Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mnyakko (talk | contribs) at 14:36, 4 April 2007 (→{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:36, 4 April 2007 by Mnyakko (talk | contribs) (→{{userlinks|William M. Connolley}})(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page.
     You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Additional notes:
    • This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period.
    • Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
    Are you in the right place?
    Notes for volunteers
    To close a report
    • Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature.
    • Old issues are taken away by the archive bot.
    Other ways to help
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:Aspen Dental Talk:Atlantic Union Bank Talk:AvePoint Talk:Edward J. Balleisen Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Connie Chan (politician) Talk:Chyanne Chen Talk:Pamela Chesters Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Adela Demetja Talk:Doncaster College Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:Richard France (writer) Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:List of PEN literary awards Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Anne Sofie Madsen Talk:Laurence D. Marks Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:QuinStreet User talk:Shahedulalamkhan Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:SolidWorks Talk:Vladimir Stolyarenko Talk:Sysco Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Tencent Cloud Talk:Tiger Global Management Talk:Trendyol Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Scott Wiener Talk:Alex Wright (author) Talk:Xero (company) 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: 2025-01-02 20:26 (UTC)

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

    Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Adam Jones (political scientist)
    • 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)

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

    Done... now !vote. — RevRagnarok 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Lennie Lee (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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)
    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)

    Transcendental Meditation (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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.

    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 00:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

    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 Misplaced Pages. TimidGuy is one of the most civil and cooperative editors I have encountered on Misplaced Pages - with an excellent eye for following NPOV, as well as following all other Misplaced Pages 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)

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

    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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages in the scientific areas. EdJohnston 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

    Taborah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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 , but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 , 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

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

    External links to bestpricecomputers:

    External links to experienced-people:

    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)
    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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. . 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)

    Posted on Misplaced Pages: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)
    • bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006)

    --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/Business_performance_management on the Misplaced Pages: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)

    Update: Poweroid admits 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)

    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)

    Restatement of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest policy as it applies here.

    "A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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.

    1. These include, but are not limited to, those posed by edits made by: public relations departments of corporations; or of other public or private for-profit or not-for-profit organizations; or by professional editors paid by said organizations to edit a Misplaced Pages article with the sole intent of improving that organization's image." (emphasis added.)

    From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 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 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 Misplaced Pages.
    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)

    Update: As of today, searches for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk returns 17 matches. This is after both Tearlach and myself have removed many others. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 60 articles, mostly around December 2006. Additionally, I've requested Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to techbooksforfree.com and dogtraininghq.com. --Ronz 15:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Three of those left (one to an image, two on talk pages)—I removed fourteen of them. — Athænara ✉ 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I found a US Government PD image and put it in the Voice over IP article as it was clearer in thumbnail than the COI image here (which is now orphaned), so we are down to only two COI links on talk pages for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk. Ruhrfisch 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Awesome, better quality and public domain. That obsoletes the COI image, now listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 2. — Æ. ✉ 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    Update: I think all the questionable links have been removed from articles at this point. It appears Poweroid has added links to the sites mentioned above in over 80 articles, mostly around December 2006. I've also asked Poweroid to comment about possible coi with his additions of links to pregnancyetc.com and bringingupbaby.com. I'm estimating that between November'06 and January'07 Poweroid added over 50 links to 50 different articles, all links where there's a clear coi, and most in violation of WP:ATT as well. --Ronz 18:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    Essay: I recommend the excellent Misplaced Pages:Search engine optimization essay to all editors and particularly to users with conflict of interest issues who are tempted, like the subject of this report, to linkspam the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 06:09, 3 April 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:

    His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix. 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". He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. -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 Misplaced Pages. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct? — Athænara ✉ 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    I had been trying to figure out the next steps both with respect to this editor's edits on the Nadine Gordimer article and the editor himself, but I was derailed for the last several weeks by personal stuff. I don't know the process but would be happy to start it or support it. --lquilter 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I left a Talk message for User:Will Beback, the nominator of this COI, but haven't heard back. EdJohnston 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Archimedes Plutonium (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • 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 Misplaced Pages article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder 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, Misplaced Pages 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 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

    Tom Terry (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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)

    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)

    • 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 , an issue complicated by an unresolved dispute among multiple lineages all claiming to be Brahmanananda Saraswati's successor 21, . The Maharishi reportedly views himself as the only the "bulb through which the spiritual electrical current from Gurudev shines in radiating light on all".
    Boxed up for length: please continue discussion below
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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/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 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 Misplaced Pages, but in the controversies outlined at ], 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. 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 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 Misplaced Pages. TimidGuy is one of the most civil and cooperative editors I have encountered on Misplaced Pages - with an excellent eye for following NPOV, as well as following all other Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages on NPOV ], and ]. --Dseer 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, I haven't been all that active "in opposing critics who raised COI issues and supportive of TM related positions". I've only supported TimidGuy in these undeserved accusations of COI because I strongly believe he is an excellent editor who brings a lot of value to Misplaced Pages. If you notice, I've made no substantial edits to the TM articles, because I know nothing about TM. I support good editing and good editors, that is all that's involved in my participation here. Dseer's above accusations are false and unwarranted, basically a personal attack on me in an attempt to discredit my input in this case. That little ploy should not work, and should only serve to erode Dseer's positions and credibility. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    One more thing, or two; most of what Dseer points out was me helping a new user, which is something we're supposed to do as experienced editors of Misplaced Pages. To try and turn that into something "bad" is ludicrious. TimidGuy was being personally attacked by Sethie. Sethie apologized for his behavior several times , , said the article is better off with TimidGuy involved, and rated him a better, more civil editor . To try and find fault with my involvement there is quite simply ridiculous, as is this COI charge. I can provide more diffs if needed. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    I haven't got the time to waste responding at length to such apples and oranges comparisons and logic defending a Wikipedian you like and respect. I did not say and do not assert the article was better off without him, to the contrary. Actually, I think we will work this out, coming here is part of the process. But, based on what you say, how can you claim to have no knowledge of TM (you did positively edit on Chopra, a long time TM advocate) and yet assert there is no COI effect if you don't know the subject, and in particular regarding the attributability of Mason? Civility and likeability aside, what makes you given your stated position of limited subject knowledge the best judge of whether any of the following in some way related to COI was occurring: A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. In this manner, the full range of views on a subject can be unfairly presented or concealed...Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Misplaced Pages terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value. Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability. Yes, Sethie was tough on many, including me, but you have not shown those apologies are directly related to all the comments I cited or that Sethie's percieved attacks equated to being wrong factually. You are mistaken in emphasing demonstrated civility as equating to factual credibility, or that civility trumps NPOV and ATT, it does not. In fact, Misplaced Pages states: "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to." --Dseer 03:15, 4 April 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: Dseer did, in fact, write a paragraph but was reluctant to answer the questions I asked about it. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 ], 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. . 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: ] . 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Skeptic'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)
    User:Dseer makes a point that there is no Criticism section in this article. That seems like something we could work on. While we're thinking how to do that, can I ask if anyone following this debate has access to a physical copy of Paul Mason's book, in either edition? I assume that Dseer has been able to get one. Is he the only one who can look up passages and supply page references? EdJohnston 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've just ordered the 1994 edition, since the 2005 isn't available on Amazon or Half.com. TimidGuy 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) By the way, a check of the OCLC database shows that no library in the U.S. has the 2005 edition, so I can't get it through interlibrary loan. TimidGuy 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    As the editor of the rewrite of the Tm and religion article I thought I'd better make a statement or two. Like TimidGuy , I would like to deal with the COI interest allegations, if this is cause for banning then that's fine.I tried to create a balanced article that made connections to TM and religion.The article was initially very anti-Tm and I attempted to introduce balance. If this is cause for reprimand or banning then so be it I really can't do any more.I considered Cardinal Sin's pastoral statement to be a strong comment on TM and Christianity from a highly authoritative clergy in a major Christian religion. I also included strong statements from several clergy who support TM. I am beyond explaining anymore. I feel that Dseer threatens with NPOV and COI and turns any attempt to explain into a COI issue, and I find this exhausting. I want to mention that the religion article is on a discussion page for input from editors, and is not final. I have received input from TG that I will attempt to incorporate. Although Dseer clearly does not like the article I don't know what he wants . Including Paul Mason here was not an option in my mind because as I attempted to explain earlier , one of the problems with this article was the murky reasoning and lack of delineation between religion and spirituality. Mention of God is not necessarily religion, and Mason does not comment on religion in the statements in the present material. Distinctions between religion and spirituality are clear in the literature I have been researching. I tried in this article to only reference religion to make the connections very clear, very concrete.I'm afraid that Dseer has an ax to grind that blinds him to the possibility that I, although as I clearly stated on my user page have a connection to TM, might also be able to present a relatively neutral article . I am also a Catholic and am aware of the weight a pastoral statement carries. Is that also a COI. I don't enjoy having what I say in good faith twisted around to suit and argument or particular view point. If an editor doesn't like something fix it but do it with balance. Efforts to discredit TM, should be introduced with material to support it, so the balance is continually and equally achieved - a constant state of equilibrium. At least in my limited time here at Misplaced Pages that has been my understanding.(63.162.81.220 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) (olive 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC))
    Just to clarify, when Olive says "article" she means the religion "section" of the TM article. Good points, Olive. It is indeed problematic that Dseer's COI campaign seems to disallow good faith participation in discussion of the points you raised. TimidGuy 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    Move to Talk page?. This issue has been open for a long time, and it's made some progress, but it needs a lot more focus. How would people feel about moving this discussion to Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? I would 'box up' the above comments to save space but keep the COI issue open until some progress is made on the Talk page. If talks break down, the COI could be resumed. Please respond if you have an opinion. EdJohnston 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Sounds good. TimidGuy 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    So the focus on the Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi page will be only on the article and the focus here will be only on conflict of interest? I think that's a good idea. Roseapple 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    I've other priorities right now and may not be active right away but I intend to be more active again soon. I agree with Ed's suggestions, with a neutral observer familiar with COI issues involved, moving the discussion to the talk pages of the respective Maharishi/TM related articles, provided the COI issue remains in abeyance, is agreeable.
    For the record, in the interim, my issues are simple. My work on the Ramana Maharshi article paraphrasing other sources is simply clarifying known inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The Maharishi's guru, Guru Dev (Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati), and Sri Ramana Maharshi were both highly respected contemporaries widely considered liberated in India, who died before the Maharishi started teaching, both humble and without significant possessions, claims of hypocrisy or scandals, who did not charge for or personally accept donations for their teachings and initiations, and whose actual teachings in practice were related, not limited to one approach, and aligned with the Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) traditions. I've already said that where those like the Maharishi, who despite claims of secularism here in the West, while in his native land is referred to by his own organization as "His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", "A Living Saint", etc., has deviated significantly from those traditions while claiming them as sources, recognizable by a scholar of the Dharma and sourced by others, I too am critically skeptical. I don't want any editors banned, and I'm not just focused on Mason or bashing the Maharishi. I just want an NPOV from the eyes of uninvolved, neutral readers, to include reasonable mention of controversy and criticism that does not currently exist, and a clear understanding of the obligations editors with apparent COIs have regarding NPOV, which affects all related articles.
    One more illustrative example here of how the COI issue is not trivial and affects the article. Employees and associates of TM editing here offer many public, written assumptions and insinuations in these discussions that are derogatory and even libelous regarding Mr. Mason and allegations his is a self-published and hearsay based book, indistinguishable from the positions taken by organized TM. Yet, though Mr. Mason is not some dead or inaccessible figure, not one of the TM associated editors who assert a COI has no influence on their edits has taken the simple step of contracting Mr. Mason, whose email, premanandpaul at yahoo dot co dot uk, is widely listed and who responds promptly, regarding any of these concerns! More neutral editors would be inclined to do so, while editors involved in TM are not, apparently prefering speculation, personal "knowledge" coming from the organization, and original research instead. As a result, I contacted Mr. Mason via email, because we do not want to skew or misinterpret what Mason has said and done, both about his attributability, and statements in the article sourced to him, once it is established that Mason is an attributable source. I provided the entire text of both proposed statements, to make sure he was not in disagreement, along with what was said about him personally. These are the relevant portions of what he said in reply:
    Mason: Thanks for contacting me. I should state that far from being self-published, the original version published by Element was commissioned by them, and I undertook the task having secured a good contract. Subsequently, Element Books went out of business (allegedly because they took to publishing too many titles on Reiki). The new paperback edition is published by Evolution who have a website http://www.maharishibiography.com/ from which copies of the new edition can be purchased.
    Mason: I have written the biography of Maharishi, and I am translating Guru Dev's teachings. If anyone has any problems with material I produce they are doing themselves an injustice, as I tend to source my material rather carefully. So, I cannot see that a controversy could emerge about the accuracy of the information contained in any of my writings on Maharishi or Guru Dev, as I seldom use hearsay and state if I do. I seldom look at the Misplaced Pages profiles on Maharishi, Transcendental Meditation or Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and it does not surprise me to hear they are inaccurate.
    Mason: I should address the issues of motivations and qualifications. I have practiced transcendental meditation for over three decades and as regards qualification to write on this subject, I have found the material, I have presented the material, it is materially correct, so no problem. Bear in mind the movement tried to suppress the book, Element and myself had a lot of pressure from legal department in Chicago and 'representatives' in the UK. If there was any material problem with the book, it would not have been published. As it was the movement offered to present my publishers with their own version if they would withdraw my book! Now, if there was ANY reason they could have found, any material inaccuracy or libel or whatever, that book would not have been out. It is ironic, as initially I envisaged the book as a showcase for Maharishi's thinking, and actually avoided taking a bias.
    Mason: The first edition hardback is good to quote out of, new edition paperback is good to quote from too. The thing is that there over 380 footnotes giving chapter and verse for quotations. Of the quotations that I have lifted directly from audio and video tape, the quotes are quite correct. Wanting, I could even get the relevant passages copied, if necessary. Clearly, the movement understood this much, that the book was well researched and fairly unassailable.--Dseer 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks, Dseer. It's still not clear why you made this into a COI issue. You initially referenced a book published in 2005 that was apparently self-published (and all the evidence still points to its being such). I questioned that as a source. I had reason to doubt the book's scholarly nature, based on informaton that you presented from it in discussions. You then noted that there was a 1994 edition. I asked that you show that it was published by a reputable publisher after I wasn't able to find any information on Element Books. Instead, you came here. So now that we've been through thousands of words of unsupported COI accusations, you've finally answered my question. For which I thank you. You didn't answer Ed's question regarding whether you actually have a copy of the book, and if so, which edition. If there's a prominent controversy regarding Maharishi, I don't have problem referencing it. We can discuss that on the appropriate Talk page. (And by the way, I'd never heard of this book until seeing it referenced in Misplaced Pages. And none of the several citations actually gives a page number or proper bibliographic citation, which has been sort of weird and which has added to the confusion.) TimidGuy 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    In any case, I really really appreciate your tendency to discuss debatable edits to the article first rather than just inserting material and enforcing the addition via edit warring, as other editors have been inclined to do. For the record -- I admire you for that and am grateful. TimidGuy 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Another response: TimidGuy has a clear and immediate conflict of interest and for this reason would be well advised to restrict participation to talk pages for all transcendental mediatation-related articles. The particular reference in question appears to be published legitimately and appropriate as a reference source. I suggest an article content request for comment to settle the particular debate. I hope that resolves the problems, but in case it doesn't the likely alternatives are this: a user conduct request for comment and an eventual arbitration case, which would likely end in article paroles on TM topics. Another experimental option is community enforceable mediation. Best wishes, Durova 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks, Durova. Not sure why you're making this point. The discussion has indeed established that the 1994 edition wasn't self-published and is available -- the debate about that has been settled. I'm not disputing that -- and am looking forward to receiving the book. Regarding COI, no one has shown that my editing has been disruptive, and everyone has praised my work. Why should I be restricted? In an ideal situation, I'd make suggestions and a neutral editor would implement them. But no neutral editor has ever appeared in these articles. They are edited by people who are knowledgeable about Transcendental Meditation and the research and by people who are ideological opponents of Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi. TimidGuy 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    As mentioned, time is scarce right now, so I will make this brief. Agreed, I hope that means we can continue to make progress. I simply cut to the chase, RVing is a waste of all of our time, we need to use the dispute resolution process as necessary, and progress is being made. I have a basic outline of the key, widely identified controversies surrounding MMY, which won't take that much space to flesh out since the primary purpose will be to illuminate the sources to readers, not rehash them. The primary reason I came here is because discussions broke down over whether a group of TMers a priori assessments and assumptions of what is notable and then attributable regarding criticism still needs neutral evaluation even if most critics have abandoned the field for now, and which does not trump Wikepedia guidance as it is. Nor does mere civility trump NPOV or ATT or prove no COI exists. We need to include the missing critical perspective and help build a more balanced article, and as long as I provide attributable sources, which I will be working on, they should be accepted with the same latitude as given what the TMers provide. This is not just my or some critic's responsibility, as I quoted, "writing for the enemy" applies, it is in fact the TMers responsibility too to help craft the best possible critical/controversial statements for NPOV, not effectively suppress them in the ways I have quoted, even in good faith.
    IMO, given those responsibilities, your continued assumptions about Mason being self published, etc., should have been addressed to Mason for clarification, not made a matter of public inuendo and hostile speculation about him on Misplaced Pages, since he too is a living person. A simple search shows that Mason has done a lot of research and is cited by a number of others than himself, and in other articles, particularly for his work on compiling and translating Guru Dev's writings and documenting MMY's earlier sayings, and has the sources for his quotations from MMY, including a rare, complete copy of Beacon Light of the Himalayas linked, the first book on MMY's teachings before he became famous, and other material gathered from years of TM practice. Given that, if you would put aside your assumptions and write him regarding your defamatory assertions about him, and read what he has written, you would realize that Mason has extensive documentation for what he says, even if he isn't a Professor, which is not required anyway. Given your latest claim about the 2005 book, Mason has responded to your "self-published" claims regarding the new edition and the new publisher as follows, which I hope settles the matter once and for all for any neutral parties reading this:
    "Do the hardback and the paperback differ? Yes, the paperback contains material unavailable at the time of the publication of the English hardback. There are also German and Portuguese editions but these follow the English language hardback. With the advent of the internet age my current publisher decided to make it available solely by access to the web. Perhaps there will be a change in this policy at some time, I don't know." --Dseer 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Hi, Dseer. Sounds like you're taking a good approach. I'm glad you're finding attributable sources, presumably in accord with the BLP guideline. You're suggesting that it was up to me to verify the source you proposed, but according to the policy, it's up to the person inserting material to verify.
    I wish you'd stop exaggerating: "hostile speculation" "defamatory assertions"? It was a reasonable suggestion: Evolution Books has published exactly one book, in 2005, doesn't have a distributor, hasn't made the book available in the U.S. According to OCLC the book isn't held by any library in the U.S. Before you pointed out that there was a 1994 edition, and before Ed made info available about this 1994 edition, all the evidence suggested self-publication. TimidGuy 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Marie Killick (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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 - 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)

    Roberto Valente (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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 . Tearlach 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

    Melaleuca (company) (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages and how to use it. This does not mean the primary purpose of the books is to promote Misplaced Pages or that Misplaced Pages gets some of the procedes. Does this mean that no books about Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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: Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

    I've looked into this and found a few interesting tidbits of information. Melaleuca (company) is based in Idaho Falls, Idaho. So is User:12.152.168.248, which happens to have made this edit on 21 December 2006, which Siraj88 re-signed one minute later. In fact, that IP has been rather diligent about spreading the name Maleleuca Oil at Misplaced Pages (and of course, external links). Both registered accounts are basically single purpose accounts that exist for the purpose of promoting this company. I am blocking all three for one month, semiprotecting the relevant articles, and I strongly recommend the user make use of this site's right to vanish. See this essay. Durova 03:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Long Way Round (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    • 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 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 , 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)
    Out of interest, there is a Martin Dennett , Business Development Director for Energy, Mining and Infrastructure at International SOS. Tearlach 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I hope he feels great about this edit then. Deiz talk 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    I've left a uw-coi warning on User talk:MDennett. Hopefully he will get the message. Jehochman (/Contrib) 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    Anchor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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)

    David R. Jones (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/David R. Jones

    Optical Carrier (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    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 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Now the user has also removed the subsequently added "citation needed" templates from the article without an edit summary (diff). I have reverted his edit and posted a {{uw-maintenance1}} on his talk page; the user has not yet responded. -- intgr 11:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Simon Treves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Simon treves (talk · contribs) Is the author of some serious autobiographical vanispamcruftisement and other COI stuff, including:

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

    Changed the above header to use the 'coiwatch' template. EdJohnston 04:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

    Cathy Jourdan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    This article was created by Rcbookpublishing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). R.C. Book Publishing is the company responsible for publishing and marketing at least one of this author's novels reference. Believe this is a promotional username vio per WP:U in addition to being a COI issue. RJASE1 21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Let me count the ways... BLP vio, COI vio, a single book says NN vio. Sounds like a {{prod}} to me... Done. — RevRagnarok 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

    Security guard (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    Every edit done by PatrickVSS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), since the account was created, has been to introduce a link to Valley Security Services across several Articles. I have also attempted to begin dialog to resolve this possible COI, see here, but to no avail. After this attempt to resolve, the User did again post the link to the company rather than the Authoritative link to the SIA. Any help would be appreciated. Exit2Dos2000 00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

    They've all been removed, too, which is why link searches 1 2 3 now come up empty. The most recent one was yesterday, so it behooves us to watch it awhile longer. — Athænara ✉ 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    FYI, you can look at the links to any URI in that domain with Special:Linksearch/*.valleysecurity.co.uk. All clean (minus the one on Patrick's talk page. --Iamunknown 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    StartCom (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    see also WikiProject Spam case--Hu12 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    The above articles have been nominated for speedy deletion already. Why has User:Startcom been nominated for speedy? Is that a normal thing to do? Jehochman (/Contrib) 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    CSD G11 is a general criterion that applies to spam in the any namespace. It is useful for and is occassionally applied to user spaces, particularly if the user has no other edits and especially if the user has been registered for a long period of time. --Iamunknown 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    Appears User:Startcom has removed the tags on the articles --Hu12 05:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Deletion discussion here. Don't you just hate corporate vanity? MER-C 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Hd1080ip (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

    → See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hd1080ip.

    Hd1080ip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    HD1080 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Stewartmilleronline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    161.51.11.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    At the top of this noticeboard is Alex Bakharev's bot-generated listing of possible conflicts. In this edit an IP editor ingeniously removed his own COI from the file, with no edit comment. Very discreet. A man named Stewart Miller has patented a new video format called HD1080ip and has been adding mention of it to articles. Since the only reference so far is one forum comment in Engadget's web forum, I think all these mentions should be deleted. Also the Hd1080ip article should be deleted (I prodded it). I'm drawing attention to it here so that we keep a close eye on the edits to Alex Bakharev's listing. Since 161.51.11.2 shows such a close interest in Stewart Miller's work, I'm assuming it's the same guy. EdJohnston 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

    The IP editor 161.51.11.2 (talk · contribs) removed the prod from the article with no edit comment or discussion, so I have opened an AfD here. Editors are welcome to join that discussion and give their opinion. EdJohnston 17:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

    This account has been active since January. The first action was to create the article Norris-Whitney Communications and all edits since seem to be associated with products, publications, people and events associated with this particular company. I could make a list but it would be lengthy and it's probably easier just to look at the user contribs. In addition to the articles shown in the contribs, it appears there may also have been several other articles speedily deleted as either non-notable or spam - at least I saw some nominated while I was typing this. RJASE1 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    I left him a uw-coi warning, and db-spam tagged the article you mentioned. Jehochman (/Contrib) 17:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

    William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    William Connelly works closely with Michael Mann on a website called RealClimate. Connelly has nominated for deletion an article that provides accurate and well-sourced but uncomplimentary information about his colleague, Michael Mann. I have asked William to consider his situation to see if he has a WP:COI. As a published scientist and a Misplaced Pages administrator, William is respected by many editors on Misplaced Pages. However, he is not able to be objective in this case. He is simply too close to Mann. The guideline reads: "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." Connelly and Mann are part of the same organization. Connelly has obviously invited many editors to vote on his nomination to delete the article. People show up to vote who have obviously not read the article or Talk page. I was frustrated and invited someone to comment and then learned that was frowned on. RonCram 03:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    I see no evidence that Connolley has canvassed for votes at that page. Upon what specific evidence do you claim his expertise in the field constitutes COI? WP:AGF constrains these assertions: please provide specific diffs. Durova 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Durova, Why are you exploring at all the sub-issue (at best) of canvasing? The main issue is the textbook example of a conflict of interest and the failure to act accordingly? And is it not the entire premise of the Noticeboards that the actions being complained about are out of line regardless of the intent (i.e. the assumption of good faith). Most decisions impose on users a 'guilty unless good faith is proven' rationale...which is obviously NOT AGF. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Connelly is too experienced to canvass for votes using a public forum. I do not claim his expertise is COI. I am claiming that his relationship with Mann is WP:COI. See the RealClimate website in which Mann, Mann's coauther Bradley, and Connelly are all listed as contributors. They are part of the same organization. RonCram 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • RonCram, I suggest not engaging in the Canvasing issue at all (including in responses). It is not the issue. In every complaint (most of which were legitimate) over the past 2+ years against WMC the tactic by him and his defenders was to move discussion to a sub-complaint or onto the accusser personally so there would be no discussion whatsoever on the actual indefensible violations. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    In relation to the COI, please review this user's edit history, and the stance he takes. Please also note his removal of information or questions that don't synch with the website Realclimate.org Many examples of this can be found through out his edit pages/history. The POV of his edits in any Global Warming related page seem to duplicate the view of RealClimate.org

    Use of Real Climate.org as a source.

    Noting here that a blog comment is not notable dispite his defence of blogs that agree with the RealClimate blog or the use of the RealClimate.org blog.

    Editing refrences to himself. Limiting cleanup on Realclimate.org wiki site.--Zeeboid 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    I see no evidence that Connolley has canvassed for votes at that page - unlike RC, who certainly *has* canvassed for votes: . Connelly has obviously invited many editors to vote on his nomination to delete the article - this is a direct lie. I invite RC to withdraw it William M. Connolley 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    • The painfully blatant misrepresentation here by excluding likely applicable acceptable exceptions of a guideline should be noted. Beyond that, that topic is not the main complaint nor relevant. The issue is textbook example of a conflict of interest and not acting accordingly. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    William, I did not know that "canvassing" was frowned upon. I only saw people suddenly show up in droves and vote to delete the article who had obviously not read it closely nor read the related Talk pages. The fact they felt compelled to express themselves on a subject they were not informed about made it obviously clear to me that you were contacting people to get them to vote your way. I am only stating the facts as I see them. So I followed what I believed to be your example and asked someone to vote who I felt would see things my way. You cannot call my statement a lie as I am only expressing my opinion and I will not withdraw my opinion. The bigger point is that you are trying to change the subject. William, why not explain here why you do not see your relationship to Mann as WP:COI. You are both part of the same organization. The credibillity of RealClimate is linked to Mann's credibility which is, in turn, linked to your credibility. How is it that you do not see a COI here? RonCram 12:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • RonCram, just to reiterate, this diversion is a rhetorical tactic commonly used by a party (or parties) when their position on the main issue is a losing issue, embarrassing to discuss, indefensible, etc. Do not engage in any issue (especially as they attempt to turn the focus on you, the messenger) beyond the the main issue: textbook example of a conflict of interest and the failure to act accordingly. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    William, Please read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Friendly_notice and if you realy want to push that issue with Ron, you will have to show somehow that his one message to Uber was either "Mass posting" (or as definded by mass:"A large but nonspecific amount or number") or that the post on the one person's talk page was not neutral. But, Back to the topic at hand... You. I believe these examples speek for themselves. Perhaps we need more?--Zeeboid 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Zeeboid, first, the main issue: textbook example of a conflict of interest and the failure to act accordingly. Second, if any discussion on THIS case about WP:CANVAS is discussed it should only be about alleged Canvassing by William M. Connolley, if any. No one else is the subject of the complaint here and any complaints about any other parties should be their own complaint in an actual charge. Do not enable through discussion any "defense" of conflicts of interest complaints with personal attacks or counter-complaints against the complaintant. This is not a court, their pseudo-counter-complaint should be disregarded if not outright reverted as not germane whatsoever. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ron, I didn't notice when a pile of people showed up to vote for your side. You have asserted as a fact that I canvassed. I didn't - you did. Now have the honesty to admit that you have no evidence for this at all William M. Connolley 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    • William, I noticed no comment on the main issue: Conflict of Interest and the continued editing, Rfd discussions (not to mention being the requestor), etc on articles where the COI exists. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    I'll be happy to talk about that once RC has withdrawn his unjustified lie that I've been canvassing William M. Connolley 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
    Interesting...continued avoidance of the actual complaint and focusing on, at best, a sub-issue. It is quite revealing. -- Tony 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Just to copy this from the top of this page: "Issues with administrators may be more suited to requests for comment on administrator conduct. If through this discussion it is discovered that on any of those pages in which Connolley has a COI he performed any admin actions it would be prudent to explore that at the RfC on administrator conduct. -- Tony 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

    Category: