non-billable time in improving Wikipedia, and I find Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. As such, I should be allowed to continue improving postings on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia in this transparent way. Please let me know your thoughts before I continue improving Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. There are simply many things incorrect on Wikipedia. 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 each and every of the edits I have made. Wikipedia 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 and many have commented that they add value. Beyond being a commercial venture, Trademarkia is an immensely valuable resource that is full of historial brand information and research not found anywhere else. As I have mentioned before, Trademarkia offers unique historical information that adds value to existing Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and I have a personal interest in making Wikipedia 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 as is the general consensus of unbiased editors here. Objected to edits will be removed as appropriate. Raj

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

John P. Abraham

Johnpabraham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This new editor created John P. Abraham, presumably an article about himself. The article should also be deleted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The AfD seems to be heading for a snow deletion, so I think the problem will go away on its own. -- Atama頭 01:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Blatant BBC/Production Company Editing

Mickers Blanket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Added a great deal of inappropriate information to This is Jinsy, along with a bunch of images that the user claims to own (they are clearly images from the BBC show, so either the user is employed by the BBC or doesn't really own the images). The information added to This Is Jinsy goes into great detail about a show that hadn't even aired before it was added. Advertising. Personal attack redacted by Gordonofcartoon. 90.217.104.202 (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, with strong reservations. See this announcement off-wiki in the h2g2 forum; it does appear that Mickers Blanket has a COI and that much of the material added, not having been aired or published online, is clearly original research.

This nomination does, however, smell of bad faith, coming from an anon whose only other activity has been vandalism:

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

And the wholesale blanking is overkill, having removed sourced material too. Currently verifiable details have been restored. I've alerted Mickers Blanket to the issues of COI and OR. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: 90.217.104.202 needs watching. Some reasonable edits, but there's the previous vandalism and a personal attack re this COI discussion [13]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

as the mickers blanket in question of whom this matter seems to be about - all news to me by the way. I just logged onto to see the wiki site and was extremely disappointed to find it had been vandalised to such an extent. I am happy to admit that I have a vested interest in the show. I make it! but, after having made the necessary changes to make it clear it was a work of fiction which I agree is a reasonable thing to make clear I felt it had reached a rather nice place... and was a good page. all the wiki entries about anything like this are, in part promotion and I don't think it's completely without an information service. Most of the information in the page wasn't on the programme but it is available at the www.thisijinsy.com website. The world of Jinsy is a deep and rich one which fans of the show are interested in finding out more about. Wikipedia seemed to me a good place for fan's investigations to take place. I am the copyright owner of all the images on the site as they are all owned by the Welded Tandem Picture Company who make the show, and that's me under my real name Chris Carey along with the rest of us who make Jinsy. Who the hell is this Gordonofcartoon character and what's his beef? We haven't done him any harm. I'll freely admit I'm a novice at creating Wiki pages and will make mistakes and am happy to correct them. but it feels slightly like there's been a court hearing and I've been sent down... and I didn't even know about it. any advice gratefully received. Yours, bewildered, Chris Carey / Mickers Blanket - ps. i'm so rubbish at creating Wiki's i don't even know how to add the correct code to the end of this message. Apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickers Blanket (talk • contribs) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no "beef" with you'; anyone who sees a report here can comment and act, but equally we're not here to bite newscomers. I think you've just misunderstood how Wikipedia works; it's not a promotional venue existing to provide for you "a good place for fan's investigations to take place" or further webspace to the many other sites about Jinsy. It's an encyclopedia of previously published material, and at the time most of what you added was unpublished 'insider' detail (what's called original research here) so it couldn't be used. Don't worry; I'm sure detail will be added as the series proceeds.

By the way, regarding the "all news to me by the way", this hasn't been done behind your back. At all stages you were notified through your user page User talk:Mickers Blanket, where you'll find a welcome message with links to the basics of creating articles, how to sign messages, etc. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that he is referring to the fact that he wasn't informed of this noticeboard discussion. Generally, people here aren't as strict about notification as they are at WP:ANI, but it does say at the top of this noticeboard, "If you are discussing the actions of another editor here, please notify them." I occasionally try to do those notices myself for people as a courtesy, though I don't get to nearly everyone here. -- Atama頭 01:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

He was notified - "This concerns This is Jinsy, which is being discussed at WP:COIN" - though in hindsight I should have been more explicit about what this meant. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Being more explicit might have been a good idea, even I was blind enough to miss that. :p -- Atama頭 01:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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" [14]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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:Wikjohn09

• Wikjohn09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Claimed in the Edit Summary for this edit to insufficiently referenced article Professional Karate Association that "I am the founder, John Persinger". Promoted external website in ABC's of Self Defense. Removed speedy tags from those articles. Has already been sent {{uw-coi}} in this edit. RobertMfromLI (talk · contribs) sent a welcome with information about COI using Friendly and I notified the user about this discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

ABC's of Self Defense has been deleted.   — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 4 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 ([عبد الحميد شومان] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)), 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)

Mikeandgrant

Mikeandgrant (talk · contribs) appears to have some sort of COI. He has created spammy articles on books by a certain author: Propaganda from the desk of: Martin Trust - Director of Historic Homeland Preservation and Restoration (novel) and The Book (novel), as well as an article on M. Clifford, the author — which includes a picture taken by the user in question. The articles created are all highly spammy in nature, and all articles have userspace drafts (see contributions). Personally, I think the whole shebang should be imploded per WP:VSCA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:33, 5 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)

Maureenpfleming (talk · contribs) on Maureen Fleming

User:Maureenpfleming is editing the Maureen Fleming article. I reverted, as she left the article with a huge quote in the middle of the article and messed up the formatting. I've referred her to the COI guidelines, and suggested she discuss her edits on the article's Talk page first. Woogee (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've no doubt of her notability - many news hits [15] - but there's a deal in the article that's not up to WP:V. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

AUISMedia (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – User name blocked as a WP:CORPNAME. – ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• 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 ^(talk) 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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)

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^Talk 23:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)