Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)

Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to purge this page
(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

User:Showninner888

Showninner888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making edits to sanitise the biography of Andrew Landeryou. In December, I expanded the article based on sources after it had been at AfD. Since then, a series of IP editors have repeatedly tried to remove mention of details that Landeryou might not like. The article has been semi-protected three times now. Upon the latest semi-protection, this account has picked up the baton, and has now twice removed verified information and inserted peacock phrasing about the article subject, and wording that does not match the sources.[13] This editor and all the anonymous IPs refuse to discuss their editing (and I'm getting pretty tired of it). Fences&Windows 02:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User has enough unrelated edits to suggest it is not an SPA. Looks more like a few (perhaps biased) users/IPs became involved in an edit war. Their sources are generally pretty crappy, but I think someone's blog is acceptable for "He has said he is not a member of a political party" if it matches the source here [14]. I cannot help but notice that you seem to be an active party in the edit war and are using rollback privileges for reverting edits that do not look like obvious vandalism (e.g. [15], [16] and [17]). Use of rollback in the context of an edit war is questionable and has led to RfCs before. I agree that the editors should take it to the talk page instead of continuing the edit war, but perhaps you would do well to stick with the undo feature for a while until another admin has taken a look at it or at least until their COI is established. Smocking (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start off by saying not all of their edits are bad. I'm looking at their contributions and I see some positive contributions, such as removing weasel words, and expanding a lead, or clarifying a sentence, or wikifying (though that last attempt was a clumsy one I later fixed). My point is that this isn't a disruption-only account, in fact, their edits outside of the Andrew Landeryou article are all good ones.

I also don't see an actual conflict of interest. I don't know if you're seeing some evidence of a connection between this editor and the article subject that I can't. Were the IPs from before shown to be coming from an organization connected to Landeryou, or did they make some comment declaring as much? Remember that a person can violate WP:NPOV without having a conflict of interest, for example I might be a huge fan of Conan O'Brien (and I somewhat am, actually) and if I acted to make certain that the article only had positive things to say about him, I still wouldn't have a COI because I don't have any actual connection to him. If I was a relative or friend, or worked for him, or anything like that then I'd have a COI.

Back to the edits, it might be worth taking the editor, the IPs, and User:Carola56 to WP:SPI. Or you can simply ask the editor if they're the same person. They started editing at about the same time that Carola56 stopped editing (there's a 1 day overlap). I agree with you that the editor's reluctance to discuss matters is very troubling. That alone, the insistence on engaging in edit wars without discussion, that might be enough for an indefinite block. If this was a disruption-only account, I'd do so, but as I showed above this isn't. Perhaps the most appropriate action, if the editor refuses to engage in discussion about the article, is a topic ban. Their disruption seems limited to that one article, so a topic ban would allow them to continue to be productive in areas where they are doing good, while forcing them to avoid the area where they are causing trouble. -- Atama頭 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits earlier this month before starting editing on Andrew Landeryou look like they were preparing the account to be auto-confirmed so they'd be able to edit once the article was semi-protected (after two previous stretches of semi-protection, they were prepared this time). Smocking, look at their latest edits and see how they're massaging quotes and removing cited information, you seem to be missing the detail of their edits (and whether I undo or rollback is really splitting hairs, but I will refrain from using that option from now on). I was considering an SPI (I don't believe there is more than one person behind all those accounts and IPs, they've been trying to make exactly the same edits), but the IPs have been jumping all over the place so I'm not sure that checkuser will be very enlightening. Most of the IPs locate to Melbourne, which is where Andrew Landeryou is based. Fences&Windows 03:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I agree with the policy on this point. What I meant is that policy limits rollback to obvious vandalism and that POV issues are only defined as vandalism if there is "blatant POV-pushing". The RfCs I linked to suggest that there is consensus among the stewards that "blatant" should be a pretty narrow definition. Some edits seem to fall within that definition, but certainly not all of them. That being said, if it were up to me we'd be carpet bombing these buggers on sight along with the pseudoscientists :-). Looking at the edits again there does seem to be a certain pattern, but without an SPI you are still acting on the assumption that they're sockpuppets who are also making good edits to hide that fact. That could be interpreted as paranoia and bad faith. Starting an SPI is a better idea than you think: even without checkuser there are plenty of people regularly checking the SPI pages (me included) who might spot more suspicious coincidences. IP location isn't very good evidence in this case: Melbourne is the second largest city in Australia and it's also pretty common for people to be more interested in borderline-notable people who are geographically closer to them. I see you've tagged the page as well, so the suspected POV pusher(s) can now respond with either blatant vandalism (deleting the tag) or a much-needed discussion on the talk page. Smocking (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, SPI coming up. We're on the same page on rollback. It's just a tool to allow easy reverting, and one can accomplish the exact same thing by editing and saving an old version of the page. Fences&Windows 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Wikipedia

Russian Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - clear conflict of interest between RuWiki Administrators and other users. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm, that some sysops from Russian Wikipedia pushing their point of view.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are also reasons to suspect meatpuppetry as all of the party was inactive in the EnWiki until today. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 16:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's sock/meatpuppetry involved, too. I just blocked Захама Ассотаре (talk · contribs). Rock It!, could you please explain how you suddenly heard about this dispute after being inactive for weeks? Jamie S93^❤ 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the topicstarter (who is ruwiki editor himself) who kept posting his own original research about alleged persecution of dissidents in ruwiki without any secondary sources. BTW, here is 3RR violation: [18], [19], [20], [21]. And Rock It! keeps stalking of another ruwiki user both here and in ruwiki (by single purpose accounts) [22], [23], [24] and many more. Actually almost all his edits here were stalking of ruwiki users. Probably that will explain something. --Blacklake (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you, Track13 and Alex Smotrov were inactive until 16:00 UTC today when COI started. Probably _that_ will explain something. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 17:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read about the issue in LJ too. And it was you who gave the link here. --Blacklake (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read in LiveJournal, that RuWiki admins pushing their POV, and I decided that I should intervene. Of course, you can ask me, do I have any additional accounts? Yes, I have, but I don't used its for sockpuppet-violations.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on the diffs above? --Blacklake (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, you need a comments? Okay, you get a comments. You are just an operator, and nothing else. Your party of operators must be blocked for an infinite period in all Wikimedia projects. Your party written extremally bad articles like Калан, and pushing it to featured articles. For reference, this article have more than 100 factual errors, a lot of copyright violations and it is featured article (more information at wikireality.ru/wiki/Полное_собрание_ошибок_в_статье_Калан._Том_1). Any attempts to right the wrong were revert and users, who corrected this article were banned. All errors are in article now. And my articles that contains super-rare material were deleted by same admins who reverted the correction. Do you mean IT when you asked me an comments for my violations after indefinite ban due insults in Live Journal? If not — shut up, please, and don't waste my time.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklake is one of ruwiki administrators who deleted perfectly normal articles written by Rock It! in ruwiki. These administrators follow the philosophy that they call "Philosophy of border control". According to this philosophy, ruwiki users who come out of favor of ruwiki administrators should be kept out of Wikipedia by all possible means, even if they do not violate Wikipedia rules. In this episode, Rock It! wrote several very good articles which were all deleted by ruwiki administrators not because the articles were bad, but because they were authored by Rock It! whom these administrators personally dislike. In case the other members of this flash mob show up, here is the list of administrators who deleted Rock It!'s articles: Grebekov, Blacklake, Mstislavl, Yaroslav Blanter, Claymore. SA ru (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You for some reason forgot to mention that the article I deleted had been created by the indefblocked user and contained personal attacks in the edit summary. It has nothing to do with personal preferences, hasn't it? --Blacklake (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lie, Blacklake, and you know it. My articles does not cntain any attacks in first versions, but some operators deleted it only because author is me.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. "Indefinitely blocked" is the stigma that you used to justify your own disruptive behavior. I do not believe you that the article that you deleted contained personal attacks in the edit summary. Could you please show us this edit summary? SA ru (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we're discussing not the edit summary in another project, but the behaviour of certain users who added their own OR in the article and engaged in edit warring. Let's not forget about it. And since than Rock It! has insulted me few more time just above. But anyway, I'll answer: the edit summary read that another sysop was an idiot. Of course I realize that Rock It! does not regard the word "idiot" as an insult (see comments above). Actually I believe that Rock It! account should be indefblocked since its contribution consists of trolling, personal attacks and edit warring only. --Blacklake (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lying! There NO any attacks in first version of article. And troll are you. Enough to see your contribution in Russian Wikipedia to deduce that.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply to SA ru below. What's wrong with my contribution in ruwiki? 3 FAs and 5 GAs. --Blacklake (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand your desire to block Rock It! as soon as possible, but let's not hurry with that and try first to restore the exact sequence of events. Isn't it the following:

1) Rock It! published a perfectly normal article in ruwiki with a perfectly normal edit comment.

2) One of the admins (you or another one from the list above) recognized that the article was created by Rock It! and immediately deleted it -- not because the article had problems or the edit description was insulting, but only because the article was written by a stigmatized user.

3) After the article was deleted, Rock It! reposted it with a comment "Such and such administrator is an idiot because he deleted my good article". In this situation such comment is very understandable, although it could be toned done to something like: "I am reposting my article previously deleted by the administrator who acted incorrectly".

So, do I understand correctly that you deleted the article repost, not the original article? If so, this makes some sense. However, why didn't you restore the original copy of the article? This way you would remove the bad comment, but keep the good article. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to come up with such solution, or do you? Speaking of bad comments, if I remember correctly, :ru:user:MaxSem used to comment his edits with comments like "where do such mudaks come from", and nonetheless he served as a steward. So, we need some consistency here. Some people make impolite comments and become wiki-authorities, the others you suggest are blocked. I actually have an opposite solution to what you are proposing. Why don't you simply unblock Rock It! and let him work on his articles without disturbances. Would not this serve the goal of Wikipedia? SA ru (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did delete the repost. The whole issue was resolved here. And Rock It! should learn to cooperate with the others first. Unfortunately he failed to do it so far. --Blacklake (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. You acted correctly, and it was :ru:user:Yaroslav Blanter who deleted the original version of the article which was perfectly valid. This behavior was very disruptive. I do not understand you comment about Rock It! cooperating with the others, though. Rock It! is blocked in ruwiki. So, the only way he can "cooperate with the others" is by posting articles, which he did in full agreement with the rule Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. He cannot really participate in your discussions. And, besides being a bit emotional, he is the one who is right in this situation. Deletion of his articles was clearly inappropriate. SA ru (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, LiveJournal is a blog site, it's not exactly news. Anybody can say anything, that doesn't make it true. Woogee (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting involved in this COI discussion at all, I am here to inform User:Rock It! that comments such as "Bullshit, Blacklake, and you know it ... some idiots deleted it only because author is me" will not be tolerated. I advise you to moderate your language before you earn a blocking. SGGH ^ping! 21:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These men insulted me, they called me vandal, troll and copyright violator, but this isn't true. I'm not delete my maybe rude comments until they apologize to me, because wrong characterisation of me as "vandal" or "copyright-violater" is very insulting for me. And Blacklake know it.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SGGH. There is no need to use this vocabulary on this page. Let's just stick to the basic fact that the original versions of your articles did not have any insulting comments, but nonetheless they were deleted in order to punish you. We all can see how easy it is to provoke you to write emotional comments, but it would be only for your benefit if you resist from being provoked. SA ru (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The basic fact is that the original versions of the articles were published here. As anyone can see, they are not licensed under CC-BY-SA or any compatible license. There is no way of knowing whether any of sockpuppets that posted this content to Wikipedia really belong to the user who published the original version. According to Wikipedia copyright policies, such contributions construe possible copyright violations and must be deleted. --Grebenkov (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grebenkov, accept the wisdom! You thought up this "reason" only because I am author of article. It's absurd that I could create on this source rough copy of article for Wikipedia with the attribution of authorship to never create this article, and you know it.--Rock It! (Prime Jive) (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the site you showed (pastebin.com) is not really for publishing articles. It is used just for storage purposes: "Pastebin.com is a website where you can store text for a certain period of time. The website is mainly used by programmers to store pieces of sources code or configuration information, but anyone is more than welcome to paste any type of text. The idea behind the site is to make it more convenient for people to share large amounts of text online. Users have the ability to make private pastings, so they are only visible to the people they choose to share their links with." Besides, the first line of the text on pastebin clearly indicates the author. To me your claims look pretty bogus. And again, if you agree that Rock It!'s articles are good contribution to Wikipedia, why don't you simply unblock him and let him work without ridiculous obstacles created for no reason. (He did not violate any of Wikipedia rules.) SA ru (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Hi Rock It, I've spoken to you before on your old account where I defended you from what I saw as false vandalism warnings. So you know that I have nothing against you. But let me ask you, please keep your disputes with administrators and others on the Russian Wikipedia away from this one. You may have legitimate problems with them there, you may not, but this isn't where to hash that out. I'd suggest you stay away from the article about the Russian Wikipedia also, just so that you don't step on any toes. It is difficult for editors and administrators on this version of Wikipedia to deal with these disputes because we have little knowledge and no authority over what is done there, and it puts us in a tough spot when a fight from there shows up here. -- Atama頭 22:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole issue is ridiculous, it's like saying English Wikipedia admins cannot revert total bs from English Wikipedia article because of COI. Admins do not have any "private" interest Wikipedia, they're volunteers just like everybody else. What admin do not like is when the obvious trolling from the banned users crosses over to another project. So, just find the external sources, prove notability of these allegation, only then add this to the article. — AlexSm 16:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just interesting to see that everyone of the whole party reverting those paras is an administrator of RuWiki and inactive in EnWiki before yesterday 16:00 UTC. This is a clear sign of meatpuppetry. SkyBon^{Talk/Contributions} 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to ask you to behave in a civil way and not accuse your opponents in trolling. This is not ruwiki, this is a civilized part of Wikipedia. Rudeness and bullying is not allowed here. Besides, such ad hominem arguments are simply of poor quality. Speaking of vested interests and the ideal picture that you painted where volunteer admins do not have private interests, this is not true at all. Many of ruwiki admins involved in banning users for bogus reasons are members of the "Wikimedia RU" foundation which handles monetary transactions, including employee compensations (I believe these transactions were never disclosed). Interestingly ru:user:Lvova was first de-sysoped and later indefinitely banned for inviting a wrong person, her boyfriend, to the meeting of this foundation. In addition to possible business conflict of interests, some admins enjoy press coverage. For example, several ruwiki admins were recently interviewed by Esquire Magazine (Russian edition). All of them, by the way, were involved in Lvova's case. It is quite natural of these people to desire that their activities are covered in a favorable way, and any controversial facts are suppressed. The article's edit history clearly reveals this fact. SA ru (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know you use any opportunity to insert your ridiculous accusations (that's what makes you a troll), but all these lies have nothing to do with this dicsussion or with the encylopedic article. P.S. Several dosen ruwiki admins all trying to cover decisions made by our ArbComs (different ones), and you and SkyBon are they only ones "revealing the truth". Yeah, right ... — AlexSm 23:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations? I was not accusing anybody. I just explained why there is a conflict of interests here. I responded to your theory that ruwiki admins are just volunteers without vested interests. And since you are continuing to insult me and call me a troll, let me explain why you are the real troll in this situation. The reason is actually pretty simple. You use ad hominem arguments, you attack your opponent instead of discussing the issues. And this is trolling. SA ru (talk) 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the above: correct, you were not involed in edit warring, you came online after the article was already protected. You were the one who started to insert such bs into the article in December, knowing very well beforehand about notability and the sources. As a result, you simply wasted a lot other users' time. — AlexSm 00:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like profanity and insulting users is your last resort. Yes, I inserted a couple of facts in the article in December, and my insertion was in absolute correspondence with the article's style - pretty much all the references in the article were and currently are through the Wikipedia-derived pages. Since the authors did not care to use only externally referenced information, why should I care? I am not an expert in all the details of Wikipedia policies, and I just followed the general layout of this article. SA ru (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to illustrate the structure of this article, here are the references from the reference list that point to Wikipedia pages:

1. ^ Wikimedia Report Card August 2009 Retrieved on 2009-10-12

2. ^ Russian Wikipedia's press release on Runet Prize (November 2006)

3. ^ See Russian Wikipedia guidelines Википедия:Категоризация (Wikipedia:Categorization) and Википедия:Критерии категоризации персоналий по государственной принадлежности (Wikipedia:Criteria for categorization of people by citizenship)

4. ^ Википедия:История нашего раздела (Wikipedia:The history of our language edition)

9. ^ First currently-kept Main Page of November 7, 2002

And of course ruwiki admins "do not notice" this and request that only very specific facts are removed from the article because they are derived from Wikipedia pages (Decisions of the Arbitration Commettee, judgements of the Ombudsmen Commission, etc.). SA ru (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Kind of conclusion) In the parallel discussion on the article talk page, SA ru finally acknowledged that these paragraphs do not belong in the article. — AlexSm 00:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly trying to make a conclusion here and on the other page as if you are an authority here. Just a reminder: This is not ruwiki where you govern. So, just let the real authorities conclude this topic. Regarding your statement that I "finally acknowledged that these articles do not belong in the article", you are distorting my statement made in December and repeated several times in this discussion. My position is the following: Any policies on sources should be applied uniformly to all information presented in this article, not just to the pieces of information that make ruwiki authorities uncomfortable. SA ru (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TurnKey Linux

Perhaps it would be fair to mention some of the context of this submission (I got there via the contrib log just now and have no involvement).

The COI is obvious. I guess if you'd make a Venn diagram of edits by LirazSiri and edits related to TurnKey Linux (there should really be a tool for this), you'd find two slivers thinner than a fingernail on either side of the overlap. There's also a page on the turnkey website that shows a co-founder with a very similar full name (just click "about us" on their homepage). The particular conflict of interest here is probably not monetary gain as it's an open source project, but rather that he might be under the impression that his notability is proportional to the popularity of a linux distro he's involved with. I'm not so sure about his good/bad faith though. On one hand:

Article has a very promotional tone
Account is pretty much an SPA
User is soliciting attention to a marginally notable distro

On the other:

User voluntarily removed external links he placed earlier - and quickly too
Website has no ads and distro is open source; if anything, traffic and downloads actually cost them money
User seems relatively civil, although sometimes in a kind of pedantic, patronizing way that makes your blood boil (e.g. [25])

Do you have a link to the AfD? I can't find it in the archives and am curious what evidence of its notability they found. Smocking (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any AfD. If you look at the talk page, at the very top it links to the deletion review log which, when expanded, shows the discussion about restoring the article from deletion. The article was speedily deleted as A7 and then userfied. The editor who received a copy of the article had expanded it with reliable sourced, and consensus was reached in the DRV discussion that the article barely showed enough notability to allow it to be restored. The Information Week article in particular was mentioned as helping to show notability (it's the second reference given in the article currently). I see a couple of InfoWorld references also. -- Atama頭 17:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An update... Guy brought this to the administrators' noticeboard because the disruption seems to go well beyond COI. It seems like it's being dealt with there. -- Atama頭 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bleach cover up

Stale

– But still amusing. -- Atama頭 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is an employee of Clorox editing the bleach articles trying to minimize the risks of bleach and the carcinogenic and caustic nature of it. can someone stop him and revert his edits? it is user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GVB012009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say... An employee of Clorox whitewashing the bleach article. You can't make this stuff up. But the latest edits to the bleach page were almost a year ago. I think even hydrogen peroxide can have an expiration date. -- Atama頭 05:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

even if its old hes edits should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.254.35 (talk)

Hilarious potential newspaper headlines aside, his edits seem pretty constructive to me. This edit [26] is perhaps borderline advertising, but at least he did go through the talk page first [27] - the brand name is also pretty much synonymous with bleach in the US. He also discloses his COI on his user page (and transparancy is a good thing). Although his edits could have used some more sources, those sources are mostly easy to find. There was no good reason to delete them. You removed a well-sourced quote from an independent MIT publication that was even peer-reviewed by the European Comission [28] and (unlike the Chlorox guy) you didn't take it to the talk page first. I think this user was not so much editing as a Chlorox employee, but rather as a scientist who (like me) is just tired of the irrational, unsubstantiated fears about almost everything remotely related to science and technology, such as mobile phones, microwaves, aluminum cookware, vaccines, etc. Can't do any harm to be careful right? Well surprise surprise: a disease that has killed children for millenia and was almost completely eliminated in the last two decades is up to it's old tricks again, thanks to a bit of fear-mongering and rumors [29] [30]. But I should stop now before this turns into an argument about any of these issues. Let this rant just serve as an example of how annoyed a rational skeptic, with or without COI, can get about WP:BOLLOCKS. ~~Now if you'll excuse me I have a check from Chlorox to cash.~~There is no cabal. Smocking (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

Trademarkia is a HIGHLY credible site and its data is very reliable. CliffC, you are simply wrong. 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 its accuracy and integrity^[1]. 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 ^[2]. You are welcome to contact the USPTO bulk data division and verify this fact. 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 ^[3], 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.^[4] 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 ^[5]^[6]. 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 ^[7].

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^[8]. 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^[9] for more than 10 years, the State Bar of California ^[10],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)^[11], and a Co-Founder of Trademarkia ^[12].

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)[reply]

ekerazha

Recommend sanctions against ekerazha (contribs) for whimsical insertion of WP:GNG notices done in bad faith, biased opinion, conflict of interest and retaliatory action on articles involving CMS and PHP frameworks. User has close ties with Yii framework, a previously deleted article. (see [31], [32], [33], and [34]) Bcosca (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what of your own conflict of interest? I notice that your edits are limited almost entirely to PHP Fat-Free Framework, and promoting that software in other articles. Kohana is up for deletion and the AfD discussion has been hit with "keep" !votes from new editors, as if recruited through meatpuppetry. Established editors have all !voted "delete" (and I'll look into it but I will probably do the same). My guess is that this posting is your own retaliation against the editor for the nomination of that article for deletion, though the nomination seems to be firmly based in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am really having trouble assuming good faith in your notice here. -- Atama頭 17:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting a bit more objectivity and in-depth investigation here, considering the WP:GNG notice was inserted without even the benefit of a comment from a supposedly-neutral editor. That action didn't seem to be in consonance with collegiality promoted here, to say the least. Unless your qualifications include psychoanalysis, "your guess" is not grounded on fact because I have in all fairness attempted to edit my articles to make them as encyclopedic as possible, but that seems to be overlooked at this point. Neither fame nor fortune is in my agenda, and the distinction between notability and popularity has always been foremost when I edit my own articles. If it were, then I would probably have a nice-looking user page like you do. But neither I nor any article is the issue here - but the actions of another user. Bcosca (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you actually post diffs from Wikipedia to back up your claims of "bad faith, biased opinion, and retaliatory action". The "this is about them, not me" argument never works on noticeboards (that would be a good essay, come to think of it). You've come onto this board with some pretty strong accusations without a bit of evidence to back them up. I'm looking at Ekerazha's recent contributions, and I see nothing troubling, and the use of "GNG" notices seem appropriate. I see meatpuppets in an AfD making the same attacks against Ekerazha that you are. I see you acting as a single-purpose account, focused on the same software you accuse Ekerazha of trying to make "retaliatory action" against. I also don't appreciate the personal attack from you, either (implying that "fame or fortune" is in my agenda because I have a "nice-looking user page"). So no, Ekerazha isn't my concern right now. -- Atama頭 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you have any sources for PHP Fat-Free Framework that aren't at a blog or the Sourceforge project? You realize that none of those references are reliable sources. If not, that article should be deleted. Ekerazha's notability tag was perfectly valid on that article and you shouldn't have removed it without adding proper sources. -- Atama頭 23:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to re-add the notability tag as I still can't find multiple, reliable sources as for general notability guideline. Ekerazha (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note user Bcosca is in the habit of remove every template about notability concerns from the PHP Fat-Free Framework article, as you can see here [35], he seems recidivist. Ekerazha (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted the tag again, I'll probably report his account for vandalism. Ekerazha (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning added to his talk page. Ekerazha (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I follow the Yii framework has nothing to do with the strength of my arguments. I added the notability template to some php frameworks I found without references to reliable sources. Next week, I'll re-check every article and I'll open an AfD discussion for every article I still find without proper references. Ekerazha (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments? There still exists burden of proof that you have no link whatsoever to Yii framework and reasonable doubt that you are impartial to the articles being deleted. Bcosca (talk) 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yii article was deleted, I don't approve that decision (there were 2 published articles from a magazine) but I do accept it. What I do, meets the Wikipedia regulations and I mention Wikipedia policies. I added the notability tag to the PHP Fat-Free Framework article (and other articles) because it doesn't meet the general notability guideline. If nobody can add references to reliable sources, I'll also open an AfD discussion for them, in compliance with the Wikipedia policy. Ekerazha (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note I'm not a developer of the Yii framework (just a common user) so the conflict of interest charge is meaningless, while we can't say the same thing about Bcosca as he's the developer of PHP Fat-Free Framework. Ekerazha (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yii article was deleted. That's the important thing, even if you could prove a COI in connection to Yii, unless Ekerazha was trying to recreate the article or add information to other articles to promote it the COI is meaningless. I assume the answer to my question about sources for PHP Fat-Free Framework is that there aren't any. Therefore, it should be brought to AfD . -- Atama頭 21:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, as Ekerazha pointed out, Bcosca is indeed the developer of the software. The only problematic COI that I see right now is that one. Bong, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your software. You're not going to be able to obfuscate that by throwing around accusations about someone else. Something seemed fishy from the very start and I'm glad that my instincts were correct. -- Atama頭 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

PS: 90.217.104.202 needs watching. Some reasonable edits, but there's the previous vandalism and a personal attack re this COI discussion [36]. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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" [37]. Back off, Woogle Talk! :) Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ABC's of Self Defense has been deleted. — Jeff G. ツ 06:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Omarnimri

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.uspto.gov/products/catalog/trademark_products/page2.jsp

[2] ttp://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/notices/lctbd.jsp

[3] ttp://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=trademarkia

[4] ttp://www.google.com/intl/en/toolbar/ie/features.html#pagerank

[5] ttp://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/trademarkia.com

[6] ttp://www.quantcast.com/trademarkia.com

[7] ttp://delicious.com/url/d8d2fdee14b9f1d011817ef8ad855dbf

[8] ttp://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=trademarkia

[9] ttps://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/

[10] ttps://www.calbar.ca.gov

[11] ttp://www.linkedin.com/in/uspatentattorney

[12] ttp://www.trademarkia.com/about-trademarkia/about-us.aspx

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards