Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

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

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Council on Education Talk:American Water Works Talk:Anaxam Talk:Florence Ashley Talk:Astex Pharmaceuticals Talk:Roy Bahat Talk:Bank of Greene County Talk:Rich Barton Talk:Bastion (agency) Talk:Bending Spoons Talk:Marc Benioff Talk:Bound (2023 film) Talk:Breyers Talk:Brookfield Properties Talk:Burford Capital Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Sukhinder Singh Cassidy Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Change Healthcare Talk:Character.ai Talk:Chime (company) Talk:Sujit Choudhry Talk:Citadel Securities Talk:Civic Hall at Union Square Talk:Slaid Cleaves Talk:CoBank Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Aaron Cohen-Gadol Talk:Community-engaged research Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Louis DeJoy Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Nina L. Diaz Talk:Daniel Diermeier Talk:DISA (company) Talk:Dixy Chicken Talk:Ed Dodds Talk:Double Union Talk:Earth Journalism Network Talk:Mary Baker Eddy Talk:EF Education First Talk:ESAB Talk:Ex Libris Group Talk:Far East Organization Talk:Farm Credit Council Talk:Farm Credit of New Mexico Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Anne Finucane Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Forecasting Love and Weather Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media Talk:Judy Genshaft Talk:Geotab Talk:Kellie Gerardi Talk:GetYourGuide Talk:GLX Digital Talk:GoDigital Media Group Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grove Collaborative Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:H.B. Fuller Talk:Holly Ham Talk:Jacob Helberg Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Heterodox Academy Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:Human Appeal Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Infillion Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:International Churches of Christ Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Edward D. "Ted" Jones Talk:Michael Jones (entrepreneur) Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:King the Land Talk:A. Gary Klesch Talk:Chris Kubecka Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:LD (cigarette) Talk:Dion Lee Talk:Jeffrey Leiden Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Ronnie Liang Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:List of people from Darwin Talk:List of University of Queensland people Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Geoffrey von Maltzahn Talk:Masdar Talk:McCain Institute Talk:Media.Monks Talk:Metlifecare Talk:Christos Metskas Talk:MoneyWeek Talk:MP Materials Talk:Netvibes Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:List of New School people Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Nondestructive Evaluation 4.0 Talk:Nordea Talk:Oasis Management Talk:Olivier Cornet Gallery Talk:OneHope Talk:Oregon Public Broadcasting Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:V Pappas Talk:Dana G. Peleg Talk:Gregory Pence Talk:Perkins Eastman Talk:Pershing Square Capital Management Talk:Pink Ribbon (snooker) Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Talk:Profire Energy Talk:Pure Storage Talk:Qiagen Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Linda Rabbitt Talk:Shlomo Rakib Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Revel Transit Talk:Revolut Talk:Eric Rubin Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Jay Ruderman Talk:Rick Sanchez (journalist) Talk:Scandia (theme parks) Talk:Stephen Schlesinger Talk:Schott AG Talk:Science Inc. Talk:Milton Shedd Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SolidWorks Talk:SoundExchange Talk:South Fort Myers High School Talk:Space Capital Talk:Spotfire Talk:A. G. Sulzberger Talk:Sysco Talk:TaskUs Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Red Sleeve Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Topps Talk:Traton 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:Bulat Utemuratov 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:Xero (company) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Yelp Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Zillow Talk:Zions Bancorporation

BeijingWest Industries

• BeijingWest Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• MagneRide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Delphi Automotive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mandrin2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Appears to be promotional material masquerading as a series of articles with some suspicious removal of material and amendments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mighty Antar (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 20 (UTC)

Sister Roma

• Sister Roma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I added neutral content from news sources and it keeps getting deleted and a references tag added. I think this might be harassment, can someone please help? Panther Pink (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They're erasing news reports again, can an administrator please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk • contribs) 04:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record I saw Roma's TV interview. By the same standard I'm apparently friends with Madonna, Will.i.am and the Kardashians.

Can I PLEASE get some help with this? I added news reports and interviews with her. Obviously these editors didn't even read those articles and just dislike Sister Roma. Is that the standard around here? Sabotage any article you don't agree with? A little help please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panther Pink (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for problems caused by editors with a conflict of interest. There seems no indication that here, only a simple content dispute, which should be resolved by discussion on the article talk page or, if that fails, by WP:Dispute resolution. See WP:BRD. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Michael Roach

• Michael Roach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Abhayakara (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor acknowledges COI with respect to this article as a devotee of Michael Roach -- see e.g. his user page. The difficulty however is that acknowledging the COI has not led to any restraint on his part in editing the article, sometimes aggressively. That's one element of the behavioral aspect of things that I'd like assistance with; another is his habit of describing me as "not neutral" (because I don't agree with the way he wants to edit the article) -- examples here. FTR, I do not have a COi w/rt Roach -- I had never heard of him before the article was brought up on BLPN a couple of months ago. Given the mode in which this article is being edited, one would think that the COI guideline doesn't exist at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've read the COI guidelines and done my best to follow them. The problem here is that there are no disinterested parties editing the Michael Roach page; if I just leave it alone, it will contain lots of non-encyclopedic and non-biographical information. You can see my comments about this on the current talk page; unfortunately, when I try to engage User:Nomoskedasticity in debate about what is in the article, he doesn't respond by justifying his own positions; rather, he simply dismisses my position as irrelevant due to WP:COI. You can see his POV simply by reading his criticism of me above: he refers to me as a "devotee." Where have I ever said I was a "devotee?" This is a really slanted term. I'm a student of Geshe Michael, and have known him for over a decade, but I live in Vermont, see Geshe Michael about once a year, and have a pretty busy life that has nothing to do with Geshe Michael other than that I try to follow his advice in how I live it, with which I will not bore you here. I would really welcome some careful, NPOV editing of the Michael Roach article; unfortunately, for whatever reason, User:Nomoskedasticity doesn't seem to be able to do that. I've looked through his contrib history, and he does seem to me to have a pretty clear POV, which as I say you can see reflected in his description of me. Editing Geshe Michael's article is a bit frustrating because most of the information about him that's been published is in books, and not linkable. I can cite it, but the exciting and gossipy news articles that people find tend to reflect a pretty negative view of him, and so if you only read those articles, you will have an understandably negative view as well. Abhayakara (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I had offered assistance weeks ago with this article and was bullied by User:Nomoskedasticity as well. He ignored my suggested changes and just continued to unilaterally edit the article against consensus on the talk page and the BLP notice board. I had better things to do so just gave up on it. I still have it on my watch list and have a good laugh at all the antics and time wasting there. I think both of these editors should be told to leave the article alone and ask a third party to edit the article. You may wish to read my talk page, the other editors' talk pages, the BLP entries on it as well as the article's page histories. This may take a few days to filter out all the BS first though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to start a discussion about me is quite welcome to do so -- but it wouldn't be COI, so perhaps here let's stick to what's relevant. As for Abhayakara's post -- "devotee" comes from unfailing use of "geshe". I continue to be fascinated by the notion that he wants to tag me as "not disinterested", on the basis of doing edits that he disagrees with; that's not the sort of judgement best made by someone who himself has a clear interest (i.e., COI). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

So if I were to consistently refer to Robert Thurman as Dr. Thurman, that would make me a devotee of Dr. Thurman, right? And if I refer to Barack Obama as President Obama, I'm a devotee of Barack Obama? I guess there is an inconsistency here in that I don't refer to him as "Geshe Roach," and that is because it feels stilted to me, where "President Obama" or "Dr. Thurman" seems perfectly normal. But to go from there to "devotee" still reveals a pretty strong POV. I've known Geshe Michael since 1998—is it surprising that I use a different title when referring to him? Abhayakara (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, not to belabor the point, but User:Nomoskedasticity, you have accused me of COI here, so your own POV and your behavior toward other editors is definitely relevant. I have tried at length to engage you in discussions about the content of the article; your assertion that you are willing to have discussions is not supported by your actual behavior as an editor of the article in question. Abhayakara (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi Abhayakara. Having a bias does not mean you also have a COI. Also, having a bias does not mean you lose the right of receiving assumption good faith from others. For example, many editors in WikiProject Scouting are in scouting themselves, but do a great job in editing scouting related articles. If your only connection to Geshe Michael Roach is that you've known him for over a decade, you see him about once a year, and try to follow his advice in how I live it, I don't think that amounts to a COI. I looked at your user page and see the links, but I'm not seeing a COI. Do you work for Geshe Michael Roach? Are you on his board of directors? -- 09:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Uzma Gamal (talk)

Uzma-Gamal, Abhayakara's user page also indicates that he runs the academic web site for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center. I'll be surprised to learn that others share your view that there's no COI here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

They have me listed as director of IT because I run the web site that contains recordings of the teachings. And I am a student. I certainly don't have a monetary COI, but I am involved in the group and am a long-time student of Geshe Michael, so I think it would be disingenuous to claim that I have no COI at all. From my perspective, the right thing for me to do seems to be to follow the guidelines for COI editors, rather than claim that I don't have a COI and not follow them. If editors feel that I have failed to follow those guidelines, I would really appreciate hearing about it (not just that I did, but in what way, of course!). Abhayakara (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Abhayakara, if COIN declares you to have a COI, you become subject to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The effect of that is, if Nomoskedasticity disputes one of your edits and changes it, his view would take precedent because you would have a declared COI on the topic and he does not and you could not change the article back on that point without violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you dispute one of Nomoskedasticity's edits, Nomoskedasticity's view would take precedent because you have a COI on the topic and he does not and you could not change the article on that point without violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. In either case, you instead would have to solicit the assistance of another editor who does not have a declared COI to review Nomoskedasticity's edits and change them if needed. Nomoskedasticity has not yet provided sufficient diffs of your connections to Michael Roach outside of Wikipedia to establish a COI. Since you think it would be disingenuous to claim that you do not have a COI at all, I'm finding it hard to continue to back you on this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. I really don't know what to say about this. I don't have COI in the sense of a financial interest in promoting Geshe Michael or making his article look good. The DM technical director position is basically a puffy way of saying that I maintain their teaching site, which is something that I rarely have time for, and the quality is evident. I don't get paid for this, nor for any other involvement with DM—in general, it costs me money to be associated with DM. I used to maintain the WiFi in the temple when I was on site, but I don't anymore. But DM isn't Geshe Michael, so I don't think this is relevant anyway.

The COI guideline that I might fall under is the "close relationship" guideline. He is my main Buddhist teacher. What I know about Buddhism, I largely know because he taught me, although I also have had teachings from his teacher, from the Dalai Lama, and from Lama Zopa, plus a number of less well-known teachers. Sorry for all the detail, but I'm trying to provide the information you might need to form an opinion about this.

In general, I'd be happiest if I could have a relationship with the editors of the Michael Roach web page where I could reasonably expect that if I proposed an NPOV edit, they'd agree with me. However, as you can see from this discussion, nobody editing the page has NPOV. So in order for what you propose to work, some actually neutral editor would have to become involved. But when I ask for help on WP:BLPN or WP:3, nothing happens except that the various POV editors of the Michael Roach article sharpen their arguments and add copious notes to the talk page.

So I guess the bottom line here is that in the interests of honesty, which is very important to me, I have to allow for the possibility that I have a COI, but I don't agree that I ought to be treated in the way that you describe, because I think I am doing a very careful job of being neutral—of trying not to delete opposing views, of trying to do neutral edits, of assuming good faith, and of trying to engage participants in discussions to form consensus. The thing that triggered this COI accusation was my removal of some text from the page that I think is a clear violation of the WP:BPL policies; rather than engaging in a discussion about this, User:Nomoskedasticity simply accused me of COI.

The bottom line is that I'm going to claim at this point that in the sense of WP:COI, I do not have a conflict of interest—I'm not close enough to Geshe Michael to sustain a claim like this. I think that there's the potential for non-NPOV edits if I am not careful, and this is why I generally ask for feedback when I make edits, but I think that operating under the COI restrictions you've described above is neither practical nor justified. However, this is my opinion. I would like to hear yours. What I would really like is some neutral oversight of the article so that I can focus on more useful activities, like the three IETF drafts I'm supposed to have edited by tomorrow afternoon. Abhayakara (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: X2. This is the same crap carried on from the article and talk page. All of these editors should drop it and let those that are not COI look at the article and fix it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Since I have no COI on this article, I see no reason why I should drop it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Others may look at your time and bytes on that article/talk page and see things differently. I myself would not continue wasting my time on one minor article. This is just my HO though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Abhayakara is a clear and undisputed COI editor. As stated on his user page and in his edit history his name is Ted Lemon. He is the Technology Director for Diamond Mountain and the administrator of record for its website. He is a student of Michael Roach. For over 6 years he has whitewashed the Michael Roach page. Check his edit history under Abhayakara and Ted Lemon. He knows that the controversy section on the subject is about the Vinaya vows a Gelugpa monk takes. He knows that Michael Roach broke these vows by engaging in marriage to a "consort" and making the relationship public, wearing his hair long and wearing jewelry, all the while refusing to remove his robes. Abhayakara removes all reference to this point and asserts a strange POV argument for doing so. He never gives up and no normal editor has the time or motivation to properly correct the article he is protecting. He should be banned from editing the Michael Roach article. Kindly check his edit history which is fixated on the Michael Roach page since 2006. Vritti (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Interestingly, this is precisely how I feel: I don't have anywhere near the amount of time required to keep removing un-sourced accusations from the wiki article. The article currently contains a fairly accurate description of the controversy, and cites a fairly recent book by the Dalai Lama explaining the controversial point. What the Dalai Lama says directly contradicts what User:Vritti says above. So if my POV is that I think the Dalai Lama is a reliable source, then yes, I have a POV. Viewpoint pushers who believe Geshe Michael is a bad guy have added lots of text to the article that's not supported by a citation of a reliable source, and I have removed such text. I've also asked for neutral review of the article, and asked for help numerous times on WP:BLPN. And I've left stuff in the article that I think doesn't belong there, because other editors consider it important; where what they've said has been inaccurate, rather than removing it I've added reference material and detail so that the reader will not have to read between the lines. I do, however, believe that the accusations made against Geshe Michael by the family of Ian Thorson are not notable, and amount to coatracking—the accusations are perfectly understandable under the circumstances, but the anger of a distraught parent looking for someone to blame for a child's untimely death is neither surprising nor notable. When I raised this on WP:BLPN, one editor agreed with me. However, there is no consensus on this point, so the text is still in the article. I have indeed removed this text several times, based on the response on WP:BLPN. User:Nomoskedasticity has, however, reverted my most recent edit without engaging in discussion on the talk page; removing the text again seems futile under the circumstances. I would be curious to know if any disinterested editors consider this edit "whitewashing," and if so, why. Abhayakara (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Abhayakara (talk, Thanks for your comments which are a fine example supporting my negative assertions about your editing of the Michael Roach article. To begin with, this isn't the talk page of the subject in question, but since you can't restrain yourself ... You well know or should know that the brief comment of the Dalai Lama you keep referring to does not rewrite the Vinaya. You should also know that the comment of the Dalai Lama does not apply to Michael Roach since he didn't keep the relationship or practice secret. This is all explained to you in the talk pages of the article now archived. It is more than odd that you fail to respect these facts raised by other editors or even Robert Thurman who was a Gelugpa monk and currently a distinguished professor of Buddhist studies at a duly accredited institution. Vritti (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ted Lemon's edits were from 20:57, 2 January 2006 to 00:44, 7 September 2006. Abhayakara's first edit was 07:55, 3 June 2008. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• We're going to wind up this conversation one way or another. This noticeboard is not a forum to continue disparaging Abhayakara. The only thing COIN cares about right now is whether to declare that Abhayakara has a COI with the Michael Roach topic. That's it and all your comments need to address only that. Bias/POV issues belong at WP:NPOVN. BLP issues belong at WP:BLPN. Sockpuppet issues belong at WP:SPI. Reliable source issues belong at WP:RSN. The rest of the assertions need to be restraint per WP:AFG. Abhayakara's connection to Geshe Michael Roach is that he's known him for over a decade, sees him about once a year, and tries to follow his advice in how he lives it do not add up to a COI. I haven't close this discussion because of the assertion that Abhayakara runs the academic web site for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center as the Technology Director for Diamond Mountain and is the administrator of record for its website. The discussion needs to provide more details on this -- what it means in the context of COI -- and Abhayakara's other activities outside of Wikipedia and relate those outside Wikipedia details to the Michael Roach topic. If Abhayakara has a COI with the Michael Roach topic, then COIN will declare that Abhayakara has such a COI and is subject to WP:COI. If Abhayakara does not has a COI with the Michael Roach topic, then editors will need to stop asserting that he does. Let's focus the conversation on COI and wind this discussion up. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Uzma Gamal, this is a strange direction to take this discussion. Abhayakara himself recognizes that he has a COI on this article, as in the post that you respond to above. I do however think that your response is very much on target. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Abhayakara is keeping the article from becoming more of a BLP problem than it already is. Abhayakara's belief that he has a COI on this article seems to be intertwined with his belief that he has a bias on the topic, so it's not yet clear that he has a COI. COIN declaring Abhayakara has a COI doesn't mean your edits are valid, it just limits how Abhayakara personally can respond to them. So far, we don't have a consensus one way or another. You may want to post more facts with diffs directed towards COI to encourage OlYeller21, Orangemike, Atama, EdJohnston, Smartse, or some of the other regulars to offer their opinion/conclusion. Without more participation, the discussion may end up archived without a resolution. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm with Uzma here. This topic needs to be more directly on topic and supported with evidence. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rewind

Uzma Gamal suggests, quite sensibly, that what this thread needs is additional views about whether Abhayakara has a COI on this article. I think it's obvious that he does, not least because he recognizes himself that he does, as here where he notes that he is the IT director for Roach's Diamond Mountain Center and identifies Roach as his "main teacher", having known him for more than a decade. I'd be grateful if other editors (regulars here, especially) can offer their views. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was "they have me listed as director of IT because I run their academic web site." I explained this in more detail in my response to User:Uzma Gamal above, but in fact I just went and checked on the DM web site, and they don't list me anymore. I don't know when they stopped listing me—I don't operate the www.diamondmountain.org web site, just the www.dmes.org web site. My wife is the domain owner of record, but she doesn't edit the site either—the DM board of directors is responsible for the content there, and neither one of us is (or wants to be!) on the board of directors. Abhayakara (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

So to be clear, the close connection here is that Abhayakara hosts the website of a center/company owned by Roach and he's a student of Roach's teachings? If that's exactly the case, I feel that it may constitute a COI if that connection has been leading Abhayakara to edit in a way that's contrary to our policies and guidelines.

I find these cases difficult to deal with as determining whether or not a COI exists is dependent on a content dispute. I feel that a person can have a close connection and be involved in a legitimate content dispute without actually exercising a COI. It's very rare but possible and requires that a person with a close connection be involved in a content dispute while exercising a reasonable interpretation of our guidelines.

I'm going through Abhayakara's edits made to the article here. These edits ([1][2][3][4][5][6]) are concerning. I believe that they're the reason for concern here and seems to be encompass a few specific topics so I'll go through them.

• The word "cult" being used is backed up with sources but the sources themselves cite "some" and "people" which is shotty journalism at best. I wouldn't call the entire source unreliable, though. I wouldn't include it unless someone can produce a reliable source that calls it a cult and not a mention of some ambiguous source that calls it a cult.
• The inclusion of the event that lead to a man's death is another issue. Ultimately, the connection of the story with Roach himself is weak. He had been married to the woman involved and the two were kicked out of his retreat center due to reports of mutual abuse. His ex-wife was also appointed by Roach to be the director of the retreat center. They reportedly decided, after being kicked out, to continue on their own and contracted some mysterious illness that kept them from being able to collect water which resulted in the death of one man and the near death of Roach's ex-wife. Inclusion would be more clearly warranted if Roach had instructed them go to out into the dessert. I can't decide if the content should be included or not. It seems like it should be included in an article about Roach's ex-wife or about the retreat center but its connection here is strained.
• The last issue seems to be with Roach's marriage which is apparently controversial given his religion and position (I won't pretend to understand that issue). Abhayakara seems to have slimmed down the mention but has never fully removed it, from what I can find.

Ultimately, I think Abhayakara's actions regarding content can be justified as they're based on reasonable interpretations of our guidelines. I didn't say "are justified" because it's dependent on your interpretation of guidelines. I can find no indication that Abhayakara's intent is to skew the content of the article but fully admit that I haven't read through the volumes of discussions on various talk pages.

Unless someone can prove a dubious motive without pointing at what I consider a reasonable interpretations of guidelines (unless I missed an edit where he shows an unreasonable interpretation of guidelines), I feel that this is a content dispute that should be taken to WP:NPOVN. That doesn't mean that this issue shouldn't be brought up here again or that Abhayakara's close connection won't skew his editing in the future. OlYeller21^Talktome 20:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He's not just a student of Roach's teachings -- he's a student of Roach himself. He does work for the center Roach runs. It's an obvious connection, in my view. I agree that this doesn't inevitably make his edits incorrect -- but if you look at his entire edit history you'll see that Roach is most of what he cares about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a close connection but a close connection alone doesn't mean that his edits are inherently skewed, as you're aware. I'm not arguing that there's a connection and don't think he is either. When I look at cases here at COIN, I look for two things: a close connection and edits that show that the editor is either unaware of policies/guidelines or intentionally going against them to some ends. There's a close connection but I'm not seeing that Abhayakara is breaking policies or guidelines with his editing, even if he focuses on one subject. Ultimately, we want editors who improve the encyclopedia based on our policies and guidelines and it seems that he's doing that unless I've missed something, which is possible.

I do have a question for you though, why do you believe the incident that resulted in a man's death should be in this article? Did my summary miss any important points? OlYeller21^Talktome 20:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be there because coverage of Roach in reliable sources in recent years overwhelmingly relates to this issue. I genuinely believe it poses a problem re NPOV to omit it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To reword that so that we can be clear if I understand, you're saying that most of the articles written about Roach mention this incident? In other words, his notability is majorly dependent on this event? If that's true, which it may be hard to prove (we'd have to look at all the articles written about him), then I agree that it should be included. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying -- with the caveat that it's not all articles, rather it refers to a recent period, the last few years. The list of references in the article itself gives a good indication. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear here, most of the articles that mention Ian's death also mention Geshe Michael. The articles are about Ian, not about Geshe Michael. Geshe Michael has been notable for a long time, and is mentioned in lots of books about Buddhism, going back at least to the nineties. Several of these books are used as references in the article. He's also the author of a number of books on Buddhism and related topics, published by major publishing houses like Harper Collins, and if you google "Geshe Michael 18 courses" you will see that a lot of sites reference these courses because the courses are taught at a lot of Dharma centers in his lineage. Doesn't mean he is or is not a great guy, or beloved by Buddhists everywhere, but his notability long predates Ian's death. Abhayakara (talk) 23:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of information on Roach going back to the 1990s, well beyond his ex wife and the death of Ian Thorson. Regarding Ian Thorson, he was the husband of Roach's former wife Christie McNally. Thorson and McNally went on a hike and Thorson died after the "two made a "conscious decision," to stop trying to get food because they were worried they might not be able to climb back up the embankment." There was no indication of foul play.[7] In a Michael Roach article that was a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature (which this article is not), I could see the article containing a sentence or two on the incident. Roach's former wife Christie McNally played a significant roll in Roach's career/life. It's POV to isolate negative information into a separate subsection because that takes the information out of context to put a spotlight on it. It would help if that roll were place in context rather than as a separate element of his life. It also is POV if the negative information in the Wikipedia article has more text relative to the remaining Wikipedia article than it's proportional coverage in reliable sources. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please make a decision

It's been a week since this accusation was raised. User:Nomoskedasticity continues to use my alleged COI as an excuse not to engage in constructive debate about what should appear on the Michael Roach article, and as a result the article contains a clearly libelous implication. I have assiduously followed the guidelines here. I have been careful not to remove viewpoints from the article that are supported by references. I have asked for and gotten review of the article on WP:BLPN, WP:3 and somewhat tangentially here on WP:COIN. All of this review has come out against User:Nomoskedasticity's POV. Yet he still persists in editing as if he is neutral and I am editing with POV, because of this COI accusation. If you really think that I am editing with COI, say so, and I'll go away. If not, please put this dog to bed. Abhayakara (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Naturally I perceive Abhayakara's description as significantly askew in several respects -- exactly the sort of thing one would expect from a COI editor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to keep trying to help here but my time is very limited today. If I had to make a decision right this minute, I think a sentence about Ian is warranted immediately after the mention of the controvery surrounding Roach's marriage. I'll look at the body of sources written about Roach but it's going to take a lot of time to do that and I don't have that time today and maybe not this week.

I can't decide if I think Abhayakara's close connection is causing issues and should subsequently stick to the talk page. Maybe another regular here has an opinion on that. OlYeller21^Talktome 18:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Another angle here: Abhayakara has 425 edits on Wikipedia since starting in 2008. Of those, at least 233 are about Roach (determined using a find-and-replace function in a word-processor); I say "at least" because there are others related to Roach that don't have the word Roach in the contribution line (e.g. [8]). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. The article was protected for a long time, because so many Buddhists from other sects like to push their sects' POV on the page. But then a couple of years ago someone unprotected it, and now it's back to being a battleground. Your theory seems to be that I'm the one starting the battles, but that's not the case. People add WP:BLP-violating stuff to the article time and time again, and nobody who's a NPOV wikipedia editor is interested in monitoring the article. So that leaves me. As far as I can tell, you're the first conflict junkie to alight on the article—everybody else has at least been well-meaning—but you probably won't be the last. If it were up to me, the article would be deleted, and then we could stop worrying about POV there. Abhayakara (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I just took a trip down memory lane looking at my contributions, and what you see is a lot of edits to Michael Roach or Talk:Michael Roach or various dispute resolution pages, interspersed with edits to other pages. What characterizes the edits to other pages is this: they are not disputed. Because they are not disputed, there are no long conversations about them, and so each edit is much more effective. This is a feature, not a bug—it would be a shame if every contribution I made to Wikipedia were as hard-fought as the ones I make to the Michael Roach article. If my experience on the Michael Roach article is typical, it's no wonder Wikipedia is having trouble attracting editors.

BTW, OlYeller21, you really don't need to read all the sources you mention. Just read the text that's been added to the Michael Roach article about Ian. Does it look like it belongs in the article as written? Whether you believe a discussion about what happened to Ian is off-topic or not, can you not see the problem with what's currently in the article? Abhayakara (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Life Time Fitness

A contributor perhaps associated with Life Time Fitness has been contributing mightily but the long lists of all the locations looks like advertising.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The user appears to be attempting to insert this version of that article that they created in their sandbox. The only major difference is some non-existent categories and a large list of locations and when they opened for business. The list of locations isn't needed - at all. I removed the red categories from the article as well.

Hopefully the editor responds here regarding their connection with the company so that we can discuss the issues with them. Until then, I'll watchlist the page and help steer it clear of advertising. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The photos[9][10][11] seem professional. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Relativity Media

• Relativity Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 209.66.115.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP editing claims to be (on the talk page) a VP of this company correcting "inaccuracies". His edits were unsourced and he removed sourced information, so I have been reverting him. However, I don't really know anything about this matter and now he has posted some sources on the talk page. Some of his changes may therefore actually be justified, but I don't feel competent to judge for myself. I had previous posted a note on the talkpage of the Film WikiProject, but have gotten no response. Perhaps someone here can have a look at this situation. Thanks. Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the identity claim. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

User:209.66.115.190 notes: "My name is Greg Longstreet. I am the Interim VP of Corporate Communications at Relativity Media. On 7/12/12 I deleted a section of our company profile that was added without our consent that did not accurately reflect our company (Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover)."[12]. The Financial Troubles and Executive Turnover material was removed by:

• Keen.adam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[13]
• 174.233.133.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[14]
• 192.220.255.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[15]

It's not clear which of the user accounts removing the content belong to Greg Longstreet. I think the removal was justified, but since User:Guillaume2303 and User:Jprg1966 restored it, I'll leave it to another editor to review. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think that the removal is justified, don't worry about reverting me. As I wrote above, I don't know much of these things (and really don't have time to delve deeper into this). I reverted the IPs and Keen.adam because their edits seemed POV (and from the talk page they have a COI). There are references for the different executives leaving the company, but I have no clue whether these are reliable sources or not. My sole purpose in posting here was getting one or two knowledgeable editors to look at this article and then remove it from my watchlist. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Adam Keen is exec VP of worldwide publicity at this company. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I reviewed the material again. Weak sources, biased due to segregrating the history. It appears that something negative is going on with the company and the material probably makes it look worse than it is. OTOH, its mostly about a corporation rather than raising BLP issues. I couldn't merely delete the material. More effort would be needed in reviewing what's going and reviewing the references. I don't think COIN needs to stop the COIs from removing the negative info or help ensure it stays in. At the moment, the back and forth between the editors may move the content towards a more neutral tone while still conveying the information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Mike Turzai

• Mike Turzai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• PAHouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Name suggests account has COI. Only edits besides those to Mike Turzai (the Republican leader of the Pennsylvania House) are to Jim Christiana (another Republican Pennsylvania House member). Three edits to Mike Turzai [16] [17] [18] sought to remove a reliable source describing the remarks and add an ex post facto unsourced explanation to Turzai's remarks on Voter ID. In fact, Turzai's remarks have been described as a "smoking gun" in several sources (see [19], [20]). Additionally, it might be worth taking a look at whether this account is in violation of WP:ROLE. Because I don't know who is editing with the account, I can't say for sure whether this is an impermissible shared account. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A politician for 11 years and a lawyer before that and Wikipedia summaries all Turzai has said in public into a quote from June 23, 2012. Seems POV to keep the voter id law statement in that very short biography. The "smoking gun" description by the several sources are more relevant to the articles on the several sources than to the Mike Turzai article since they are not desribing some life event of Mike Turzai but instead are describing their own thoughts. PAHouse's edits seem more about having a focused interest than a conflict of interest. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Andrew

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Andrew (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nathan Andrew|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nathanandrewmusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Nathana has created a draft submission (submitted while I was typing) at AfC of an article that they obviously have a connection with per their username. Based on the evidence, it appears that this user is a representative of this musician or might be the musician himself. On to the article itself: it's not a blatant violations of policies, however it has no references and doesn't really appear to be written following the manual of style (I know that none of these are extremely bad issues, I though I would just summarize the condition of the sub). I'd like to know what action to take on the now-on-hold submission. Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not having references is a serious issue and enough reason to reject an AfC submission. if it would be created without references, then a WP:BLPPROD would be in order. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

/me faceplams. I didn't thing about the BLP policy, your right! That would be pretty bad. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not likely that User:Nathanandrewmusic would have a conflict of interest in editing something in project namespace. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Boxbe

• Boxbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nikboxbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has declared their connection to the company that is the subject of the article. User was warned in April about the COI guidelines, but continues their pattern of removing anything resembling criticism in the article and rewritting it to resemble an advert. WegianWarrior (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this statement is a connection to the company or a wannabe. Either way, it does seem to support the idea that the account is a WP:ROLE account. There's a negative Guam article from 2009 on the company.Beware of Boxbe However, edatasource just bought them,[21] so there must be some value in the company. Nikboxbe has left a lot of negative items in the article. The lead says, "Boxbe is a free service that purports to screen spam in personal email." Boxbe doesn't screen spam in personal email? or do we merely want to imply that to the reader. The topic is notable, so AfD is out. The article could use clean up. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Geoff Bilau

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

Editor stated in a now deleted edit (here's a copy), "I am the creator of the deleted article and Senior Writer for IAPMO, the organization that publishes the Uniform Solar Energy Code. All information in the Wikipedia entry is accurate." That was in response to an article I marked for G12 deletion (a copyvio).

The understandable lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines has most likely popped up in the rest of their edits and I need help sifting through the edits, created articles, and uploaded files. There's only 76 in total (not included the deleted ones) so it should be too bad. I'm rather busy at work today and won't have time to go through them all right now. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sk8terguy27 created and edited Tom Rice for promotional purposes

I've got a user Sk8terguy27 who's created and edited Tom Rice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) primarily, if not solely, for promotional purposes. The article has been tagged CSD G11, and I think the user needs to be blocked. Can someone take action on this user and article? DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 04:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The speedy was declined by another admin user. Anyways, this belongs at the COI noticeboard. Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Moved section from AN/I. Rjd0060 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I removed the G11 because the article isn't unambiguous advertising. Also, as far as I can tell there's no clear signs of COI. Upon closer inspection it seems that the 'Issues' section does raise some questions over COI. -CTS talk 06:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly some of the prose in this article does seem to have been written by someone favourable to the subject. I removed this section for example. This article does need more eyes on it, especially in election season. Valenciano (talk) 08:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the original post: while there are some issues with the page and the intentions of the editor, I don't think that it is a blockable offence. -CTS talk 11:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there was an edit war and apparent 3RR violations by both parties involved. DRAGON 280 (TALK/CONTRIBS) 14:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

University of Bedfordshire

• University of Bedfordshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Webteambeds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FryerPaul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Just noticed some recent edits to the article University of Bedfordshire by a new user, Webteambeds (talk · contribs). Mostly the edits look valuable, constructive and informative, but I did notice the user has "updated" the reputation section, with some older critical material now removed. So I thought it might be worth an experienced WP:COI specialist just having a quick look, and perhaps gently introducing the new user to our COI policy. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I rang the University Web team just now and spoke to a friendly guy - I've alerted them to this page and to some of the wikipedia policies that they need to be thinking about (sourcing, removal of negative sourced material, copyvio being the major ones). The might potter along here shortly but if they don't I'll do a cleanup on the page in the next little while. Fayedizard (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been further edits which are very similar from a new account User:FryerPaul. This name is very similar to the name of an employee of the university (see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/paul-fryer/4/743/436). I have added them to this discussion and will inform them of the discussion. In general these edits remove what might be seen as negative publicity for the institution (the 2004 controversies) and, along with the addition of some no doubt valid and sourced information, there is a lot of irrelevant, unsourced information that looks like marketing (e.g. "The University of Bedfordshire offers the opportunity to study part-time for full degrees in the evenings at both our Luton and Bedford campuses" - is not suitable to my mind). My reading of WP:COI indicates that they should not be editing this article in this way and the changes should probably be reverted until this can be sorted out.--SabreBD (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out your concerns. We would like to clarify that it is the University of Bedfordshire that is updating this page and we are happy that this is known. Our original login was to enable any of our webteam to do the work but on the suggestion of Fayedizard (talk)have changed this to more clearly identify who is doing it, something many others don’t do.

We have been overhauling and adding to the information about the University ourselves because no one else appears to be doing it. It has not been overhauled recently and so contained broken links and out-of-date information which had little relevance to the current institution, although was possibly of historic interest.

Before making changes we looked at many other University entries and have adapted the format and structure they use and have drafted similar content, so that readers have as full a picture of Bedfordshire as they do of others. Please see these:

• • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_hertfordshire
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Northampton
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Montfort_University
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglia_Ruskin_University

We can understand the concerns that you have about these changes, but as Wikipedia is an open-access format you are able to change anything that you feel might not be suitable – however I’d ask you to look at the University sites above and compare our content with them, so that we are not represented differently from these. We do not see this as a conflict of interest as much of the information we have used is readily available and could easily have been drawn upon by someone who wanted to overhaul and update our site for us. Unfortunately no one has.

I think we would consider including the information that we now offer the opportunity for people to study for part-time degrees in the evenings at our campuses to be a fact rather than an opinion so we’d like to keep that in please.

We also understand your concerns about information critical of the University which has been removed – we will reinstate this today. However as it relates to Luton University, a former incarnation of this institution, and events eight years ago we feel that while these are a matter of historical record they have little contemporary relevance and give an out-of-date impression of the University of Bedfordshire as it is today.

Hopefully you understand where we are coming from here, if no one in the wiki community is working on our site we cannot see why we should not. Equally anyone is at liberty to amend our information in a fair and honest way, but, in many ways who has the best insight into an institution but the people who study, teach and work there?

Please continue to monitor our changes and suggest ways we can both make it more useful for readers and ensure we do not infringe upon your rules in the future.

Thanks again for your help.(If someone can get rid of the extra bulletpoint that keeps appearing in our bullet lists that would very useful - especially if they can let us know how to do it!)

FryerPaul (talk) 9:20 20 July 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FryerPaul (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reboot (fiction)

• Reboot (fiction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2.120.44.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The situation isn't incredibly problematic, but is worth keeping an eye on in terms of balance and bias. An external link was added by an anonymous user, with a glowing edit summary about its author. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Famousdog

• God helmet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Famousdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a Conflict of Interest case with respect to Famousdog, and his edits on the God helmet" page. I have tried to resolve conflicts with this user before, and have even raised a Conflict of Interest on the relevant talk page, as indicated on the wiki page giving guidelines for handling these issues.

This content was removed on the grounds that it could "out" Famousdog’s personal identity. I assure you that this was not malicious, but simply a mistake. I have read that in order for a Conflict of Interest to be filed, one has to demonstrate that the user has such an interest. I have ample evidence to demonstrate Famousdog’s conflicting interest, but posting it openly would violate Famousdog's privacy - and the Wikipedia rules. One exception is a talk page where Famousdog openly states the belief that Dr. Persinger, the inventor of the God Helmet: "... is a misguided and a poor scientist" Here is the link to that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Our_Lady_of_Zeitoun&oldid=47806805

On that page, Famousdog states their position, and they have been editing to keep the God Helmet page in agreement with his perspective since November of 2010.

I am not interested in "outing" anyone, especially if there is a chance that theirprofessional reputation is compromised. I prefer to handle these situations through co-operation. However, Famousdog has consistently negated any such attempt, even leaving misleading information in place after a correct quotation was shown. One of Famousdog's edits said that a commercial device was tested for God Helmet effects, when it was actually tested to see if it changed emotional responses to graphic images, a study that has never been done with the God Helmet, nor have any such effects ever been claimed for it. This appears to be a piece of data fakery, from the library instead of the lab, though both kinds are equally unethical.

A quick inspection of the history of the page, including the relevant Talk Page, should make Famousdog’s hostility towards the God Helmet obvious, and raise a suspicion of a conflict of interest in any unbiased editor. Famousdog consistently uses judgmental terms which bias the content negatively, such as the word 'claimed', which is specifically noted as a word to avoid on the POV page. Presumably, this is done to further their POV. My every attempt at making the page less biased has met with quick reversion of the content. I prefer to avoid an edit war, but it seems impossible without allowing Famousdog’s perspective to dominate, and Famousdog’s irrelevant and sometimes distorted information to remain in place. Both options seem equally inappropriate.

In addition, Famousdog has little knowledge of the technology discussed in the page. Famousdog consistently adds information that is incorrect or simply not relevant. In addition, any information that corrects Famousdog's interpretations are removed, in one case because Famousdog thought the editorial team of the source (a reputable journal) to be a "quack company". Famousdog appears to avail himself of any excuse to revert changes they doesn't agree with.

Any subject which has been the subject of an academic debate (such as this) should have both sides considered equally. However, when the content of the page is predicated on the belief that the God Helmet inventor's work is 'poor' and 'misguided' science, there is clearly a conflict of interest and individuals who rely upon Wikipedia as a reference are seriously misinformed. Because of Famousdog’s limited knowledge on the subject matter, Famousdog's efforts, even if they are well-intentioned, do exactly that. Famousdog’s low opinion of the God Helmet experiements, together with their dominance of the page through these long efforts (93 edits over 21 months, at last count) make the page more than a little biased. I have not added the Biased tag, because the last time it was in place for this page, Famousdog replaced it the same day one editor removed it.

I would also like to add that this same editor has also edited the pages for neurotheology and the page for Dr. Persinger, also introducing bias into them.

I have asked for third-party comments on the Talk Page, but I have not received any. Therefore I request that an administrator review the page and consider Famousdog's activity. My hope is that they will be able to end the consistent hostility the page shows towards it's subject, and help return the page to an unbiased position. Finally, I would like to know, as I said above, how I present evidence of a Conflict of Interest involving personal information about an editor without violating the Wiki rules. For the record, this is a conflict of interest action. Thank you. Ksirok (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Reading the above statement you would think that Ksirok had been subjected to months and months of suppression by myself. To set the record straight, Ksirok is a single-minded individual (editing only neurotheology-related articles) who is clearly very new to Wikipedia (first edit 3rd May this year). The reverted edits that Ksirok is complaining about have invariably been his/her removal of sourced material (and here and here) the justification for such edits being simply assertions presented in the edit summary and claims that I have "little knowledge of the technology discussed in the page" (above comment) . They have already attempted to discredit me, out me (an action for which they apologised after the damage had already been done) and now they claim I have a conflict of interest. This is tantamount to Wikistalking and is making me seriously consider retiring from Wikipedia. Furthermore, Ksirok's assertion that I have a conflict of interest seems to be based simply on my holding a certain opinion of the individuals/labs involved in this research. I happily confess to this, but holding an opinion is not a conflict of interest and my edits are (hopefully) always backed up by reliable sources not just assertions of opinion. Famous_dog (c) 08:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I have recently made some changes to address some of the legitimate issues raised by Ksirok. Simply claiming that this material shouldn't be discussed on the page because it isn't specifically about the God helmet is a fig leaf designed to censor material critical of Persinger's work generally. Famous_dog (c) 09:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If the many sources are critical of a topic then the article is expected to reflect that per WP:VALID. Thinking something is nonsense is not a conflict of interest. Hence why editors can edit Flat Earth Society even though knowing it is silly. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)