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.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the 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:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Optum Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sartorius AG Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Trendyol Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) 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.

Allied Artists International

Resolved

 – article deleted. Rees11 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the subject of what appears to be a two-sided WP:COI edit war between Warriorboy85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and ChinaUpdater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both sides of the disagreement seem to be able to support their respective cases fairly well, but the results are anything but encyclopedic in content. At a bare minimum, the text and reversions thereto swing from one side of WP:NPOV to the other, and no middle ground appears to be forthcoming. I'm at the end of my rope regarding trying to gain consensus between them, and have gone so far as to post the article for WP:RFC. Any assistance available would be appreciated. Alan (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Is either editor affiliated with Allied Artists International in any way? Or is there any other indication of a conflict of interest from either one? Remember that a conflict of interest does not simply mean that a person violated the NPOV policy, in fact there is a NPOV noticeboard that governs those disputes. Conflicts of interest occur when one or more editors working on an article have some kind of connection to the article subject that might indicate a motive other than improvement of the encyclopedia, or if their edits are made to advance or defame some entity that they are closely associated with (for example, an editor spamming his employer's web site link across various articles). -- Atama頭 23:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a actually a whole nest of inter-related articles. While it's one of the nastiest edit wars I've seen, I don't see any evidence of COI. There are now multiple admins involved from multiple notice boards, and the article has been blocked for a week. It's far from over but I don't think anything more is needed from COI/N for now. Rees11 (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation Rees11, that's what I had suspected. :) -- Atama頭 16:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Article is now up for deletion. Rees11 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Vivek Kundra

• 66.171.128.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

On Vivek Kundra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the anonymous user insists on the removal of negative information on the subject. Probable COI with the concerning subject, multiple edits in which negative (but well referenced) information have been removed without a proper explaination. -Reconsider the static (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That content should definitely stay, however nobody should edit war and there have currently been 11 reverts on the page by both editors. I've requested semi-protection and given both editors a 3RR warning. Hopefully now it is posted here, other editors will be able to take control of the situation. Smartse (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP carried on reverting after 3RR and a final warning so is blocked for 55 hours. Smartse (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

7oceans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now removed exactly the same content with no explanation, I've already made two reverts so can someone else please take a look? Thanks Smartse (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Something smells funny there, either old socks or meat. I've reverted and left a level 1 warning. -- Atama頭 18:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys. I have looked at this page before and was annoyed to see another backhanded way to inject information that is old hat into the article (AGAIN!). And I really made an omission not to tap out a reason. I have edited the discussion to reflect on the bias. What is funny here is Reconsider the static is vigorously defending the only contribution byTruPrint exactly one minute after its removal. Is there a way to investigate this further? -7oceans (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I really think that you should report me and have my user checked! -Reconsider the static (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a sockpuppetry case here. -- Atama頭 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

New update: I've requested that the article be semi-protected, it is now protected for a week. -- Atama頭 19:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We've got another editor (EditorTwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) removing exactly the same material and using similar arguments to the other users. I've added them to the SPI. Smartse (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Inexperience with the complexities of WP is not a crime. Did it ever cross your mind that all of you are also making similar arguments? From what I gather now, your bias stems from a purely clerical procedure or protocol. You realize that you are no longer talking about the content. From a procedure viewpoint: I would think if there were a debate, the text should be taken off the main page and debated in the discussion. To have a world-wide live audience while tabloid like postings are debated is what has given WP a bad name. The BLP guidelines urge caution. A different viewpoint is also not a crime.-7oceans (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the thing... We have a sockpuppet policy for a reason. When someone edits under different user names/IP addresses, or colludes with other editors off-wiki to create a false appearance of consensus, or false appearance at a lack of consensus, then discussion of the content can't really occur. -- Atama頭 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I am watching Lord of the Rings. Does a cabal with a consensual chant rule this island? I did not know the tools available to me to invite other like minded editors but I am learning fast. In fact I am learning from you. Thanks. I firmly oppose speculative postings or sensationalism on BLPs. I do not believe that constitues COI. Neither does the opinion that sensitive issues on a BLP should be discussed offline. I felt I was right in categorically removing it while asking for a discussion in the talk pages -- 7oceans (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It was confirmed that 7oceans has been using sockpuppets in their edit wars on Vivek Kundra, including one editor who I had never even seen before. Also, I was told that I am not a sockpuppet which is a relief. I believe that this is resolved though I'll wait a bit to see this through all the way. -- Atama頭 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

They're still removing the content whilst claiming that the consensus is to remove it. Aren't users who use socks supposed to be blocked? Smartse (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And on it goes, I'm getting a little tired of fighting the socks. Has 7oceans got mixed up between Lord of the Rings and Lord of the Flies btw? Smartse (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the next step here? I haven't had a dispute go this far before. I've made a couple of reverts, but I think a block would be in order. Rees11 (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds is the one who closed the case and blocked the sockpuppets. I'm not certain why 7oceans wasn't blocked at any point (they both violated 3RR and is a sockmaster) but you might want to ask. -- Atama頭 04:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've actually asked him, I'll see what he says. -- Atama頭 16:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter thought 7oceans was already blocked, 7oceans is blocked now. -- Atama頭 17:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nehara Pieris

• Nehara Pieris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Strongly suspect COI with user [[::User:Nimonline|Nimonline]] (talk · contribs), with edits like "For someone who is still fairly new to the Sri Lankan entertainment industry, the popularity of Nehara Pieris is absolutely phenomenal." Evil saltine (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there's a real COI here. This is an article about an actress, and it's not unusual for such articles to be edited by fans. For the most part, fans are exempt from the COI guidelines (otherwise we'd have serious problems with any pop culture articles which are almost exclusively expanded by fans), the exception being when some other COI might exist aside from the article subject itself. For example, a fan editing the Star Wars article is not only allowed but expected, but if that fan ran a web site called "starwarsfanimania.com" then adding that web site to external links, using it as a reference, or mentioning it in the text of the article would be a COI. In any case, without any claim from Nimonline that they are officially representing Pieris or other indication of a COI I think this is just a matter of an editor who was adding too much "fluff" to a BLP. Their more recent edits seem to be more tame, I think Nimonline is learning what is and isn't appropriate and their edits are improving as a result.

On a side note, I removed some inappropriate external links (Facebook, MySpace, Youtube) and tagged it as an unsourced BLP, there's still quite a bit of work needed to bring this article up to speed. -- Atama頭 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: On further review, I believe that the COI complaint is a valid one. The article was initially created by Neharalive, who was later blocked for username violations. Not long after the block, Nimonline began editing the article. They are in all likelihood the same editor. Despite this, I have been trying to improve the article, but in the process of trying to find sources for the article I discovered that her only coverage was in blogs and social networking sites. Generally when that occurs you are dealing with a person who is trying to promote themselves but has not reached notability. Based on this, I have brought the article to an AfD. -- Atama頭 16:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

NGOWatch / Jon Entine

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

This user has self-identified as Jon Entine, head of NGOWatch.

Apart from making some uncontroversial corrections, he has deleted well-sourced (e.g. from a Cambridge University Press book) criticism from the article about his organization several times, refusing to discuss his reasons except claiming it was outdated, and added promotional language [1]. He has also deleted several other users' talk page comments [2]. As he continues to do both despite being made aware of the applicable guidelines, I'd appreciate some more eyeballs on this.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently with the characterization of the above poster. When I encountered the article, it referred to a different organization entirely, known as NGO Monitor, which he or another poster misrepresented as this organization. The material form Cambridge University Press referred to the other organization, which has absolutely no relationship to NGOWatch. The so-called criticisms came from one website, and referred to NGO Watch shortly after it was founded in 2002. In fact, NGOWatch never got off the ground, and remained a dead website until 2007, when it was removed. I had no affiliation with the past website. I was part of a team that founded a new website, also known as NGOWatch, with an entirely different mandate. Even though the criticisms referred to an organization from 7 years ago--and the criticisms were purely opinions, citing no facts, which in itself would using normal ideological filters disqualify it from being posted on Wikipedia, I preserved those hyperbolic and inflammatory criticisms under a new heading on the site referring to the former NGOWatch. At present, there have been no criticisms or compliments of the new site, so there is nothing new to post.

I believe the above person is violating the standards of Wikipedia, and I advise others to watch if he/she should impose his ideological filters in an attempt to distort information that should be as neutrally presented as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runjonrun (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflict of interest in this matter is clear. However, it's not obvious that there is actual misconduct in addition to the COI. I'll look into it and give an opinion and encourage others to do the same. -- Atama頭 20:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

SPA at Atmospheric water generator

Mateyahoy (talk · contribs) is engaging in a slow edit war with anyone that edits Atmospheric water generator to maintain a version which mainly promotes Everest brand systems.[3][4][5][6] (note that the two most recent reverts remove references to NYT and Science Daily). Also, Mateyahoy's version includes two images from the Everest website which are obviously copyright violations, yet he keeps insisting they are public domain. Some help regulating the article and sanctioning of the SPA would be appreciated. T34CH (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

T34CH (talk · contribs) has been taking down accurate information that others have put up and edited. My only contribution has been two images that show what an AWG looks like and how they work. I made both images and signed the appropraite waiver placing them in Public Domain when I uploaded them. If you check article history you can see any information I put up has been taken down or edited out except for the images. The information that was put up or edited by others is extremely accurate as to how an AWG looks and works. I have no interest in this other than to keep the information accurate and reliable. The information being supplied by T34CH is misinformation. I have suggested he put it in a seperate heading under desiccants but he seems bent on deystroying the real information, that has been put there by others. Mateyahoy (talk) 9:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a thread at WP:ANI where I've replied, but essentially the COI seems to be evident and Mateyahoy has been showing signs of disruption. -- Atama頭 06:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The squeeky wheel gets the grease. Good luck! Mateyahoy (talk) 9:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Update about images reuploaded after deletion etc at ANI... please respond there.[7] T34CH (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

images were re-uploaded with permissions :)Mateyahoy (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article reads fairly neutral. It is a good strategy to include lists of companies as an external link as a resource without specifically promoting any specific interest. Keeps WP honest as an encyclopedia.

User:Autrylibraries

Resolved

 – User blocked as a role account Smartse (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Posting a lot of links to www.autrycollections.org. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

User:UGL international office

• UGL international office (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited General Labour Union (Italy) (a trade union known as UGL - Unione Generale del Lavoro in Italy), completely substituting the text and removing the only reference included. The account also created Renata Polverini, which is UGL's head. In the first case the edits removed the controversial issues with past bindings of the trade union with the far right, and the second article is clearly self-promotional (even if it shouldn't be deleted since Renata Polverini is by all standards a notable trade union leader). It seems quite obvious COI and also a shared account from an organization. While it did no more edits after 19 October, I think we should take notice. Cyclopia^talk 00:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported them to WP:UAA and they've been blocked. I've reverted their edits to General Labour Union (Italy) as they where clearly promotional in tone. Haven't looked at Renata Polverini though. Smartse (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Original4d

Stale

 – If the editor starts this up again, bring it up, otherwise there's not much to do. -- Atama頭 06:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Original4d is an account based solely on WP:SPAM and advertisement. Appears to represent an estalishment offering 4-Digits gambling services (known as "4D" in Singapore), posting URLs, etc. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer current, as the user's last edit was on September 2, 2009. However, I don't think this user was doing anything wrong. The user has not spammed, advertised anything, or posted any URLs. Please be more careful when reporting users in the future. Netalarmtalk 03:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit is clearly a URL post, written in an advertising manner: "For more information on 4D game in Malaysia, visit "www.magnum4d.com.my"" -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were referring to the bottom link that the user fixed. Nothing else to do now, since this was from September 2. Netalarmtalk 04:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elijah White

User keeps on creating pages for himself, most recently at MaC Renegade. His userpage at this moment serves as a draftboard for said article; a version of which was speedied yesterday. The user's has made very few edits to other pages, and given that the user's username is the apparent real name of MaC Renegade, I am convinced that this user is using his account purely to promote his music. TheLetterM (talk) 09:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty clear cut, looking at google for "MaC Renegade" they don't appear to be notable and writing autobiographies is never a good idea. As there aren't any articles left though I can't really see what can be done. I've left them a note to draw them to this discussion, hopefully they will get the message and not make the article again. Smartse (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I tagged his userpage for A7 deletion, he removed the tag, I replaced the tag. He also recreated MaC Renegade (for the 3rd time). I think that it's time for an administrator to do something about this, so I've left a notice at WP:ANI (because let's face it, administrators don't generally look at this board). -- Atama頭 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely. If he shows some contrition, feel free to unblock but I wouldn't hold my breath. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User: Bruce Cairney is a sockpuppet and used to defame

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

The page has shown photographs of Master Bruce Cairney and he has nothing to do with this page or user name. This problem was brought forward in the last few weeks and the page was cleared and now there is more slander back there again. This problem has been going on with this user name for years - what does wikipedia do about this type of abuse? Bacmac (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I wish I can help you but I can't find the specific incident which you are talking about. Can you include some relevant diffs as part of your evidence? I've looked over your recent contributions and I don't see any intersection with you and a user "Bruce Cairney". Can you also link to the pages where the offenses are taking place? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You're complaining about an editor who hasn't edited in nearly 6 months? Or are you complaining about the message left at the talk page? I don't really see what "abuse" you're worried about. -- Atama頭 21:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) _(again!) I guess it has something to do with this guy and this link that was posted on the user's talk page by an IP editor last week. It seems reasonably legitimate for someone to post it to his userpage and I can't see how in any way there are any conflict of interest problems here. Smartse (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If this was an active editor, and there was reason to believe that the editor was misrepresenting himself as Bruce Cairney then a WP:UAA complaint might be relevant. Otherwise I would say drop it. This isn't the first time that Bacmac has complained about this user, and last time there wasn't much to the complaint. I'm wondering if Bacmac is actually Bruce Cairney? If someone was impersonating me on Wikipedia that might make me uncomfortable at the very least. -- Atama頭 22:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK OK OK - you guys must not have read or checkd the previous problem that I refer to from a few weeks ago. I dont know how to navigate my way around real well and some of you guys out there could obviousley find the previius registered problem that resulted in the page being edited/ content deleted and see this is the same problem again. The user name "Bruce Cairney" is being used to defame and slander "Bruce Cairney" and yes your ... I guess it has something to do with this guy - is correct as you can see that he is the same guy whos photo was posted into this page. According to the feedback from the registered problem a couple weeks back, this is quite an unusual case where a user name is created to be used (by someone other than the named person) for the purposes of slandering an individual and to drive traffic to other slanderous websites that have been produced by a very active antagonist of the subject user name. Bacmac (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I blanked the page, which you could also have done. I was actually involved in the last "problem" so I don't really need to check it. If you're concerned with people showing up and posting inflammatory things, I suggest you contact Ultraexactzz, they deleted the talk page last time. Ask them to either semi-protect it indefinitely, or "salt" it because an IP recreated it with the same attack info as before. Semi-protection will stop anonymous or new users from adding bad things to that page, and "salting" it will prevent anyone from recreating it again. -- Atama頭 01:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Safehandling and PhaSeal

• Safehandling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created three articles related to PhaSeal, two were speedy deleted per G11. The third, Closed System Drug Transfer Device, is mainly about the product in general so potentially OK if NPOV. I removed some uncited information related to PhaSeal and the user has re-added it. Also when I tagged it to be checked for neutrality, three SPAs appeared on the talk page the next day praising the article. User has no contributions related to any other topic. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect both a COI and sockpuppetry. It's beyond credulity to think that two editors would naturally stumble upon the talk page of a new, somewhat obscure orphaned article to make their first and only edits as attempts to defend the article. However, absent any PhaSeal promotion there's probably no harm done. Assuming that the article is accurate I think it might be useful to have in the encyclopedia. I'll try to verify the NIOSH publication, I suspect it is available online. -- Atama頭 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was able to verify some of it, and also confirmed the claim that there are multiple peer-reviewed studies regarding the technology. -- Atama頭 01:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Safehandling has attempted to reinsert info about Phaseal, as has Brendan tate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the likely sock/meatpuppets who commented on the talk page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I came very close to opening a sockpuppet investigation but I've decided to assume good faith. The article has potential and I'm glad that it was created, and I assume that the editor(s) in question will be able to help expand it properly with the apparent knowledge they have. But if they keep pushing the PhaSeal thing, I might go ahead and open that case. -- Atama頭 16:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the two IPs who defended the article on the talk page, one is American and one is Swedish (product is made by a Swedish company), so I'm thinking it's meatpuppetry although could be a combination. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brendan tate has admitted that he and Safehandling are being paid, apparently by Phaseal, to "own" this article and represent Phaseal as the only true Closed system drug transfer device. See my talk page here.

Yes, I know this is bad and I'm sure some of you are ready to jump down their throats. But please, let's start by gently explaining policy to them and try to get them to understand that their boss has given them an assignment that can't be done. Maybe we can get them to contribute in a positive way. Rees11 (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think if they were blocked that would prevent them from coming under any pressure from their employers to keep doing this, whereas if they continue to have live accounts they'll have a dilemma if their boss asks them to try to slip references in unnoticed. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that it isn't up and running yet, but there are proposed guidelines and proposed policy for paid editing. See WP:PAID for links to both. Going by the description of what they are doing, it seems to come under the realm of Paid Advocacy which, under the terms of the proposed policy in its current form, would be prohibited. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

lets get some explainations going here...first up i am pretty much a wikipedia virgin, so if i am breaking some rules, i am doing it unitnentionally and with innocent ignorance...secondly, i do work for phaseal (i am their new copywriter) and one of many assignments i have been given is to create a wikipedia page, which so far it seems i have been unsuccessful in doing...thirdly, i did say to rees11 that i was told to 'own' the 'closed system drug transfer device' phrase, and i did also tell him that i know personally that this cannot be done. nobody owns anything on wikipedia....next, it is important to let the world know that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer device, and that the competitors false market themselves as being so to. there are over twenty independant, peer reviewed publish studies that verify this, and these scientific studies was the topic of one of the two sites that were taken down. the brief i was given was to make this clear on a reputable site on the internet, and wikipedia was chosen as that site... all i want to do is get the facts out on wikipedia, to let anyone who is interested in knowing the facts about the world of the closed system drug transfer device...next, i probably am guilty of being a meatpuppet and for this i apologise- as i said before i am a wikipedia virgin and didnt know how it worked....i am not interested in 'slipping references in unnoticed' (which to me seems impossible to do anyway), what i am interested in doing is getting the facts up, and once everybody is happy with that, to me this work assignment is over...and i wouldnt regard myself as a paid editor either, and if i was i wouldnt be doing this for the two dollars an hour that it would work out as....the thing with pushing the phaseal line isnt about the fact that i work for them, its about providing the correct information- that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer device, which as i said before, is a fact acknowledged in the oncology business....so if i have offended anyone, i am sorry and i i have broken any wikipedia rules then i am also sorry, but facts are facts are facts...brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes we're harsh on people who have a conflict of interest with articles. Much of the time this is justified. I think in your case, we've been a little more forgiving because the whole "Closed System Drug Transfer Device" is a good subject to have an article about. When editors produce good articles we ease off because that's what Wikipedia needs. So know that at least I appreciate what you're doing, and if you're willing to follow the rules in Wikipedia then you are more than welcome to continue.

Here's the thing... You're an advocate for PhaSeal. I'm glad that you acknowledge that, and that doesn't automatically make you ineligible to be an editor here. We're not against PhaSeal. And we don't have any rules that say it can't be mentioned in the article. But if it is, we need to have references. We need to have something backing up the claims, and it has to be reliable. I see that attempts have been made to do that, and that's good. If you're supposed to promote PhaSeal, and developing a good article about this subject ends up promoting PhaSeal, then you and Wikipedia both prosper. Our conflict of interest guidelines state, "In a few cases, outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests." This may be one of those times. But know that your edits will be scrutinized, and may be questioned often. And there may come a point in which you will be asked to abide by stricter COI guidelines that suggest that you not edit the article directly, but that you instead make suggestions on the talk page for other editors to apply. For now, though, ask for advice and be open to others' suggestions and you'll be fine. -- Atama頭 15:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Some new information has been added to the article about Phaseal by Safehandling which makes it look quite unbalanced - "In all of these scientific studies only the PhaSeal system met the definitional requirements to be termed a closed system drug transfer device" - that's the last sentence so it reads like the conclusion of the article. It has been tagged for expert attention but should this material be removed from the article until the issue is resolved? I'd also suggest that Safehandling and Brendan Tate discuss any proposed edits concerning PhaSeal on the talk page before making them to the article per WP:COIC. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We need someone with access to those paid sources to take a look at them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think that's the only problem, articles where all statements are verifiable can still be biased if the focus is weighted towards a particular viewpoint or conclusion. I think WP:YESPOV is relevant here. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed those last two paragraphs. Discussion of the article content should probably move to the article talk page. Rees11 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

seriously, can you guys edit out half a paragraph that was both factually and referenced correctly, which then makes the other half of the paragraph false information? this is getting annoying, not because its taking me time to deal with it, but the things i have to deal with. i feel as though i have just been taken for a ride....you tell me that you want this to happen, so ok i do that in order to get the correct text reinstated, and because i have done what you wanted, you then say that you cant reinstate the text because of some primary source information rule?????? so which one is it? i am beginning to think this is a game to some people and that its not worth our time anymore.......brendan tate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, your conflict of interest is going to bring a lot of scrutiny to the additions you make to the article. It doesn't help that you cite the same studies as references that your company's web sites use. It's almost like you're using Wikipedia to host another web page for your company. Now, while we appreciate the information you're offering, it would be ludicrous for us to take your word that it is "factual". Even someone who didn't have the COI would have such edits questioned. -- Atama頭 16:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

hey atama,

you say that there is a problem with citing references that appear on our companies website. what company doesnt have relevant press releases, news items or in our case scientific studies relating to their business linked to their website? this is a fact of all companies who have an internet profile.

another fact is that these studies appear elsewhere (in credible scientific journals) before they get to our website. and if you look carefully, on the wikipedia page, no references are linked back to our website. in my learning about wikipedia i realise that this is a no-no, and so when i didnt know any better and did that, it was deleted and rightly so.

when you say that it would be ludicrous to take these published scientific studies as 'factual', does this mean that the publications that they first appeared in have no credibility either? as i said before, yes they do appear on our company website (just lik all other companies have) and i see this as a storing place for them, seen as how they are about us.

we are not trying to get wikipedia to host another phaseal website. we are trying to get across to anyone who is interested that there is a difference between what is a closed system drug transfer device and what is not. it just so happens that according to the definitions, phaseal is and our competitors arent which is backed by the scientific studies.

then you say that you are having trouble determining the reliability of Jorgenson. he is such a high player in this industry that his position and his reputation demand that he remains impartial. i only reference him because out of all the scientific studies relating to the performance of the phaseal system, he was the guy who did the studies comparing phaseal to the competitors. we have others where he is not the lead author/scientist, but he is associated with all the comparison studies. i wish it was different, but it isnt. this is/was his interest, and his findings were so conclusive that there was no need for anyone else to replicate them.

so i am asking you once again to ok what we want to put up on the page. it will be impartial because we are going to mention the competitors. it will be factual because the scientific studies have proved what we want to say, which is that phaseal is the only closed system drug transfer system to meet the leakproof and airtight requirements of the NIOSH and the ISOPP definitions. and it will be referenced to the original sources of the information e.g. the original scientific journals that they were first published in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendan tate (talk • contribs) 14:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have another concern which I've added to the article's talk page. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

In this comment http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Closed_system_drug_transfer_device&diff=322977591&oldid=322953352, Brendan tate has made it clear that he is not just seeking to promote his employers but to denigrate their competitors. Unfortunately this is not going to be one of those occasions where outside interests coincide with Wikipedia’s interests. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled across this article during my research on drug delivery systems and then on to the discussion on this COI page. I think of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. While the subject may be mildly interesting at best, I don't think that mentioning any specific manufacturer in a positive or negative light is necessary for the article. It becomes a brochure or a negative ad campaign. -- Bismuthe (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Manuel P. Asensio

An editor claiming to represent Asensio has been actively editing the article, turning it into what reads like an extended press release, with "references" that are links to what appear to be copyright violations of newspaper clips on the Asensio website. He also made what I interpret to be a legal threat on the talk page[8]. I've replied on the talk page, but this is pretty much above my pay grade so I'd request that uninvolved editors step in. I do think that the article needs to be fleshed out, and I also think that the views of the subject of the article need to be carefully considered, but I think that what's being added and removed here is not appropriate.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor has materialized with a clear-cut legal threat[9]. I'd like to encourage this person to work to improve the article, so far to no avail.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor was blocked for making legal threats. He requested an unblock with the promise to retract the legal threat, but the unblock was put on hold until he could decide which single account he would use to edit the project. In the meantime, the article is up for deletion (but so far it has been a unanimous keep vote). -- Atama頭 16:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everything seems to have simmered down, for now. Thanks to all concerned for their assistance.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a side note, the editor in question (the person representing Asensio) has been unblocked. I have hopes that this won't mean a resumption of disruption in the article. -- Atama頭 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's true. For some time a number of IPs and SPAs have edited the article disruptively, culminating in the recent unpleasantness. Let's hope it's all over, but definitely the page needs to be watched. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayne Pierson

User:Saber, etc. has just e-mailed me, admitting that he was paid to write an article about this person and asking how he can further advance his paid goal. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is full of puff and makes it sound like college sponsored work placements were paid employment of importance. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The subject is pretty notable though, all that's needed is to keep it neutral. This makes me wish we could settle this whole WP:PAID debate so that we can decide what to do with these editors. -- Atama頭 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We can create articles about them and allow them to edit their friends articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyren

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked as self-promotional spammer. Article on its way to deletion. -- Atama頭 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Has created article Lachlan Carrick linking to a website that matches their name http://www.cyren.com.au . User talk page and article tagged COI.  7  07:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Lord Buckley

Lord Buckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Editor at 68.5.46.237 continues to re-add unreferenced potential COI material despite receiving full series of uw-warnings and requests for comment on article talk page. Closely related isp number in Aliso Viejo California has identified themselves in the past as the son of the article's subject, making same sort of unreferenced additions to the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: If this is in fact the subject's son making these edits, they now appear to be adding material that's making unreferenced claims about themselves as well. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Users seemingly involved with Sunrise Powerlink

User:Energyforeveryone, User:Energyissues and User:Energytoday seem to be SPAs with an interest in this planned solar energy development. The development is probably notable, but these users' contributions are spam-like in nature. Especially when adding a section to the Solar energy article, which I am minded to delete on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

SPA, COI, all true. Let's look at actual "damage" done however.

• Energyforeveryone hasn't edited for a couple of months, and the sum total of their edits is to change "power lines" to "transmission lines". Harmless.
• Energyissues also hasn't edited for months, and added quite a bit of info, some of it a little spammy, but all of it sourced. Overall I'd say a positive contribution to the article, the only objectionable language is calling a report "objective" and "fact-based", which is a bit POV.
• Energytoday is the current editor, and is the only account to have made edits outside of the Sunrise Powerlink article. Their contributions to the article also seem okay for the most part. I agree with you that the edits outside of Sunrise Powerlink aren't necessary, and I've undone the edits to San Diego Gas & Electric. -- Atama頭 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My main goal was to provide up-to-date and factual information on the Sunrise Powerlink; since the SDG&E article and related articles were outdated related to this project. The Sunrise Powerlink is truly a test-case in Southern California and many, many people have opinions on it. My only hope is that when they turn to Wikipedia for information on the project, they have current information. Thanks! Energytoday (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

Waterfalls in Hamilton, Ontario

HamiltonCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is systematically adding potential spam links to articles concerning waterfalls in the city of Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. I'd suggest also checking existing links in these articles not added by this user to check for spam-ness. Tckma (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The editor was perhaps a bit overzealous in adding the links, but the website in question is owned by the Hamilton Conservation Authority which is a government agency. The website itself seems somewhat useful as an information resource. As for a conflict of interest, if HamitlonCA works for the city of Hamilton or the Conservation Authority maybe a note of caution would suffice. freshacconci talktalk 15:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've left a COI warning template on User talk:HamiltonCA. Tckma (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The mass insertion of links skirts along the edges of our spam policy. I don't think the links themselves are particularly problematic, but when an editor adds so many in such a short time it's difficult to argue that the links were added with much forethought. -- Atama頭 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

AfricanPressOrganization

AfricanPressOrganization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made potential unreferenced COI edits to Press videoconferencing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tckma (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted their edit and reported the username to WP:UAA. I noticed that another user African Press Organization (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in March and that they created the Press videoconferencing article. Having looked at it I'm not sure if it is notable to be honest, I can't see how press videoconferencing is any different to other videoconferencing. Do you think we should WP:MERGE? Smartse (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a {{mergeto}} tag. Tckma (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest Marvel Super Hero Squad

• Marvel Super Hero Squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The7thCynic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There's already a thread of this over on the Edit War Noticeboard [[10]], but I guess this is a new problem. User:98.235.186.116 was deleting one site, replacing it with (what is now known to be his) forum. Page was semi-protected for a while. Days pass, edit war continues, User:71.199.246.246 joins in. It smells like conflict of interest but when guys named X-Fan and 7thCynic, moderators on the forum that keeps getting deleted, post about how they are the undoing the revisions and use "(I removed the Rumorbuster link because the site isn't working and if the Hasbro Heroes forum isn't allowed to be a link, the Rumorbuster shouldn't be allowed either)" as their reason for removing content, the conflict of interest is pretty blatent. Warnings have been put on all appropriate talk pages, but they're not going to be happy until their site is on the page. Can anyone review this and give some guidance? Talk seems one sided, and now there's vengeance deletions going on. Help? Tomson elite (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Scrub both forums (I've just done so) and blacklist if they persist. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good compromise. But your revision was undid by the 7thCynic guy 3 minutes after you did it.Tomson elite (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And again, 7th Cynic reverts 2 minutes after Dayewalker User talk:Dayewalker came through and cleared it up. Sock puppetry, multiple reversions (as fast as the edits can be fixed), revenge deletions. This is apparently a hot button issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomson elite (talk • contribs) 20:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And I guess this is also a three reversion rule thing too? Just wondering how thick this plot gets. Tomson elite (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

A bad situation. As to WP:3RR, the hard rule is that if you revert more than 3 times in 24 hours on an article you can be (and almost always are) blocked to stop the behavior. Superficially, assuming that he isn't one of the IPs from before (not a bet I'd make) The7thCynic has only reverted 3 times (one more and they can be blocked). -- Atama頭 21:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest - Jehovah's Witnesses page

LTSally is a major contributor to the Jehovah’s Witness page, who is openly opposed and somewhat extreme in his opposition to Jehovah’s Witnesses. He states his opposition to Jehovah’s Witnesses openly on the Wikipedia site on his personal page and encourages people on his pages, to leave the Jehovah’s Witness religion, and that he will show them how. He is a Jehovah’s Witness. He states that he is “inactive,” a term we use for persons who are Jehovah’s Witnesses but who don’t attend meetings or engage in the ministry.

He states on his page, that if he were found out, he would probably be disfellowshipped, which he doesn’t want, because then he wouldn’t be able to associate with some of his friends, he states. So, he keeps his opposition and work against Jehovah’s Witnesses hidden. He writes on the Jehovah’s Witness page about disfellowshipping, in a way that gives the wrong impression about the subject, giving only parts of information about disfellowshipping that are misleading. This is true about most of what he is contributing to the Wikipedia pages on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some of the things he has written on the Wikipedia page (most of which has since been edited) can be considered slander, both in the dictionary and legal definition of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LTSally Some of the comments, give a very misleading impression of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In trying to correct the situation, my edits are always deleted, as have been some of the clarifying information placed on the talk page. It might be termed “cyber-bullying”.

I feel that the conflict of interest is resulting in misinformation being present both on the Wikipedia page on Jehovah’s Witnesses, and in the talk pages, and his personal talk pages, which encourages people to leave the Jehovah’s Witness religion and which presents slanderous and false comments concerning the Jehovah's Witness religion.Naturalpsychology (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Naturalpsychology

I think that LTSally has a strong POV which is not the same as a COI. I think you should both focus on 3rd party scholarly sourcing, though religious scholarship generally does not deal with the question of authenticity which may be important to (former) Jehovah's Witnesses. Andries (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

LTSally made a really good point on his talk page, "If I have a conflict of interest because of my negative experiences with that religion, then you have one because of your continuing involvement with it." I must say that I'm uncomfortable with any editor who preaches on his user page, whether for or against an organization, but that shouldn't invalidate his participation in any Jehovah's Witness articles. If his edits are in violation of WP:NPOV then that is certainly not good, but that's also not automatically a COI. -- Atama頭 22:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Allied Artists (disambiguation)

Resolved

 – User banned, articles deleted. Rees11 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Allied Artists (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Uppsala Mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• FederalLibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a continuing saga. I don't really suspect COI but bring it up here because it was first raised here in connection with Allied Artists International, which has since been deleted.

I've been trying to sort this out but it's very complicated and involves a whole rat's nest of inter-related (or not?) articles, sockpuppets, and SPAs. As an incentive to get other editors to look at it, it's a sordid tale involving a classic motion picture studio (which in its later days distributed the infamous Story of O), crime and racketeering, embezzlement, a totaled Ferarri (sic), sex and depravity.

The whole thing is a hall of mirrors, and I have no idea what's real any more. For the full effect, start at Uppsala Mafia and just try to figure out what's going on. I dare you. Rees11 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it if you double-dog-dare me. -- Atama頭 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Too late! Admin Rlevse has deleted the whole nest and banned the user. I suspect it will pop up again though, given this user's history. Rees11 (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was recreated, but I've tagged it as recreation from a banned user. However, I am unable to find any evidence that he was indeed banned. Icouce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left an edit summary of "ChinaUpdater" on the article's talk page. Netalarmtalk 04:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple socks involved, making it hard to completely ban the user. Rees11 (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the long comment written on Talk:Uppsala Mafia give anyone else a bad feeling? My gut tells me the editor is some kind of activist. Also, the long list of bullet points listing "fact" after "fact" seems to be ChinaUpdater's MO (see User talk:ChinaUpdater for almost the same behavior). -- Atama頭 16:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I know WP:AGF, but I agree. It definitely reads like someone with an agenda. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The editing style is too similiar, especially the claims and references to law enforcement. Anyone thinking of requesting a SPI? Netalarmtalk 17:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well his edits on the talk page seem to suggest in advance that any such investigation would come back positive (see 2c and its sub-bullets, and 4, both of which could be read to suggest they are located in the same physical area or used the same physical computers). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've started the report. Anyone who wants to add onto it, feel free, but I think it's so obvious that there's not much more that needs to be said. -- Atama頭 19:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya, the report/CU was just a formal assertion that the two users were related. The results were Likely Is there anything else we should do at this point with the article? Netalarmtalk 02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It has attracted the attention of an admin so other than entertainment value, no. Rees11 (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is awful so like all articles, there are 2 things to do. Clean it up, or get it deleted. I get a headache reading it but I'm pretty sure it's a work of synthesis, essentially using Wikipedia to publish investigative journalism. It might be worth salvaging if someone is willing to take the time to do it. Googling "Uppsala Mafia" shows that there has been real coverage of the group (in fact, I recall reading quite a bit about it a few years ago, it really is interesting). -- Atama頭 15:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a fascinating story, I think, and could make an interesting article. It was already deleted once so I suspect it will go away again. Much of the story is told in a less headache-inducing way at Stefan Eriksson. Rees11 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then in that case, I'll do a redirect. I believe it should be uncontroversial considering the circumstances. -- Atama頭 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a few extra eyes

• Susan Hutchison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dow Constantine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A high profile, very contentious political campaign in Seattle Washington (no small county this; this is the highest elected office in a county of over 2 million people) is heating up as November 3rd elections approach. The campaigns have gotten ugly, and not surprisingly this is spilling over into the articles. Currently, I believe they are neutral, but efforts by supporters & detractors attempting to control candidate's Wikipedia pages may have reached the point of extensive socking (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/He pled guilty). Both of these articles could really benefit from more watchers who don't care and can help ensure that they remain neutral. I suspect the situation will cool down after the dust settles following election day. If you have room on your watchlist, please consider keeping an eye out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I live in the area and you can't turn on TV or the radio without hearing about this, it's big news right now. So I'm not surprised about this. I'll put them on my watchlist. -- Atama頭 15:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DoDaCanaDa long term issues of COI and canvassing

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

This user is the subject of Ray Joseph Cormier, which has been nominated for deletion. The user has a very long history of ignoring COI guidelines and is currently posting compulsively to the AfD, the article talk page, and the talk pages of other editors who he apparently thinks will help him get the article kept [11] [12] [13] [14]. He has already been warned about canvassing here and COI here and has been energetic in ignoring them. I fervently request that he be blocked at least for the duration of the AfD -- there is every sign he will persist in being disruptive, and a block for purposes of prevention is well in order. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• In the interest of balance and not to be in violation of canvassing, I informed an equal number of editors who registered a delete in the 2 previous Afd discussions of the current Afd. A block is not necessary since I have assured everyone I will make no more comment in the Afd discussion pending a consensus. It may not be a justification, but when the 2rd Afd tag appeared on the Article, I looked at the Wikipedia Article Traffic statistics and there was a sudden huge spike in views, from 1 or 2 a day to 53. Only Nomoskedasticity commented. I thought that to be odd. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You are in violation of canvassing. Contacting people and asking them to help you keep an article is in complete violation of WP:CANVASS that states that biased notices are considered "campaigning". While you have also contacted people who voted to delete last time, that means you haven't performed "votestacking", which is a different kind of canvassing. I would say that if you had contacted everyone in the same, neutral manner that canvassing didn't occur but you clearly did not. If an administrator catches wind of this, you may face blocking or other consequences, but we don't get as many administrator eyes on this board as on another board (like WP:ANI which is where I would have suggested this be posted). -- Atama頭 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Theodorsen's relativity theory

This is an unusual posting for this board, but I would like to get some more opinions (and to share responsibility!)

Theodore Theodorsen (1897 - 1978) was an eminent Norwegian-American aerodynamicist who worked at NACA, the predecessor of NASA, became Chief Scientist for the U.S. Air Force, and wrote many papers and books. He also wrote a paper about relativity, proposing an alternative to Einstein's theory. About two years ago much of this paper was posted as a Wikipedia article, and deleted at this AfD, as a result of which a paragraph about the theory was added to the main article which read:

Although Theodorsen's life work was in aerodynamics, and he published numerous books and papers in that field, he had other interests. In particular, he wrote a paper, "Relativity and Classical Physics" which sought to show that the results of Einstein's general relativity theory could be obtained without resorting to curved space-time by a modification of Newtonian theory. The paper presents "a successful transformation of the theory of relativity into classical physics... The mathematical entities of the Einstein development have been redefined into rational physical quantities and rearranged in an organized classical framework. Einstein's 'space-time' has been eliminated and replaced by cognitive time." It was published in the Proceedings of the DKNVS Theodorsen Colloquium[1] (see "Final Years" below) and on two later occasions[2][3] , but it met with no acceptance.

In the course of wording this paragraph I had some email correspondence with Mr Theodorsen's son. He has now written to me again to say how much he appreciates the article: "...the result is excellent. I have read it over on many occasions. Our families are proud of it" but to ask us to delete the last six words "...but it met with no acceptance" from the Relativity paragraph. His arguments are:

From the very beginning (@1905) until now there have been numerous physicists who have and are still having serious reservations about Einstein's theories. A few have proposed alternative theories. On the other hand the other great theory, Quantum Mechanics (@1924), has been highly regarded from its inception with no attempts to challenge it. In fact physicists are currently having problems reconciling these two theories where they overlap.

Lastly, challenging theories such as father's are not easy to get published in prestigious journals or books.So you can see from where father's theory were published that it is not so much "no acceptance" but rather "limited exposure". Actually it is our hope that this Wikipedia article will create interest in father's work. By the way, here-in lies the great contribution Wikipedia is making.

There seem to me three possibilities:

A) no change

B) make the requested change

C) as a compromise, make it read "...but, perhaps owing to limited exposure, it met with no acceptance."

I suggest C, and propose to make that change if there is consensus. I am not happy with A - a small change, but it's deleting a fact in the hope of giving a boost, however slight, to a theory, contrary to WP:SOAP. I am posting here rather than the article talk page because I doubt if that gets much traffic. I would be glad of other opinions or alternative suggestions.

JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

"..but it met with no acceptance" lacks a source. It sounds like we are criticizing something in Wikipedia's voice, but the thing itself might not be worth noting. If the world in general did not take any notice of Theodorsen's relativity theory, I'm not sure why we give it special attention. The proposed alternative 'limited exposure' would also lack a source. Sometimes things get limited exposure because they don't convince anyone. There have been a lot of wars regarding alternative theories of relativity that you may be able to find mention of over at WP:WikiProject Physics. On the other hand, if you merely listed his publications about an alternative theory of relativity without commenting on its degree of acceptance, this would not be controversial. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting way of looking at it which had not occurred to me. The words were put in out of a fear that his relativity work was being given too much emphasis per WP:FRINGE, but "gained no acceptance" is the sort of negative that can't be sourced - it didn't even make enough impact to get dismissive mentions that could be cited. My justification would be internet searches and a couple of hours spent in a university library, but that's OR, of course, not a reliable source. Well, unless any objection is raised, I will delete the words. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)