Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Wikipedia to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Benchmark Mineral Intelligence Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange 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:Danny Cohen (television executive) Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Bank of Texas Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Mark Felton Talk:Randy Fine 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:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Kenneth C. Griffin Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina 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:Amitabh Kant 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: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:Operating system Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:Orphan Train 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:Pinger Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Programming language Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:QOR360 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:Smiths Group Talk:Snowflake (software) Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School 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 Peninsula Hotels 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:Zions Bancorporation

This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.

Rules | Match log | Results page (for watching) | Last updated: 2024-05-09 20:16 (UTC)

Note: The list display can now be customized by each user. See List display personalization for details.

• Draft:Linda Litteral (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Lindalitteral (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2024-05-09, score: 20

---

• Draft:Amoniche M Madadulah (Amo Tz) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) by Amoniche Tz (talk · contribs · new pages (1)) started on 2024-05-03, score: 20

Adam Jones (political scientist) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Jones (political scientist)

• Adam Jones (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I'm fairly sure the single purpose editor Adam63 (talk · contribs) is the subject. I don't know enough about the subject to really check it someone else might want to go through and see if its okay.--Crossmr 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm working on culling content. I've moved it to a disambiguation page in order to remove the academic title. --Iamunknown 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• And even though I directed the editor to the conflict of interest page he's continued to edit the article. Its clearly a single purpose account solely used for editing that article and the related article of gendercide, which points to a very high probability of it being the subject.--Crossmr 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• In addition, the article suffers from external links overload at least as badly as the Carlos Latuff article. Adam63 removed {{COI}} {{Unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} tags a few days ago; I replaced those and added {{External links}} and {{NoMoreLinks}}. Some newish editors seem to be guided by the assumption that any external link is ipso facto a reference and more is better. — Athænara ✉ 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (I should mention that I, too, used to think that as recently as four months ago.) — Æ. ✉ 07:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Improved.)

As Crossmr noted, Adam63 (talk · contribs) registered to write the article about himself. The result is a hybrid of a résumé and a faculty page. {{COI}} applies but is too oblique and stresses notability rather than auto-authorship. I've tagged it {{Like-resume}} for now. — Athænara ✉ 00:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Updated section heading, article links for current name of article:

• Adam Jones, Ph.D.
• Adam Jones (Canadian scholar)
• Adam Jones (Political scientist)
• Adam Jones (political scientist) (current). — Æ. ✉ 09:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't this article been nominated for deletion? It's a vanity page. Tempshill 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominate it! — Athænara ✉ 09:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done... now !vote. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Lennie Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a South African artist, is openly autobiographical. I have run into it accidentally while doing disambiguation and do not have the time right now to check it for notability and verifiability. Sam Blacketer 12:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Its history looks fine until recent anon edits by 80.41.10.175 converting it all to first-person. I've reverted it to the previous version. Tearlach 14:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• 80.41.10.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.45.220.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.143.158.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Searches for the "Rich and Famous Gallery" + London + "Lennie Lee" (the article claims he founded it) yielded only wikipedia and wikipedia echoes. — Athænara ✉ 08:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Andy Miah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Andy Miah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Article was up for proposed deletion due to lack of sources. User:Andymiah, apparently the subject of the article, added large blocks of text detailing career accomplishments and expected future publications. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just re-edited the article, removing a great deal of puffery. I have also explained to the ed. the need for 3rd party sources. DGG 02:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Clouds Blur the Rainbow (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Clouds Blur the Rainbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by BabyDweezil, an uncritical supporter of the individuals and groups criticized in this report, which I wrote. The same user, BabyDweezil, has a long history of personal attacks and repeated POV edits that demonstrate a clear conflict of interest. Some of the material being added is simply false, and based on the marginal and frequently distorted writings by members of a political cult similar to (and at one point connected to) the Lyndon LaRouche cult. Among the other pages subject to this type of editing by BabyDweezil are Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party, Social Therapy, International Workers Party. I understand that it is appropriate that critical opinions about the report Clouds Blur the Rainbow be included on its entry page, but what is happening here is wildly POV, unbalanced, and sometimes just false. It is time to consider banning BabyDweezil from editing any pages related to this cult, just as some pro-LaRouche editors have been banned for being unbable to abide by basic Wikipedia guidelines.--Cberlet 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Chip, basic Wikicourtesy would dictate that you notify me of this noticeboard posting rather than (or at least in addition to) obliquely canvassing surefire supporters of the action.

That said, I challenge Cberlet or anyone else to point to anything in the above articles that is "wildly POV, unbalanced, or false." The fact is, these often contentious articles have been collaborative efforts between editors with different viewpoints, and the results have been a relative semblance of balance. It seems, historically, that Cberlet files protests such as this one precisely at those moments when his own demonstrably minority POV on the above subjects ceases to dominate. I won't waste the space here to document the reality of his POV being decidedly a minority one (not to mention likewise demonstrably riddled with bias and unprofessional research methodology) but would be happy to if needed. Nor do the claims of someone who consistently refers to editors with a different opinion than his own minority one as "cult apologists" "totalitarians" and "Orwellian sanitizers" and worse need a response re: "personal attacks."

The irony of Cberlet's posting this cannot go uncommented upon. Chip Berlet has been for a quarter century a paid propagandist for Political Research Associates, a thoroughly partisan organization that largely devotes itself to issuing attack reports against groups that do not fit its particular view of of the world, be they on the right or in some instances, as with those above, on the left. PRA specializes in labeling and guilt by association (as evidenced above by Berlet's Larouche-baiting, based on a brief relationship Newman had with the long since noxious Larouche 30 years ago). The notion that a paid partisan like Chip Berlet should remain able to run roughshod over countless articles with which he has a true conflict of interest AND attempt to ban(!!) points of view contrary to his own is simply too absurd to comment on beyond simply stating it. Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with Chip, or Dennis King or others with clear COI's from being involved, in fact I welcome their input and--them being long-time spooks and all--value the resources they have filed away. Over and out-- BabyDweezil 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:BabyDweezil has been indefinitely blocked. Tearlach 19:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Both parties in this dispute have COI and this matter should be handled accordingly. Yakuman 01:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Transcendental Meditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) et alia
• Maharishi Vedic Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi Sthapatya Veda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• TM-Sidhi program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John Hagelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Natural Law Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ...

These articles are being dominated by editors with various connections to the TM organization. Nearly any attempts at NPOVing result in reversion, and critical sources are being relegated to minor articles on specific subtopics so that the main articles are free from criticism.

• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the major editors, admitted on the TM talk page that he is paid faculty of the Maharishi University of Management.

• Sparaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to being a TM practitioner of over 30 years, and has previously removed information in the article that "interferes with the normal business practices of the TMO [Transcendental Meditation organization]", and many of the other editors seem like they may have COI problems.

Of course, they are all very polite, but that doesn't mean that they aren't simply reverting critical edits with "let's discuss this on the talk page" (where they can then overwhelm us, or delay us indefinitely), or that they aren't gradually removing all critical information, making the critical information so convoluted as to be unreadable, and moving much of the criticism to minor articles on small subtopics. // Philosophus ^T 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've looked around a bit more, and found that

• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is or was also paid faculty at the Maharishi University of Management, and
• Roseapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another identified TM practitioner. --Philosophus ^T 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

In an ideal situation both members and people with a grudge against the group would be excluded from editing this type of article. However, these seem to be the only people interested, in most cases, in an article on a religious group. Steve Dufour 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am very happy to have User:TimidGuy as a contributor to the TM article, as it said on the now-removed expert tag: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." TimidGuy is definitely an expert and has made incredibly good contributions to the article - without any apparent bias. I see no signs that his close association with TM in any way compromises his ability to edit the article. I think he is an excellent editor and an asset to Wikipedia. TimidGuy is one of the most civil and cooperative editors I have encountered on Wikipedia - with an excellent eye for following NPOV, as well as following all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I find the accusations made above to be most distasteful and untrue. Dreadlocke ☥ 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the Talk pages mentioned here are voluminous, I looked at a few of the comments by User:TimidGuy and they seemed quite fair. In a sense, one is tempted to keep tongue firmly in cheek when reading any lengthy articles about Transcendental Meditation, and unless someone can show an extremely blatant conflict of interest, it's hard to get too worked up about this stuff. (It's not as though we were discussing alleged medical remedies that might not work). Most of the WP readers who take a look at one of these articles will realize they are in the domain of colorful speculation (yogic flying, etc.), and are presumably ready to discount any very specific claims that may be made. The one article I looked through in detail was balanced in terms of criticism of the approach. You could unfortunately go blind reading all the way through the Talk pages, so unless the COI nominator has a smoking gun to offer, I'm tempted to suggest we archive this issue. EdJohnston 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Several of the article talk pages are prime examples of what happens when users confuse encyclopedia article talk pages with free webspace blogs. — Athænara ✉ 06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

George Deutsch (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• George Deutsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -
• biochemnick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Nick Anthis, has repeatedly inserted himself into this article, and others --

• R.L. Paschal High School
• The Scientific Activist (a vanity article)
• William James Middle School
• List of people from Fort Worth, Texas
• List of Texas A&M University people
  

-- as a means of self-promotion (using the term "influential science blogger," among others). Similar edits have been made from

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

addresses traceable to Oxford, where Anthis is studying. // 208.255.229.66 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The recent eds. by Biochemnick to The Scientific Activist are in my opinion not vanity, tho some earlier ones there may have been. the above posting is by an anon ed from a multiple-user account, who has also been revert warring on that page, using a different anon account, 66.177.173.119 , User:DGG 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 66.177.173.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently believes that
• Cellularesque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Anthis. 66.* and Cell* have both broken 3RR. — Æ. ✉ 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article on The Scientific Activist appears legit to me. Nick Anthis's efforts to add himself as a notable alumnus to all his schools will not improve his reputation on Wikipedia. I suggest that anyone who follows this noticeboard and observes him violating the WP:3RR ought to report him, because this kind of a pattern isn't good. His activities have begun to draw complaints on his Talk page (some though not all of them justified) and he has been deleting the complaints. For someone who would apparently like to be more famous, that's unwise. He could be getting known for the wrong things. With respect to the edit war on The Scientific Activist, his opponents seem to have done some unreasonable things. So he has been fighting back against his unreasonable opponents (usually anons), breaking many of our rules and drawing blocks in the process. The submitter of this COI complaint, 208.255.229.66, has himself been blocked five times during March. The record of User:Biochemnick (Nick Anthis) is already bad enough that he could be looking at a long-term block if he continues to be so stubborn. This is too bad because someone with his background could be a useful addition to Wikipedia in the scientific areas. EdJohnston 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Taborah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Taborah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - An article about a singer that was speedy deleted once already. Maintenance tags have been deleted twice by the author, and I'm starting to suspect that the singer may not be as notable as said author wishes to make her appear. The username of the author is Lahlahmusicand vision (talk · contribs), the same as Taborah's record label. // JuJube 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This one was in bad shape: a myspace.com link (!) in the first two words (the name of the subject), http instead of wikipedia article links, and no references—zip. I cleaned up the obvious and removed the wikify tag. Notability and tone tags remain as they should. If it comes up for deletion again I'll support that in the absence of reliable sources which establish notability. — Athænara ✉ 11:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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

I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used [1], but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 [2], I feel I'm in over my head.

Possible coi because:

• poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
• poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
• bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
• experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin

Update: Poweroid admits below to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed links from the following articles, all added by Poweroid:

External links to bestpricecomputers:

• Business performance management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Content management system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Customer Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Program management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Records manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Supply chain management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intranet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

External links to experienced-people:

• Confidentiality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) removed [3]
• Non-disclosure agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Salary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Webmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

As of today, searches for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk returns 26 matches and *.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk returns 4. This is after both Tearlach and myself have removed many others. --Ronz 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.

I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Wikipedia article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.

I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.

I've edited probably thousands of articles in Wikipedia ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to WIKIPEDIA and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.118.211 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer [4] for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. The issue here is COI. --Ronz 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Poweroid seems not to have added his links normally to be avoided to articles in the past month—am I missing something? — Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just the one that he admits to above. [5]. He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent — Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest (emphasis added.) Particularly in light of your defence of your contributions as a good faith editor, it is inappropriate to suggest that other editors should do the cleanup after you've spammed Wikipedia with your clients' links. — Athænara ✉ 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is a Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames issue as well: "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." — Æ. ✉ 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.

In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.

Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, he's added links to:

• poweroid-video-editing.co.uk (18 October 2004) [6]
• bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006) [7]

--Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_performance_management on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you said yourself that you didn't think you made a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. It turns out you did in August and December of last year. Also, you've linked to a site that has your username in it, something you should have brought up when this COI was started. --Ronz 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Restatement of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy as it applies here.

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products… Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest. Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The user has selectively cited other editors' views and mis-characterised as "desperation" other editors' attempts to address the user's conflict of interest reasonably. S/he was advised on how to change the username and expressed a willingness to comply a week ago and yet has not followed through since then. All of this combined with repeatedly downplaying the obvious conflict of interest makes it increasingly difficult to assume the user's good faith. — Athænara ✉ 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, my username issue has already been discussed. It's already on record as associated with a particular company and their sites. And you/Athaenara subjected it to an RFCN which failed.

Athaenara, I'm glad you bought up the neutral encyclopedia issue as you'll find that that's exactly what my edits are - including the ones you claim as CoI. Your special concerns of organization conflicts of interest and editors paid to edit Wikipeidia are irrelevant unless you are making an allegation that I've been paid to edit Wiki articles.

Please provide examples of the selective citing and mis-characterisation of other editors' attempts you accuse me of as I don't believe there have been any at all.

Re my user name: You will note that I do not have to change it. I was not compelled to change it. I was not requested to do it. I was not even asked to consider it. My name is 100% OK. I did however volunteer to change my name. So I'll do it when I want. That I haven't had the time to do it within the last week is nobody's business and, with the greatest of respect, isn't yours either. That I haven't put on top most priority something I volunteered to do is, you argue, grounds to dismiss presumption of my good faith? What was that about misrepresentation and mischaracterisation again?

Is this really about a CoI anymore? Poweroid 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the RfCN failed, doesnt mean that we should ignore other evidence relevant to your COI here when it concerns your name. --Ronz 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I have looked over this page and the talk page of User:Poweroid and some of his contributions.By his own admission, he has worked for the company (www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk and related sites) which holds the trademark on Poweroid (his current user name), so it seems clear there is a conflict of interest on his adding links to at least those company websites.

The debate about his username, and whether a list of his clients should be provided and how, do not take away from the fact that this editor has added links to (see above) and images from [8] company websites with which he has a professional relationship in clear violation of WP:COI. This is not passing judgment on the links and images in question either, but it is a conflict of interest for Poweroid to add them to Wikipedia.

If he feels these are valid links and images he should suggest them for inclusion on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question for other, more neutral editors to decide. He is also, I believe, obligated to remove such edits he has made in the past until they can be decided on by other editors. The problem may be larger than this (the client list issue) but that in no way should obscure the fact that there is already a substantial COI problem here. This is no single purpose account for purposes of linkspam. However, he seems to be doing little to resolve and much to obscure and perhaps obstruct the solution of his COI problem. Hope this helps and apologize if I got the gender wrong, Ruhrfisch 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:

• 70.23.173.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.23.170.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.23.177.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix.[9] Stix is an "internet columnist" who has occasionally mentioned Wikipeia in his blogs. Except for that first edit he hasn't identified himself as Stix even while fighting over links to his : websites. Despite using variable IPs he has attacked another anon with a variable IP as the "Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster". He's promoted himself, including a long entry to a list of "notable journalists".[10] He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted.[11][12][13][14] For the time being I've asked him to stop adding content about or by himself. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The serial incivility extends to multiple other interactions; see Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 and the user's talk pages for numerous examples. --lquilter 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement. He also claims:

a.) His accusers misrepresent Wikipedia rules to criticize or redact his edits.

b.) His accusers misrepresent print publications as "blogs."

c.) His accusers stalk and censor him and anyone who supports him.

2.) His connections come from Verizon, so he may have dialup or another setup without static IP addresses.

3.) His accusers claim he is "self promoting," that he is apparently Nicholas Stix, a veteran freelance writer. They haven't demonstrated that his material, at least some of it, is improper.

4.) FYI, I have no ties to Stix, nor do I endorse his writing, but some of the accusations laid against him may not mesh with reality. I encourage anyone who wishes to examine this situation to look carefully. Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At what are we to look carefully? The editor has identified himself as this person. His edits are chiefly promoting links to his self-published materials and websites. It's a COI to link to one's own website, and this editor has done so dozens of times. Furthermore he's engaged in scores of reversions adding the links back. Failing to acknowledge the relationship between subject and writer is not a good faith action.

Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming links across Wikipedia is not a useful or acceptable activity. All I've asked is that this editor stop adding content about or by himself. Is that unreasonable? I'd also ask that he be more collegial and less confrontational. Civility is a core policy of Wikipedia. -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Readers of this board who want to study this case, and may not want to read all the diffs above, might content themselves with a quick scan of User_talk:70.23.199.239 to get the flavor of this editor's communications. This is really, really Nicholas Stix and there's no sock-puppeting issue, this is just his attitude to the world, at least to the other editors on Wikipedia. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at [15]. Unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:DE. The actions already taken by administrators were not excessive. This COI noticeboard is most effective when there is still a chance to persuade people and to remove misunderstandings. That does not appear to be the case here. The question of whether some of Stix's own articles deserve to be linked in Wikipedia is dwarfed by the behavior issues. Stix should by now be concerned about the number of administrators who have independently posted to his User talk with extremely polite language. Does anyone have another idea for how to resolve this? EdJohnston 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More than conflict of interest is involved—this is an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor. How about Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct? — Athænara ✉ 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Warnborough College (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Users involved

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

The users above (or single user as may be the case) have shown a suspiciously keen interest in making sure Warnborough College's reputation is not harmed on Wikipedia.

Warnborough's user page talks in the first person as a representative of Warnborough College, and the IP 80.229.135.241 resolves to warnb0r0.plus.com (as do IPs 80.229.135.240 through 80.229.135.243). That IP is also shown as having made constructive edits to information about Warnborough College on Warnborough's user page. Indeed, my guess is that this IP has been static since at least Nov 14, 2004 when this user began to leave strongly opinionated comments about education (and never any other subject). To my knowledge, only corporate or educational IPs remain so static.

Paging through each user's history will reveal a rich tradition of blanking unfavorable comments regarding Warnborough College and engaging in spirited debate (rightly or wrongly) involving Warnborough College's reputation. You will also find numerous warnings on the talk pages for misbehavior on the Warnborough College page.

In short, I am suggesting that the users above may either be the same person or work together at Warnborough College, creating a strong conflict of interest when editing the article on Warnborough College or any other articles on education as has already been shown. --67.188.0.96 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

 Confirmed User:Warnborough, admits to it on his user page.
 Inconclusive on the IPs - 80.229.135.240/30 - no technical evidence found despite the suggestive RDNS. Google search turns up nothing, site is password protected. Belongs to a UK ISP. MER-C 11:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Can we request a checkuser to confirm that User:Warnborough and User:80.229.135.241 are one in the same? This may be helpful, as I can see this user earning himself an indefinite block at the rate he's going. --67.188.0.96 19:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. MER-C 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued COI edits by user:Warnborough

• Warnborough (talk · contribs) continues to make improper edits to the Warnborough College page and responds to my allegations against
• 80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs) as if they were directed at him. This leaves me with little doubt that they are the same person. Regardless, user:Warnborough shows a clear conflict of interest on Warnborough College and by being a major contributor, calls the validity of the article into question. I am recommending that both user:Warnborough and
• 80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs) be indefinitely blocked from editing the Warnborough College article. Also, since this person insists on altering other users' comments on the talk page, despite the "last warning" on his talk page for doing exactly that, it may be neccessary to indefinitely block them from the talk page as well.

I want to be clear that I have no particular interest in Warnborough College, but the initial changes became known to me while watching the "recent changes" page. It is unfortunate that this user who might otherwise have valuable contributions to this article cannot control himself and edit within the Wikipedia guidelines and manual of style. --67.188.0.96 23:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that he's been blocked for one week due to refactoring other's comments on talk pages. There is more to simple COI issues as I see. At this point, I suggest going above COI notice boards and issuing a request for comment on him instead once he returns to disrupt. --w^{L<speak·check>} 07:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The article on Warnborough College still needs work, because it ought to say more about the school's lack of accreditation. A Google search for 'Warnborough College' turns up numerous unflattering results in the first page, some coming from the New York Times, none of them mentioned in the article. EdJohnston 22:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I haven't done any such research so far. My concerns so far have only involved these users' behavior: Warnborough (talk · contribs) and 80.229.135.241 (talk · contribs). Care to make some even-handed contributions to that article regarding accreditation? --67.188.0.96 10:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Wikipedia article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder ^talk 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Wikipedia gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/- Warren 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewonder ^talk 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Tom Terry (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Cheesenut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - In some of the uploaded images, statements of "uploaded by author" implicate that this user might be the subject of Tom Terry, which is his sole topic of editing. On the other hand, a blatantly incorrect edit like this could also point to a misguided fan. In either case, the situation should be looked into. --Latebird 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Are his edits problematic? Do they conflict with WP:COI if he is the author? Vassyana 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The book pages needed work: they neded removal of promotional links, and all the categories were referred to the author rather than the books. There's also a deal of subjective stuff: "The stories presented in the collection often take sharp, disturbing turns not normally found in modern religious fiction". Sez who? The Tom Terry article itself completely lacks third-party sources. Tearlach 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Faisal Gill (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Jimhuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a paid political consultant to the Faisal Gill campaign for the House of Delegates has been reverting content despite being warned of a conflict of interest problem. I'd appreciate other eyes looking into this and helping address this ongoing problem. Gletiecq 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• User Jimhuber's most recent contribution was five days ago on the article talk page: a request for feedback about inaccuracies in the article. There have been no responses to it from you or from any other editors. — Athænara ✉ 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The revision was made without discussion, none of the information is factually disputed, and I have indeed responded. Instead, after being warned of a COI and being told not to edit the page by Dar-Ape he again edited it without proposing changes and allowing for discussion.Gletiecq 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - A number of editors, most notably Vijayante (talk · contribs) and TimidGuy (talk · contribs), are actively involved in the Maharishi's TM movement, advocates for it, and are aggressively challenging all critical information. Vijayante has been blocked twice for 3RR for deleting critical material without discussion, and TimidGuy now claims that the controversy over the Maharishi's relationship to his guru and his teachings is "an invented controversy", trying to "find a reason to deligitimize the Maharishi", and that Maharishi and his teaching is perceived by most people as "secular and scientific" (not religious), that the critical book is not "neutral" and not "scholarly", and even though two different versions have been published by different publishers, and has been independently reviewed, that the book can't be cited because it is "self published". All this over a simple proposal that the article say: "There reportedly has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and his guru's and lineage's support for Maharishi's subsequent teaching role [1], an issue complicated by an unresolved dispute among multiple lineages all claiming to be Brahmanananda Saraswati's successor 21, [22]. The Maharishi reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all".

Below are some examples of the apparently COI based explanations from TimidGuy for why there is no noteworthy controversy, the Maharishi isn't seen as a guru, TM has no religious elements, sources must be academic and neutral, etc:

I don't understand how this is relevant to the article. What's the point of saying what Maharishi isn't (or rather what people think he isn't)? Shouldn't the article focus on who he is and what he's done? Are you saying that because Guru Dev taught three methods, so should Maharishi? IF it could be documented that Maharishi's teachings are inconsistent with Guru Dev's, what point would that be making about Maharishi and why is it relevant to the article? To my mind, it's enough that Maharishi was with Guru Dev for a number of years and imbibed a deep understanding of the Vedic tradition. And he's now introducing facets of Vedic knowledge to a wider audience.

I've been at Maharishi University of Management for decades, and I've never had the sense that Maharishi's teachings are explicitly Guru Dev's teachings. It goes deeper than that. It's more on the level of Being. Guru Dev was the embodiment of that Being. Maharishi appreciated that essence. He is re-enlivening facets of the Vedic tradition in that context. The focus is on transcending, on experience of transcendence, and on verifying those experiences -- through knowledge about what's happening and through scientific research. It's the essence of simplicity. We don't get bogged down in worrying about this or that tradition or lineage of path or method. We appreciate that there are many different paths, probably equally valid. Maharishi has given us a simple technique that uses the natural tendency of the mind. It has the virtue of being effortless. And he's complemented that by introducing other aspects of the Vedic tradition, such as Ayurveda, Gandharva Veda, and Sthapatya Veda. But it's all for the same simple purpose of transcending and experiencing pure consciousness. I think you'd need to demonstrate that the Mason biography was published by a reputable publisher. It seems like a collection of hearsay. No one that I know thinks of Charlie Lutes as an authority on the Vedic tradition or on Guru Dev.

One thing that does characterize Maharishi is that he’s put his meditation on the objective platform of science. Disciples can argue all they want about whose guru is the best or most legitimate, but the science shows that Transcendental Meditation, whatever its origin, has very specific effects. And that long-term practice leads to a state of subjective experience and neurophysiological markers that are very different from the norm.

Ironically, I've been feeling that you're the one who's improperly framing things (which is why I referenced your POV). You keep casting Maharishi into a guru role and focusing on lineages, etc. But Maharishi is simply a person who was a disciple of Guru Dev and who subsequently began teaching a form of meditation that he said would have many immediate practical benefits, as well as a long-term cumulative effect. And research and the experience of people who take up the practive have verified his claims. He has subsequently sought to revive various facets of the Vedic literature and, in general, to re-enliven the Vedic tradition. He didn't represent himself as a guru, didn't ask people to be his followers, didn't claim any authority based on lineages, etc. In a sense, Guru Dev was his inspiration. The only people who worry about this are the people with other gurus. They have to find a reason to delegitimize Maharishi. This is an invented controversy by a tiny group of people. It's not notable and doesn't belong in the article. And Mason's book is self-publshed and not scholarly.

I just can't accept Mason. He's not a trained scholar, his book isn't scholarly. If you check this page {http://evolutionpublishinguk.com/} you'll see that the publisher has published one book -- Mason's. That's what tells you it's self-published. I know many people who have self-published books. It's standard practice to create a publisher. Self-published books can be listed on Amazon. They can even find a distributor. One reason that this is important is that scholars generally try to be objective. Mason isn't neutral -- he's opposed to TM. You can check his web site and find a link to the most critical site that opposes TM. A historian and biographer doesn't usually approach his subject with an agenda. If this is such a major controversy among those who revere the Vedic tradition, then why can't you cite books from university presses? Or articles in scholarly journals? Note that WP:ATT suggests that the standard be books published by university presses. I think the next step would be to an example of a specific thing that Maharishi has said or taught and then produce a scholarly source that says that that's wrong. (Web sites won't cut it. Mason won't cut it.) Then we can discuss it.

Of course I'm operating from my own assumptions. But I believe I'm also characterizing the way Maharishi has presented his teaching and the way that he's perceived by most people. He's presented it as secular and scientific, and most people accept it that way. Most of the media reports present it that way. It's exclusively presented that way in the scientific literature. If there is a body of scholarship that disputes Maharishi's approach, I'm unfamiliar with it. If there is, then it can be referenced in the article. But for the most part, I believe the article should represent the way that Maharishi is viewed by most people. If you and some others believe he's violated the integrity of the Santana Dharma tradition, it's your point of view. You'll need to support it, and you'll need to show that it's notable. So far you've only referenced a book by a non-scholar and various web sites. On the other hand, there's a body of 700 scientific studies spanning nearly 40 years. Why should one book and a few partisan web sites define Maharishi and not the 700 studies on his form of meditation and the numerous books that have presented his approach, such as Dr. Schneider's recent book on Maharishi's approach to health?

I finally gave up and responded: The issue of whether MMY is a seen as religious and/or spiritual leader, or just a scientific figure, does NOT have to be proven to be cited in Wikipedia, we are simply to present the information as it is. All that has to be shown to illuminate the controvery is that the issue is reasonably controversial, which there is prima facia evidence it is. And there is no proof provided that someone who used to be widely known as the Beatle's guru is nowadays seen by most as a scientific figure! I do NOT need an academic study or a proven neutral source, as TimidGuy claims, merely an attributable, published source for that assertion. Nor are public figures permitted to simply self-define themselves without futher consideration. Since TimidGuy has chosen to consistently adopt a position rigidly denying this controversy is even relevant despite good faith compromises, reams of evidence, other Wikipedia articles, and even court cases to the contrary, in obvious syncronicity with his own personal beliefs and the position taken by his organization, I doubt any sources would satisfy him, I have done what I can and I will pursue available options in due time. If it gets to Arbcom, I seriously doubt they will adopt the position TimidGuy has taken that there is no significant evidence supporting a controversy over the religious elements in MMY's life and teaching, that MMY is most widely seen as scientist, and will take into consideration his involvement in said organization. Sorry it has to come to this, TimidGuy, but when faced with rigid, unsound positions after repeated attempts to collaborate, NPOV remains not negotiable, and I'll take my case elsewhere. --Dseer 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi"

Please advise me on how to deal with apparent COI editing when the majority of current editors are associated with TM and involvement affects their editing of critical information. --Dseer 06:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were having a useful discussion. Sorry to see your frustration. From my perspective, I'm not rigidly denying there's a controversy. I'm asking for evidence for it. So far all that's been cited is what is apparently a self-published book by someone whose credentials as an expert on the Vedic tradition aren't evident [16] and various web sites. If this is a notable controversy, then there are likely reputable sources, such as the Journal of Vedic Studies, that have discussed it. If some facet of Maharishi's teaching has been criticized by a noted expert in the Vedic tradition, then that could be referenced in the article. And it should be weighted relative to the overall view of him presented in the body of scholarly and popular literature. TimidGuy 11:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I consider the following established:

That you are associated with the TM group and with the Maharishi University of Management is established.

That your position is that Maharishi and TM are secular and scientific and that that is how they are generally perceived.

That that position has not been adequately sourced, and is identical to the organization's legal and PR activities.

That your position on the secular issue has been ruled against by governments and courts, and has been severerly criticized by reputable scientists, not only as found in Wikipedia, but in the controversies outlined at [[17]], a more balanced site, where the Professor who is widely seen as sympathetic to NRMs was subject to a campaign to remove such information.

That you believe and assert that a tiny few are creating an "invented controversy" to find a "reason to deligitimize the Maharishi.

That your issues with Mason's book being used as a reference only to establish the elements of a controvery you consider "non-notable" are ostensibly based on unproven claims that both editions are "self published", incorrect statements about what Mason has said you have acknowledged, and stated concerns that Mason is allegedly anti-TM because his site includes a link to anti-TM activists among many others, and claims that sources must be neutral, and equivalent to books published by university presses.

Another procedural point: could you bear in mind the instructions at the top of this page?

Please make your comments as concise as possible.

Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.

Tearlach 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've editing it down to a concise outline. First time here, sorry.--Dseer 18:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it's not obvious to me that Dseer is himself neutral. Look at his Contributions[18]. He's out rounding up editors who have opposed Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in the past. That seems more like a battleground than neutral editing. I'm not sure what I've done to incite his frenzied opposition, other than to suggest that Mason's book doesn't meet the guidelines and that it would be good to find a reputable source for the specific controversy he's eager to add to the article on Maharish. I note that Dseer's arguments when opposing Maharishi echo those in an article he created recently on Ramana Maharishi [19] that's critical of the sort of meditation that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi teaches. (And if all this sounds a bit silly -- I agree. : ) )TimidGuy 01:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see besides TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being on the faculty of the Maharishi University of Management, and Viyayante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) being an enthusiastic practioner, that Sparaig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a long time TM practitioner, Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is/was on faculty at the Maharishi University of Management, and Roseapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another identified TM practitioner. The objection is not to them being editors or participating, but to the collective gatekeeping on blocking critical information where they all have a COI, which has been noted by other editors also. Being polite as others have noted doesn't alter the incremental COI pattern. There is nothing wrong with seeking other editors for balance when the majority of current editors are associated with the group and collectively support each other. Nor is there anything wrong with my adding missing information on meditation methods other than those taught by Maharishi, whose teaching differs from his own guru, whose teachings I also want to elaborate more on. For the record, I'm not associated with any anti-TM group, although I do think Maharishi's guru more to my liking, I simply find the COI overwhelming here and think it deserves attention when critical material is involved. --Dseer 02:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said earlier, that I am very happy to have User:TimidGuy as a contributor to the TM article as well as other related articles. As it said on the now-removed expert tag on the TM article: "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." TimidGuy is definitely an expert and has made incredibly good contributions to the article - without any apparent bias. I see no signs that his close association with TM in any way compromises his ability to edit the article. I think he is an excellent editor and an asset to Wikipedia. TimidGuy is one of the most civil and cooperative editors I have encountered on Wikipedia - with an excellent eye for following NPOV, as well as following all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I find the accusations made above to be most distasteful and untrue. Dreadlocke ☥ 02:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The above comes from one who has been active in opposing critics who raised COI issues and supportive of TM related positions, to wit: (1) Thanks much, Dreadlocke, for checking in on the TM article and for pointing me to the Guideline on Criticism.TimidGuy 22:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC); (2) Yes, I need to archive the TM Talk page. We sure have filled it with verbiage. I do appreciate your appearing on the Talk page and noting Sethie's personal attack.TimidGuy 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC); (3) Wow, thanks for the endorsement on my Talk page in response to Sethie's challenges on COI. I really appreciate your feedback. I may be posting an RfC today related to my dispute with Sethie on his disallowing a rebuttal in the cult section.TimidGuy 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC); (4) Thanks, Dreadlocke. Lately I'd been thinking I needed to find a forum to answer questions about verifiability, etc. Sethie seems to be making up rules sometimes. I really appreciate your feedback on the topic and for pointing me to those forums.TimidGuy 22:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC); (5) Really appreciate your help, Dreadlocke. I've now added an official warning tag to Sethie's Talk page.TimidGuy 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC); (6)Hey, thanks for the e-mail. And for the action you took. Great to have your perspective. And note the conciliatory message on my Talk page.TimidGuy 20:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC). Some editors expertise on the teachings of one's organization may help with information desired by proponents and in replies to criticisms, but a COI skews NPOV if supporters give excess weight to such "expert" opinion and personal "knowledge" in framing and presenting critical information based on their opinions regarding WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. Ref: Wikipedia on NPOV [[20]], and [[21]]. --Dseer 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. While the COI issue above still awaits a focused study, I'd like to point out that Paul Mason's critical book is NOT obviously self-published, so it shouldn't be rejected on those grounds alone. American Amazon shows the 1994 edition of The Maharishi as being published by Element Books, and if you look at this listing you'll see several dozen books coming from that publisher. The closest thing to a publisher's web site is this. It would be surprising to see the possible religious element of the Maharishi's teaching being flatly denied as a 'fringe' view. Paul Mason's web site lists some reviews of the 2005 edition of his book in major British newspapers, and those reviews could be followed up if necessary.

If User:Dseer feels that the current Maharishi article represents an unbalanced view, I invite him to create a 'corrective' paragraph that might restore neutrality to the article, and have us critique it here. EdJohnston 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. This is the sort of evidence that I invited Dseer to provide, especially since the 2005 edition appears to be self pubished. Would we then limit the citations to the 1994 edition? What about the issue of whether Mason can be considered to be an expert on the Vedic tradition and Guru Dev? Does this book make him an expert, in your opinion? Here's his bio: [22] Dseer did, in fact, write a paragraph but was reluctant to answer the questions I asked about it. [23] TimidGuy 19:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the 2005 edition was widely reviewed by British newspapers seems to take away any stigma due to self-publication. The only suggestion it might be self-published comes from the fact it is the only book issued so far by a new publisher. Any claims made in this book should be evaluated by the usual Wikipedia standards, and we assume that Mason cites other works that could also be checked. The bio of Mason that you point to does not lead me to disbelieve anything he might say. It's not even clear who a Vedic expert might be.

I am baffled both by the original complaint by Dseer and by the responses. Not denying there could be a real COI here, but I don't understand the remedy that is being sought, or what the consequences might be for the article. If there were a well-defined piece of legitimate criticism of the Maharishi that is being kept out of the article, we could focus on that. Whether he's religious or not seems so vague as to be an unanswerable question. And are we really going to arbitrate who is a valid successor of a particular guru? EdJohnston 20:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Ed. It's great having the perspective of a neutral third party. TimidGuy 01:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed, understand for the record that in just another example of reframing my position, TG was specifically told more than once there were two editions, two separate independent publishers, independent reviews, etc., and given links to prove it, which he summarily dismissed even after another editor pointed out where he was wrong, despite how obvious it is as you point out, and despite attempts at prior discussion and compromise by rigidly applying a personal view about what self-published means at variance with Wikipedia. I came here only after it became he was habitually unwilling to acknowledge what COI and NPOV require. I don't want to take up unnecessary space here but I can prove at great length what I am saying with examples at some other place like my talk page if necessary. I apologize for having to take more space to define the concern. He is simply more cautious above than normal because it became more apparent his case that Mason is not attributable doesn't hold water. There is ample reason to show that his reason for opposition, which is clear from his body of statements about Mason, is that the book contains criticism (as well as praise) of Maharishi, and presents a documented view of Maharshi at variance with the official biographical versions produced by the group and demonstrates chronic revisionism by the group.

Ed, the complaint is very simple. TimidGuy practices, advocates, and is employed at and paid by the Maharishi's organization, and he is not alone in that. I can produce ample, independent statements made before I even raised any issues that a number of editors have expressed similar concerns about the COI in the consistently aggressive tactics taken by the TM associated editors here against critical links and sources that are already found on similar articles in Wikipedia, while critics are not similarly attacking every positive, Maharshi related link, they just want the criticism acknowledged. Editors give up in frustration because as one said you have to take lots of flak. That isn't conductive to good editing. You will note the results that unlike almost every similar article you will find about controversial figures, there is no section for either criticism or controversy! Instead of doing what one Admin said to do in regard to Vijayante but which is applicable to the TM group in general, which was stop trying to delete valid sources instead of simply providing rebuttals, we have a group of TM advocates agreeing with each other and asserting for example that we should not present anything other than Maharshi's claims about himself without an excessively high standard, and I quote: "This is who he says he is and this is who he is unless I find some really good material to support otherwise." That is not what editors with apparent COIs are supposed to do, particulary when COI has been seriously alleged already by several editors. Outside of egregious insertions, which I myself would oppose, they should seek the counsel of more neutral editors when it comes to critical material they personally don't want, as it can be seen from statements that the concern is about statements from those trying to "to de-legitimize the Maharishi", a mission of protecting a leader from criticism which has nothing to do with NPOV, ATT, or BLP standards. For example, following COI provisions, instead of demanding I prove Mason is an authoritative, scholarly level and neutral source first (he actually made those demands), having met the basic standard for an attributable source, he should simply allow Mason to be referenced as a source for a short outline of notable claims that run contrary to the organization's current message, which include actual, sourced transcriptions of older works and statements to back these claims up, and then make his point about Mason in rebuttal. This was essentially all I proposed, but it went nowhere. As regards the religious issue, as I said, the intent was never to resolve this issue, but the argument that the Maharishi is secular rather than religious is a well known legal and social controversy that has been the subject of court cases, government rulings, broady sourced, and deserves reasonable mention in the bio. It is worth mentioning that there is a documented controversy around how a guru's mere secretary became as one Indian TM site puts it, "His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" (the secular claim alleged to being more for western consumption due to churhch/state issues) and that his teaching has changed. I provided numerous links to show it likely that Maharishi is considered religious/spiritual rather than secular/scientfic, but that was dismissed. As for TG's claim that the Maharshi is seen as a scientist, that is obviously a very controversial and minority opinion among scientists, particularly when someone claims that they can teach yogis to fly and change the course of world history!

Ed, you asked earlier above for a smoking gun, and I submit it is found in the results, incrementally but consistently achieved, that there is only superficial controversy, and way too little criticism or skepticism about Maharshi's claims about himself and the miraculous results and powers he claims, and the history of comments about criticism and reasons given why that is appropriate. I can provide as much detail as you like to support this including more neutral sites which give more fair weight to all sides of the controveries for comparison regarding NPOV, but it would take a lot of space we don't have here, if you or anyone wants me to outline it somewhere else I will.

My proposed remedy is simple, and fair. I am not proposing that the TM advocate editors have not done good or that they be restricted from editing, except when it comes to neutral or critical material where a COI would apply. When more neutral observers find I have met the burden of proving the TM editors having consistently demonstrated difficulty in complying with the constraints advocated by WP:COI, and have, regardless of motive, created the situation of information suppression described here [[24]], the editors in question should be strongly cautioned about following COI, including seeking input from and deferring to neutral editors with no particular interest in the subject, instead of making it so hard by holding to a rigid line on criticism by themselves. I'd also request a strong neutral Administrator be available to monitor the site. --Dseer 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your request for the proposed outline for a statement, the one which first provoked such a negative response from the TM group, my original proposal exactly as I wrote it was: Controversy: There has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and over the extent his guru authorized Maharishi's teaching role. One alleged difference is that while Guru Dev reportedly refused to accept donations, there is a cost for learning Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's methods, although ability to pay is considered. Another is that while Guru Dev reportedly those receiving mantras from him to have an ishtadevata (a personal form of God), Maharishi Mahesh Yogi only requires a short puja ceremony celebrated in front of a portrait of Guru Dev. Another is that while Guru Dev reportedly said "don't wish for the siddhis", Maharishi Mahesh Yogi encourages development of certain siddhis. [Ref: Mason]. The Maharishi began to teach on his own soon after the death of his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, while the dispute among multiple lineages claiming to be his successor arose and remains unresolved Ref: [[25]] [26]. The lineage designated in a purported will has endorsed the Maharishi's role and teaching, but reportedly not all the claimants do so. The Maharishi reportedly acknowleged that his guru did not discuss or plan for his future teaching role, that it just "blossomed", but stated that "he must have known", and reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all". (Ref: Mason, cited Maharishi Quote). The detailed quotations supporting all this were provided on the talk page. After receiving so much flak about Mason, I tried to get a compromise to start with, but it was also rejected on the same grounds (Mason not acceptable, issue not relevant). In response to my proposal, instead, to get around the statements in Wikipedia that Maharishi considered himself a disciple of Guru Dev, TimidGuy arbitrarily edited the article to say instead that Maharishi was "inspired" by his guru, attempting to end run around the religious controversy, since evidence Maharishi has changed his original teaching about his devotional relationship is sourced and relevant to the issue of whether he is a religious or secular figure. This later proposal for alternative consideration and wordsmithing, or some variation between the two versions, by other neutral editors is:

There reportedly has been some controversy over alleged differences between the teachings and practices of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Guru Dev, Brahmananda Saraswati, and his guru's and lineage's support for Maharishi's subsequent teaching role REF: (Mason}, an issue complicated by an unresolved dispute among multiple lineages all claiming to be Brahmanananda Saraswati's successor (REF (as above]. The Maharishi reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all" REF: (Mason's sourced quote of Maharishi). --Dseer 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dseer says: "TG was specifically told more than once there were two editions, two separate independent publishers, independent reviews, etc., and given links to prove it, which he summarily dismissed even after another editor pointed out where he was wrong. . . ." Please show the diffs where you gave a link to the 1994 publisher and where another editor pointed out that I was wrong. I can't find that. Dseer says, "As for TG's claim that the Maharshi is seen as a scientist . . ." Please show the diff.

I don't see a problem with my trying to determine whether this is an acceptable source. Isn't that what we're supposed to do on the Talk page? Dseer twists everything into COI. I'm not able to get the 2005 edition in the U.S. so I can't verify anything. It's apparently self-published, and doeesn't have a distributor and is only available from the web site. I get a credit card error when trying to order. Dseer is careless about sources. He conflated two different books by Saltzman, and when I bought Saltman's book that wasn't the self-published version, it didn't contain the material that Dseer said it did. Further, in the paragraph he wanted to add, he gave a sentence of information and then referenced Mason's book but didn't give a page number. When I asked for that he complained about conflict of interest. I'm not confident that he's even seen the book. Aren't these appropriate things to try to pin down? Maybe Mason's book is authoritative. I'd like to see it. If we're talking about the 1994 edition, I can get that on Amazon for $40. Hate to spend that much, but will do so if that's the one we're going to reference. Am trying to get 2005 edition via interlibrary loan -- depends on whether any U.S. libraries have it. My impression is that the book isn't scholarly, but maybe that's not fair.

Please keep in mind that Dseer also has a problem with conflict of interest. He appears to be a follower of Ramana Maharishi, and it's very important to him to discredit Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and the meditation technique that he teaches. I feel like I've raised valid questions on the Talk page regarding the sentences that Dseer wants to add, and he's refused to answer them. He simply complains about conflict of interest and squelches discussion. He says we should defer to neutral editors; I hope he doesn't mean himself. It's very rare that a neutral editor appears.

Dseer makes lots of generalizations and some pretty strong allegations. I'd like to see some diffs. From my perspective, people with various agendas try to commandeer the articles, and I can show you plenty of diffs where they've inserted errors, falsehoods, and half truths. I have tried to fix those. I'd like Dseer to show where I've removed something from an article that wasn't warranted, that was purely based on POV, and that was in violation of the guidelines. He says I sometimes try to keep material from being inserted. That's true. Editors sometimes try to insert poorly sourced material, such as the libelous Denaro affidavit, and I vigorously fought to get consensus on deleting that. I was supported in an RfC. In the end, the source, The Sketpic's Dictionary, must have agreed it was libelous, because Carroll removed it from his web site.

From my perspective, this is simply a discussion about something that Dseer wants to add to the article. I have the same questions about the specific material that Ed raised, and I feel it bears discussion. I don't understand why Dseer got all excited and raised all these COI issues. Frankly, I'd like to bring this issue of COI to a head. I'd like to either be banned or be allowed to continue without these constant allegations. Yes, I have a conflict of interest, but the issue is whether I've made problematic edits to articles on that basis. I don't think I have.

Of course, it's embarrassing to have this dispute played out so publicly and at such length. My apologies to everyone. TimidGuy 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Marie Killick (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Cynthia killick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the daughter of the subject, Marie Killick (and there are many other problems with the format). But this looks a notable and interesting topic - Killick vs Pye [27][28] - that could be salvaged with a bit of tact, as she'd be uniquely able to advise. Tearlach 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Studios Architecture (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Esther Springer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Original username was a COI-obvious Studiosarch (talk · contribs · logs).
• 68.173.24.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Contributions show explicitly dealing with this article, IP traces to NYC where company has a large presence. Started showing up roughly after I warned above user of WP:COI violations. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Roberto Valente (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

A new user, Sygun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has recently created an article on an artist called Roberto Valente. He has also started an article on the Sygun Museum in Wales. There's an ebay seller called museumofwales selling a lot of work by Valente as surplus items from Sygun. I'm concerned there may be a COI here. Another artist mentioned in the Sygun article (Miney Todd) was added to the Viyella article but has now been removed. --HJMG 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Links added to your post. I'm surprised they've got anything much left in the museum; the chief Google hit (5000+) for "Sygun Museum of Wales" is eBay! I've tidied and tried to source the Sygun articles, and asked User:Sygun what's going on [29]. Tearlach 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-organization processes of prime integer relations (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

This article, almost entirely the creation of Korotkikh, cites four published papers, all authored by, er, V. Korotkikh. I strongly suspect non-notability and CoI, but I'd appreciate some help on where to take this from here. Philip Trueman 18:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've {{prod}}'d it for a few reasons. IMHO that's a first step... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also reverted other acts of self-promotion of this editor. [30] [31] — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've learned a lot from that. Philip Trueman 10:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Melaleuca (company) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Melaleuca (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - User:Siraj555 and User:Siraj88 seem to be connected to rmbarry.com, a distributor for the MLM firm Melaleuca. They have been making edits to Melaleuca (company) and Tea tree oil, along with adding tea tree oil references and links to rmbarry.com to many marginally related subjects. All of this seems to be driven by a desire to promote the Melaleuca brand in general and this particular distributor specifically. Mike Dillon 07:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Note, Melaleuca (company) itself survived an AfD a while back, so this notice is mainly motivated by what seem to be commercially-driven edits, not any desire to discount the notability of this particular MLM firm. Mike Dillon 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole article seems overpromotional, such as the detailed list of accolades - and ask yourself if there'd be such enthusiasm for the (unusual) inclusion of the sales graph it it were plummeting. Tearlach 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your suspicions are misguided. My only 'association' with RMBarry is a very useful book I own authored by them called "The Melaleuca Guide". This guide has been a fantastic reference to me about the many uses for tea tree oil and various melaleuca products. Additionally, there is some very useful information that I referenced on the RMbarry website - see http://www.rmbarry.com/research/archives.html. According to the prominent disclaimer on RMBarry's homepage that I just checked, they are not affiliated with Melaleuca and do not sell Melaleuca products. So as far as I know, some of the books RMBarry authors and publishes include studies about Tea Tree oil but they are not a distributor for or connected with Melaleuca. Similarly, most authors of books about Apple Computer or Microsoft have no relationship with the company but they HAVE used their products). That said, I'm not their representative so you're welcome to ask RMBarry too.

I try to use naturally based products, therefore, my 'bias' (if you want to call it that) may be that I have used some of Melaleuca's products in the past and a book by RMBarry about different uses for Melaleuca oil. We *all* have bias (yes, including you) and I am conscious of that when wanting to contribute to the balance and Wiki's attempt at neutrality. I'd very much like to list many the uncommon things I've learned from this book (e.g. easily cleaning crayon from my piano keys - a lifesaver!) but I don't think this is the forum for that. Keep in mind that history books and Encyclopedias have *never* been completely neutral so if we think they are then we simply share the bias of the writer. Neutrality is a goal that you and I participate in. It is not a destination. While I do fully believe in facts and the truth, as long as there are sincere different points of view based on the truth and the facts, one person's neutrality will be another person's bias.

If you read the Wiki COI page more closely, it is not a conflict of interest to like and comment on companies whose products you've used and benefited from. That would be absurd of course since no one could ever comment on anything they have experience with. In fact, it makes the comments much more credible over those commenting on something they haven't had experience with. As for the graph I think it has been up for a long time so I was surprised that someone took it down without explanation. I am not interested in getting involved with that, but to me it seems obvious that showing a graph of the trend of sales is very useful (a picture is worth a thousand words).

There are other facts about the company on the page that are clearly negative and true - I would not want those taken off either. I think it's good to show the factual trend of sales for the company because if the sales go down (all companies have their seasons), then we'll know immediately. The graph was not posted by me, but after looking at the history it appears that many of the contributors to the article have been in agreement with the benefit of leaving the graph. I suspect that the reason it is 'not standard' (which is not a valid reason to remove something like this) to have a graph in that place is that not many companies have a trend like that to show.

Given the negative bias toward having the graph on the page, I seriously doubt it would have been removed if they graph showed a downward trend. If the sales graph was to turn downward, I would fully support keeping that up as well.

I have noticed that edits have been removed simply because someone looked at the edits I contributed. There was no problem with the valid RMBarry resource I sited until you saw who contributed it. I would certainly not remove positive or negative information based on who contributed to it. I could do start doing that as well but I wouldn't feel right about it. This bias and personal attacking fallacy is known as Ad hominem (see this Wiki page for more info) and I would appreciate it if we didn't feel the need to resort to that.

Though I disagree, I fully respect your viewpoint though (really). You must realize I have legimate reasons for my point of view as well. I just hope that you will respect mine also and that we can come to a better understanding here. Siraj555 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's what it says on their home page: This web site is designed to be the ultimate information source for anyone interested in discovering Melaleuca Inc. products, their incredible health benefits and the excellent opportunities in Melaleuca Business. It seems to be there specifically to promote the sale of products related to Melaleuca, Inc. Mike Dillon 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, here: www.rmbarry.com. Whether affiliated or not, it's a highly partisan site focused on promoting Melaleuca. Its research reportage on tea tree oil is selective (no negative studies included, such as the recent one on its possible implication in a few cases of prepubertal gynecomastia in boys).

But ... unless there's specific evidence of conflict of interest (i.e. some proven business relationship between Siraj555 and rmbarry.com or Melaleuca), this leaves the issue just as a content dispute. What about trying an article topic RFC to get a wider view on the neutrality of the article? I've posted it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies Tearlach 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike...you are saying something different now, but I still believe there is bias in your conclusion. There are good books written by various authors about Wikipedia and how to use it. This does not mean the primary purpose of the books is to promote Wikipedia or that Wikipedia gets some of the procedes. Does this mean that no books about Wikipedia could be cited as a reference? Of course not. You are 'chunking up' too high as well in that you are talking about the entire website instead of the research page I mentioned. The point is there is very good and well-referenced quality research on that page that is very relevant and found nowhere else on the internet. Furthurmore, I'll say again, I am not with RMBarry and do not profit from referencing such a good resource. If it's relevant and good, it's relevant and good (period). Siraj555 19:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why all of your edits are related to tea tree oil, Melaleuca, Inc, and adding links to rmbarry.com to marginally related articles? Mike Dillon 19:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles are not marginally related at all! I agree that some aren't directly related on the site (that is not in dispute) which is why I am not refering to those. If you are looking for the ones that are unrelated, you will of course find some just as you could anywhere; but a person who is coming to a reference sincerely looking for highly related information will see it easily right away. You could only conclude that if you were *wanting* them to be only marginally related--that is bias. I have edited articles with content that I have expertise in due to experience and being well-read about it. You yourself said the website is related to Melaleuca products and now you're saying the articles are only marginally related? As for the rest of it, I explained this in my comments above. I have liked tea tree oil very much for longer than you've been interested in deleting my valid references. Melaleuca is not the first company I have gotten it from but since I have been, I honestly think very highly of many of their products (there are some that I don't care for though) because of the *results* I've gotten from them. There are also others that are very good as well though. I am not a paid sponsor or anything like that...I have simply tried out more natural products than most people and for that reason I believe my experience is relevant and contributes to the value. I would very much like to contribute more often but I don't think I have as much free time to do this as you do. I know a lot about natural eco-friendly products and there is good research on the RMBarry site that is highly relevant such products - not just Melaleuca's. I am not defending RMBarry (again, you're talking to the wrong person--talk to them if you want to) but I am defending my valid reference to the research on that website. Thank you for the invitation to contribute more often though..I may take you up on that sometime :-) Can you explain why you didn't take away my references until you found out who made them? Are you associated with any tea tree oil manufacturers or competitors to RMBarry or even Melaleuca? Would there be such unusual enthusiasm for you to take down an accepted graph if the graph trend went down? Since you have asked me the same, I feel it only fair to ask you as well given your bias. You don't really have to answer that if you don't want to (I don't really care). I just have experience with certain things and I like what I like just like you and everyone else. I honestly wish you well and at this point I would rather sit down and buy you your favorite beverage and talk, rather than typing on here. I have to go to work now. I may respond again, but if I don't you are welcome to the last word. Take care Mike.Siraj555 19:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is my view of my involvement in these articles:

1. On March 14, I noticed that Tea tree oil was named Tea tree oil (melaleuca oil), which seemed to go against the Wikipedia guideline to use the common name for things as their article name. I saw no other articles claiming to be about something called "tea tree oil".
2. Soon after, I requested a move at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
3. On March 19, the move was made after there was no opposition.
4. On March 28, I noticed that the move had been reverted by User:Siraj555. On seeing this, I reverted the move and responded to your comments on the talk page. This prompted me to look through your contributions and I found that you had been active for months and that you had only been involved in editing related to tea tree oil, Melaleuca Inc, and adding links to rmbarry.com. I also noticed the existence of your other account, User:Siraj88 at this time.
5. After looking at rmbarry.com and seeing that it was a commercial site promoting Melaleuca products, I used Special:Linksearch/*.rmbarry.com to remove all links to rmbarry.com; this had nothing to do with the fact that you added them. As you correctly point out, I mistakenly thought that rmbarry.com was a Melaleuca distributor, but it seems that they are only a "promoter" of some sort (though I suspect they are still connected to the company).

This is the extent of my interest in this topic. The reason I was suspicious of your edits was because the pattern of ongoing editing related to a single subject and adding lots of external links to the same site fits the normal pattern of those who have a conflict of interest or are spamming.

As for the "marginal" links issue, adding a link to rmbarry.com's home page to an article about Terpinen-4-ol is marginal because the link is not to a page specifically about Terpinen-4-ol (per Wikipedia:External links), but a general link to a site. There were also other rmbarry.com links that I removed that went to the home page instead of a page specifically about the topic. Given the prominent commercial messaging on this page, I took it as an attempt to drive business to this company and Melaleuca in general. Mike Dillon 20:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Siraj555: I honestly think very highly of many of their products (there are some that I don't care for though) because of the *results* I've gotten from them

The point is, though, don't let that personal experience stray into promotion or advocacy: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I like Guinness a lot. I like the taste. It's got me pleasantly drunk many times. So I might legitimately take an interest, and research and add something about its history to the Guinness article. But it would not be on if I started adding "such as Guinness" to lots of articles referring to beer, and citing the Guinness Appreciation Society as an objective reference on its qualities. Tearlach 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tearlach, don't let that fool you. Wikipedia is indeed a soapbox. Among other things, it is a soapbox for a neutral point of view that both of us contribute value to. True neutrality does not exist of course (at least for anything even mildly controversial) but it is a worthy goal to have that I believe in as you do. I like your Guinness reference. The difference between your metaphor and mine is that after your 'research' you will be too innebriated to still contribute value to a neutral point of view. And a day later, your memory of your research will be cloudy. To date, none of the natural 'substances' I've referred to impair the ability to contribute value while at the same time staying off the wrong soap box as you say. Another difference is that in your example you didn't mention anything about other legimate research of beer (reading about the history, different kinds of barley/hops, making some yourself, etc.) as I have done with many eco-friendly products. All metaphors break down eventually of course, but yours (while creative and entertaining) isn't very congruent with the kind of research I've done as a result of my interest at all (really). The best good research is done by those who are truley interested in the subject of their research. I highly doubt any Nobel Prizes have been awarded to people who were not thoroughly interested in their area of research. There is more I need to respond to I know and I'll do so when there's time. Anyway, admittedly I find this to be an interesting conversation. It's the weekend at the moment though and I hope you're enjoying your Guinness. Have you ever been 'pleasantly drunk' when editing Wiki?  :-) Siraj555 01:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Long Way Round (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Long Way Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MDennett (talk · contribs) is extremely keen to include an unsourced reference to "International SOS", a commercial organisation [32] he claims was paid a fee for involvement with the Long Way Round project. MDennet first added this in early November 2006, revisited it later that month, and has returned now. MDennet has asserted that he was involved in said deal [33] , and that the lack of any sources to verify this fact is not a problem, as we can just ring him or his friends up and ask. Neither the 388 page book nor 10 episode TV / DVD series make any mention of this organisation. He came perilously close to 3RR this evening, and continues to argue the point on his talk page. The account is single purpose, with the only edit other than on this issue being creation of a speedily deleted auto-bio in mainspace. His latest rebuttal of my attempt to enforce policy is that as Ewan McGregor and I are both Scottish, perhaps I (and presumably the 4,999,999 other Scots) have the conflict of interest?? // Deiz talk 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

are both Scottish

So am I, partially, so it's a clear conspiracy. But no, whether there's a COI or not, WP:NOR makes "we can just ring him or his friends up and ask" completely unacceptable as a source. Only a third-party published source will do. Tearlach 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if MDennett (talk · contribs) was involved in the deal then he has a conflict of interest. You might want to leave a note about this issue on the Talk page of the article itself. You might also ask MDennett to clarify further his role in the Long Way Round project. I did not find his name on the longwayround.com web site. EdJohnston 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anchor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Badmonkey is likely a representative of an anchor manufacturer (Ronca Anchors), is attempting to include favorable biased information of his anchor in article and reporting removal attemps of biased information as vandalism. Russeasby 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Defense: Refer to incident report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Wikipedia's right to anonymity. Badmonkey 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nm.: Russeasby has been blocked for 3RR violation. Badmonkey 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No. See the description of this noticeboard's purpose at the top of this page.

After several days of disruptive and tendentious editing, much of it by single purpose account user Badmonkey, the article has been protected. — Athænara ✉ 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• In view of user Badmonkey's own three-revert rule violations, I have reported them and requested that Russeasby be unblocked. — Æ. ✉ 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Beer rating (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Beer rating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being edited by Jalstromer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (probably Beeradvocate.com owner Jason Alström), who has also left a message on my talk page about how "Beeradvocate has a few enemies... Beeradvocate should have its own page, we are not just a beer ratings website but a consumer group for beer.... there is a small group that are acting up now." //Orange Mike 20:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

David R. Jones (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

David R. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created and edited by Choronzonclub (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is David R. Jones. More information can be found on the article's talk page // LevelSolve 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Optical Carrier (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

Optical Carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited by Cyberdyneinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the content of which has been reverted twice (first time by Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the second time by myself (NigelJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))), upon the second revert, I kindly posted a message on Cyber's talk page asking him/her to:

• Ensure a NPOV
• To avoid a Conflict of Interest
• To properly cite their additions

Sadly, Cyber has added the section again (which I can't actually verify via Google), the wording has changed a little bit, but I believe a COI still exists. //NigelJ ^talk 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Simon treves (talk · contribs)

Is the author of some serious autobiographical vanispamcruftisement and other COI stuff, including:

• Simon Treves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frederick Treves (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (his father)
• Neither Here Nor There (radio series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bitter with a Twist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Although the user/subject be notable himself, this is less clearcut with respect to his works. MER-C 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)