Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 08:21, 31 January 2010 (→User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max: Tothwolf blocked). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections 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.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. 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 All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Possible autobiographies found by bot

• User:AlexNewArtBot/COISearchResult   This is the large mechanically-generated list of articles having a suspected COI that used to be shown here in full. You are still invited to peruse the list and, if you have an opinion on whether it's a real COI, edit that file directly. When you see a case in that list that needs input from other editors, you may want to create a regular noticeboard entry for it, below.

Requested edits

• Category:Requested edits.  Editors who believe they have a Conflict of Interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should undo the {{Request edit}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requestor to explain your decision.

Kids Help Phone

Kids Help Phone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 207.164.226.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are making potential COI edits to the previously existing article Kids Help Phone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Some of these have been reverted. Tckma (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The article itself is promotional in tone, the edits by Kids Help Phone have been mostly helpful (no pun intended). I'm going to try talking with the editor about changing their username rather than doing even a softblock for the name. The article also needs references, but they do exist so I don't think it should be deleted. -- Atama頭 22:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find some third party references, but very view. I did some minor copy edit to wikify, and added two references. I also re-sequenced and removed a peacock word or two. I think Atama is doing well by talking to the editor and the article itself isn't bad for being COI. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize if I didn't follow protocol very well. Contributing to this article was a new thing for me and I should have been more thorough in reading how things are done and what's allowed. I've requested to change the username and can also provide reference links if there's a need for more information. There's a lot of information about Kids Help Phone on their website: http://org.kidshelpphone.ca/en/about-us/ but more specific info is available. Again, really, really sorry! There are other charities referenced on Misplaced Pages, so I thought it was ok to have a positive tone (but didn't mean to make it sound bias). Kids Help Phone (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Rother

Possible conflict of interest by Mike734 (talk · contribs) creating the page Mike Rother and adding related references and publications on various pages -- 85.180.41.195 (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've welcomed him with info about the COI guideline, and informed him of this discussion. -- Atama頭 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tree shaping - User:Blackash

User:Blackash is the co-creator of the "Pooktre" techniques given prominence in the Tree shaping article. He is shown in a photo added to the article in which text has been superimposed. Despite repeated attempt by various editors to get User:Blackash to respect Misplaced Pages COI policies, this user continues to use this article to promote himself personally and professionally. This user makes few edits to other articles, and most of these are related to efforts at self-promo, his preference for the term "tree shaping" versus "arborculture", etc. Finally and most damagingly, User:Blackash is extremely resistant to other editors' efforts to improve this article and seems to be making every effort to control and micromanage it's content. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is where I should reply, if not please tell me where. Blackash is co-creator of pooktre. In this verision of the page (before 208.59.93.238 started editing) I had added the other practitioners (except for Arborscuplture and Pooktre, I didn't add these) I have actively found references for other artists, I also got permission to put up Dr Chris Cattle image. The placing of the first photo was not done by me. When editing other articles that are related to Tree shaping I will add Tree shaping text, links and images, so as to display Tree shaping in context to the related article. This type of editing I would not class of self-promotion. I endeavoured to always discuss any changes I make or that I object to. I don't prefer Tree shaping verses Arborculture. Any neutral name would do. Tree shaping was changed from Arborsculpture becuse there is a method linked the word. Arborsculpture and Pooktre both have methods linked to their names and it would be inappropriate to use these as they are not neutral, generic, or descriptive. Richard Reames and now this editor keep trying to imply that we were responsible for the naming of this article. There was a consensus of quite a few different editors. Move from Arborscusculpture to Tree Shaping Blackash (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read the COI I can see that now the page has been change from Arborscuplture to a neutral, generic, and descriptive name we now may come into COI. As the page is no longer about one method of shaping but the art form as a whole. Fortunately it was never my agenda to push our method of shaping. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees. With that in mind I will continue to edit as I have always endeavoured to reach a consensus with other editors. Blackash (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I created this comment on the Tree Shaping talk page, before 96.233.40.199 I thought I better add it here as well.

(They) have failed to explain why they are exempt from the WP:COI guidelines which have guided the creation of 14 million articles on Misplaced Pages. Editor after editor have asked them to read this policy and to please comply out of respect for everyone involved with Misplaced Pages. Is there anyway to make these people understand that they should not be editing this article at all and that they certainly do not have the right to micromanage it and to control the nuance of every phrase within? --96.233.40.199 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Having a potential COI is not a reason to ignore my points or revert my edits without discussion. I have now read the whole COI page. Have you guys? If not please read this part at least How to handle conflicts of interest from the COI My comment above, was to illustrate my editing style, so that people checking it can decide weather I am editing from a NPOV Blackash (talk)

@96.233.40.199 "Editor after Editor" ? Hardly, in point of fact we have had editors comment about the fact that we are open minded and editing from a NPOV Blackash (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blackash has stated openly on Misplaced Pages that they are a person mentioned by name in this article. They are half of the "Pooktre" team. This person and their partner charge money for their services, and they are in competition with other tree shapers even if a spirit of collaboration rather than competition prevails in the tree shaping community. Although I am disgusted that that this person insists on editing this article despite WP:COI guidelines, I have not categorically rejected their edits. Rather, I have rejected edits based upon specific points of contention. For example, when it comes to matters of word choice versus content, I reject edits which are grammatically incorrect or sound like they are written by someone who hasn't quite mastered the English language. I also reject Blackash's attempts to categorize "arborsculpture" as the specific term for the work of one person -- Richard Reames -- noting that Reames himself considers "arborsculpture" a term for the practice in general and not a term for his own work specifically. Blackash is more or less a single purpose account, and the attempt to micromanage this article is essentially their only involvment with Misplaced Pages. Blackash feels they edit with WP:NPOV in mind. Part of the basis of WP:COI is that when writing about one's self, company, wife, house, or whatever, NPOV is almost impossible. I care about Misplaced Pages, they care about tree shaping. That is the essential difference between NPOV and COI.--96.233.40.199 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• As can be seen in this edit user Blackash wrote "I am one of the practitioners (Pooktre) mentioned in the article. Understanding that there was a potential for a COI I have always endeavoured to edit from a NPOV. My only agenda if there is one is not to have our work branded with someone else's methods of shaping trees.(Arborsculpture which has a method linked to it.)" Repeat: "My...agenda...is not to have our work branded...Arborsculpture". If there is anyone besides Blackash who doesn't read this as admission of WP:COI and misuse of Misplaced Pages please speak up. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My reply form the talk page.Blackash (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the only one to categorize arborsculpture as the word for Richard Reames work. I am just the most recent Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange you still haven't given what criteria you have used to justify the use of the word Arborsculpture. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You still haven't said what you didn't like in the content my suggest sentence Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Again with the implication that I only edit this article. not true. Repeating an argument doesn't make it true. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

About your comment to NOPV has a section on Bias "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." In an effort to ensure that I am being as neutral as possible, I have requested editorial assistance. To check and advices how I can improve my editing. Blackash (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My reply form the talk page Blackash (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I touched that you deicded to change the heading from "Not clever enough to lie?" to the above.Blackash (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you give is where I asked for editorial assistance to improve my editing and to check that my editing is neutral. Since we don't wish to be branded with some else's method I gave an example and used the word Arborsculpture, to better allow the editor to decide whether we are being biased in our editing or not. Blackash (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you didn't realised that I had already answered this. I have always stated that we don't care what the name of the artform is as long as there is not a method attached to it. There had been a consensus that Arborsculpture has a method link to it. In the books on the subject it gives "Arborscuplture techniques", which is the instant method of shaping. Blackash (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• RECAP - In 1995, Richard Reames published a book in which the word "arborculture" was coined. Reames doesn't claim this as a brand name nor as a term for his work alone. Some feel this term is synonymous with the phrase "tree shaping" as used in the title of this article. "Arborsculpture" has about 29,500 Google hits and the word has often been used to describe the tree shaping efforts of people other than Reames. A specialized Google search for "arborsculpture" without the word "Reames" still produces about 25,200 hits, one of which is "arborsculpture.org". However, a certain amount of antipathy exists between Reames (aka User:Slowart) and fellow tree-shaper/arborsculptor Becky Northey (aka User:Blackash) and Northey has stated rather plainly that her agenda is to not have the word coined by Reames applied to her work. According to my understanding, Northey led a campaign to have "tree shaping" rather than "arborsculpture" as the title of the article. That campaign was successful and, to some degree, Northey interprets this as a consensus that the word "arborsculpture" should be attached only to the work of Reames and those who use similar methods. Northey has made numerous edits to keep the word "arborsculpture" out of the intro and to assure that the word "arborsculpture" is used as the heading of the section in which Reames work is discussed. This is the primary issue. The secondary issue also centers around word choice, essentially whether "relationships between methods" versus "distinctions between methods" is the way to go. This secondary word choice issue is only contentious because Northey seems determined to be the one making these choices despite what some identify as a WP:COI. Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person (me) and that I'm a Wikipedian not a treescuptor. Reames has expressed approval that I've turned my attention to the article but has lately taken a very "hands off" approach citing his own WP:COI. No other editor has been involved recently, leaving me and User:Blackash to conduct what is basically a "slow-motion, no 3RR edit war" over these issues. I admit I've had trouble understanding some of Northey's arguements during this disagreement, and Northey herself has implied that written verbal expression isn't her strongest quality. At this point, however, I think I understand that Northey believes that the term "arborsculpture" should be confined to methods (such as those used by Reames) in which the bending of live trees, rather than more subtle or time instensive methods, is an important feature. I don't see evidence that Reames, the arborcultural community, nor the world at large makes this distinction. I hope I have represented Northey's position correctly. I'm annoyed at this time-wasting impasse and I'm sure Northey/User:Blackash is too. I really wish experienced Wikipedians would chime in. Sorry for the unattractive length of this message; thank you if you have read this and triple "thank yous" to anyone willing to offer a fresh opinion. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't lead anything please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping and Pooktre AFD
• I already explained the differents between relationship and distinctions. It not up to me to justify, as the editor who wants to make the changes you need to justify why they are right.
• Please read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping quote "it became evident that a more neutral name was necessary." John Gathright, quote "Mr. Reames has made extensive use of my material and sources in the development of both his craft (‘arborsculpture’) and his books. Still, I do not characterize his work as ‘Botanic Architecture’, nor would I associate my work, or Erlandson’s with ‘arborsculpture’. That word is no more nor less than the name chosen by Mr. Reames to describe what he has accomplished with his own hands. His recent efforts to center himself in the world of artists (some more accomplished or famous than himself) who are working with living plants and trees, by applying his brand to all their work, may someday succeed, but it does not appear to be the mission of Misplaced Pages to support such efforts." MarkPrimack (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC) for more plese read Move form Arborsculpture to Tree shaping Blackash (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

A tricky one. Not sure what the overall name for tree shaping actually is. Am not familiar with the term tree shaping as such. Need to have a look at some of the surrounding articles as well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that editor 208.59.93.238 and 96.233.40.199 are one and the same person. They outed themselfs in the section Recap "Please note that this IP address and 96.233.40.199 are used by the same person." Blackash (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• WP:Sock seems to be yet another policy which Blackash claims to understand but of which no understanding is evidenced. Anyone interested (really? why would you be?) in this spurious accusation can refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/96.233.40.199.--208.59.93.238 (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Geier article being edited by multiple socks of Mark Geier

The talk page of this article:

• Mark Geier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

lists just some of the accounts Mark Geier has used to edit his own article:

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

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

• Justice2day (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Seidel,K (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

One of them was blocked for very abusive socking (impersonating one of his major critics). His use of these multiple accounts is a violation of the very basic principle of editing under one account. (Yes, there are specific exceptions allowed, but none of these are allowed exceptions. He's spreading his edit history and that's "avoiding the scrutiny of other editors".

This issue has been reported at BLP/N once before, but apparently nothing happened.

The edits are frequently deleted as very controversial, peacocky and self-promotional. It's a biography, not a resume, and there's a big difference. The worst infraction is removals of criticisms mentioning his dubious practices and "intellectually dishonest" testimony, etc.. What can be done about this? There are serious COI and sock issues involved. He (IOW all his accounts and IPs) should be topic banned from the subject. If allowed at all, he should be forced to edit under one account using his own name and be limited to the talk page. The abuse needs to stop. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit history of User:Justice2day speaks volumes. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Geier has no respect for Misplaced Pages policies, and has instead used it to promote himself, his dubious and dangerous ideas about autism and the vaccination controversy, and to whitewash his biography of properly sourced criticisms, thus violating our most sacred policy, NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the removal of Dr. Geier as a Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics is incorrect. It can be confirmed by any at the following link:

• http://www.acmg.net/source/members/cmemberdisplay.cfm?section=Find_a_Geneticist&id=1906

This is part of an endless effort by certain individuals to refuse to allow placement of acurrate details regarding Dr. Geier's qualifications on this entry. Those who are intentionally deleting accurate information regarding Dr. Geier have not respect for Misplaced Pages policies, and have instead attempted to use Misplaced Pages as a means to promote their attack agenda on Dr. Geier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice2day (talk • contribs) 02:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Geier, misuse of multiple accounts is forbidden here. You also have a colossal COI and shouldn't be editing your own biography. Use the talk page. If you aren't willing to follow the process of collaboration and consensus that rules here, your edits will be deleted like the edits of any other sockpuppet. While you should be treated fairly, you don't deserve any respect as your editing history here reveals you aren't here to edit an encyclopedia, but to promote yourself and your agenda. Your agenda can be presented neutrally, but you aren't doing that. Leave it to other editors who share your POV AND who also respect our policies. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, since what you mention is a content issue, I'm taking it to the talk page. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• In referring to himself in the 3rd person above, Justice2day seems to be denying sockpuppet charges. Ultimately IP checks and IP blocking might be the only way to deter what is -- IMO -- blatant and obvious POV, COI and SOCK violations. These sort of disruptions are despicable and those responsible deserve neither patience nor sympathy. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously wanting Justice2day blocked for having a sock that was indefinitely blocked 3 years ago? Not going to happen. For one thing, there was already an SPI run back then, for another, I think it's technically impossible to run a check on an account that hasn't edited for years. If the IPs do belong to Justice2day, there's no violation of WP:SOCK because sockpuppets are alternate accounts, and editors are allowed to edit anonymously as long as they aren't trying to gain false consensus by using an IP address in a discussion and pretending that the IP is a different person (as in an RFC or AFD). So there aren't any sockpuppet charges to deny. As to the COI, do you have anything to support your outing other than the fact that Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner? If you don't have any on-wiki confirmation that this is the same person, then I'm going to have to ask you to stop the accusations or risk being blocked. I may have to get an oversighter to remove your posts as well. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• Some of your comments are helpful and appreciated, but you end on a note I disagree with strongly. Dutiful editors consider it a responsibility to ferret out WP:COI where it exists. Sometimes editors can be overly enthusiastic in their anti-WP:COI efforts, and it’s good we have conversations in which our understanding of policies is discussed. As you note “Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner” an article which has had COI issues in the past. The fact that this has alarmed several Wikipedians shows that they care and that they are paying attention. The statement that these editors “risk being blocked” for voicing their suspicions seems entirely inappropriate at this time. Yes, at some point if someone persists in accusing someone of WP:Sock after the matter has been discussed appropriately, then the good guys do become the bad guys. That point hasn’t been reached, and editors need not fear they will be blocked for identifying (correctly or incorrectly) COI/Sock issues. I agree with you that due to the three years that have passed, we should not worry so much about COI/Sock as with the inappropriateness of the edits themselves. Thanks. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I don't care if you "disagree" or not. We have a harrassment policy on Misplaced Pages, and every time you post to the conflict of interest noticeboard you see the following information:

Before editing, please read:

When investigating possible cases of COI editing, Wikipedians must be careful not to out other editors.

Misplaced Pages's policy against harassment takes precedence over the COI guideline.

That must seem familiar to you because every time you post on this board it is prominently displayed at the top of the page. I'm going to try to get this oversighted to clear this out. -- Atama頭 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to post the following but had an edit conflict with User:Atama:

I need to ammend my comments. The outing policy is actually pretty specific and stringent, and User:Atama's comments make more sense to me now that I've reviewed that policy again (thanks for bringing that specific policy to our attention, Atama, sorry for my misfire.) Standing by my statement "we should not worry so much about COI/Sock as with the inappropriateness of the edits themselves", and recalling again Atama's statement that "Justice2day is a single-purpose account and is editing in a promotional manner”, User:Justice2day has no reason to celebrate. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've stricken my comment above based on this apology, no worries. -- Atama頭 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Christina Mendez

• Christina Mendez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unexperienced editor Christina Mendez is reverting the page to original form. Doesn't use wikilinks, but instead pastes the entire web link. Is utilizing copyright photos when I have warned him not to. Is making article look like a vanity page/resume. Adds links that look like wikilinks to Spanish Misplaced Pages article when I informed him this in English language Misplaced Pages edition. I have given him instructions on how to create wikilinks and also not to use copyright photos without permission. He reverts page after I made extensive grammar, structure and Misplaced Pages-related edits. Have removed external links and categories that have nothing to do with subject. Subject has ignored warnings. Also, I need opinion if subject is notable for Misplaced Pages article. Many Thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Christina is a "she".... -- Brangifer (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The user's original is Carlos. He changed it to Christina yesterday. Unless he's a transsexual, I am sure user is male.--XLR8TION (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

So are we dealing with sockpuppetry and misuse of multiple accounts to "avoid the scrutiny of other editors", COI, or what? -- Brangifer (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's sockpuppetry, just a confused editor (or possibly more than one).

• User:Christina Mendez last edited WP October 2008.
• User:Carlos5053 has recently edited the Christina Mendez article, but
  • User:Carlos5053 redirects to User:Christina Mendez and
  • User talk:Carlos5053 redirects to User talk:Christina Mendez
• Things became more confused when XLR8TION copied the contents of User talk:Christina Mendez to Talk:Christina Mendez.

Something is definitely funky here. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't get the impression that User:Carlos5053 has done anything sockpuppet-y except perhaps accidentally due to inexperience. I would concentrate on curbing this user's misuse of links and copyright photos. They seem to be editing in good faith, albeit not correctly. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have left a longer explanation of the confusion between the two accounts at User talk:Carlos5053#Confusion due to renamed account. This editor, presumably Christina, is now the owner of two accounts. I've undone the redirect between the two talk pages. I've recommended that she stop using User:Carlos5053, and am hoping for a response. Presumably, we still have a COI situation, even after we sort out the account confusion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I wouldn't presume User:Christina Mendez is the person discussed in the Christina Mendez article. I suspect instead that User:Carlos5053 is a fan of Christina Mendez and the "User:Christina Mendez" username reflects that. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation

There have been concerns about some of the editors at Transcendental Meditation are associated with this movement. User:Littleolive oil may be one user however I am unsure. Wondering about the appropriateness and how one would verify this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't that they're associated with the movement, it's that they are making non-neutral edits to promote the movement's POV and to minimize negative material. Using Misplaced Pages for advocacy is a problem.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It does not appear that this is a conflict of interest, per se, but rather someone who is passionate about the subject matter, and perhaps a fan. It does not appear to be a WP:SPA but they are editing in a non-neutral way, with bias/pov. And it appears that you have been in an edit war with the editor, including violating 3R yourself. I don't believe that WP:COIN is the best place to have this resolved. Try to continue to work it out on the talk page, or take a wikibreak from the page, and come back after a month of not even looking at the article. If edit warring continues, request page protection to help encourage an open discussion on the talk page. Failing that, please checkout WP:Dispute and then open a request over at WP:DRR. Good luck. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks tigger. Was recommended that I post here.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a neutral editor. Please, look at my edits, discussion of those edits, and especially their context to understand the editing environment. I can also, if necessary discuss and provide diffs to describe the agendas, biases, and harassment carried on by editors on the TM article pages, if that's needed. I am not an aggressive editor by nature, but enough is enough.(olive (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

The problems are more significant than can be seen from a cursory review and they concern a group of editors, not just one. Olive has repeatedly suggested taking this to the ArbCom and I'm afraid that she's probably right.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How often do editors come to to this Notice Board and again and again be told there is no problem, then again bring the same issues, the same editors back. How much in between times is an editor supposed to take of almost every day personal attacks, incivility, and constant claims that they're edits are COI edits no matter what the edits are. What is that called and is there a point where an editor has recourse to defend not only herself, but Misplaced Pages against editors whose biases and agendas will undo neutral collaborative editing processes. Do I want to bother ArbCom with this. No . Does this have to stop. Yes.(olive (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC))

I never said you did have a COI just that you "might". Was just inquiring about clarification on this matter. This is sometimes a concern with users who edit primarily on one topic.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Olive, what biases and agendas are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss that in a forum that is more appropriate for that kind of discussion, like ArbCom.(olive (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

Unless policies are being violated, biases and agendas aren't relevant to the ArbCom. In any case, it'd be hard to argue that folks at the Maharishi University of Management are free from bias on that topic.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not clearly see any COI, but rather a dispute which has lead to uncivil behavior. I highly recommend you open this at dispute resolution request, or Arbcom. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Tiggerjay, the details of the COI cannot be discussed openly here because the editor has requested that her previously disclosed personal information be kept private. However the problem of the COI still exists, and it concerns more than one editor. If you'd like more information I can contact you by email. However I don't think that there's likely to be a resolution of this problem on this or any other noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will to release personal information one will need to go through the proper channels. Well Tigger is here to help he is not an admin / checkuser which by the sounds of it would be required in a case such as thus. I was just hoping to get some clarification here on methods to verify COI. Now that I look back at the history I see that this has been brought here a number of times before as Olive mentions. I guess ARB might be what is required with arguments potential similar to those that involved Scientology?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many previous ArbCom cases that deal with advocacy, which is a violation of core polices. As I wrote above, COI isn't a problem in and of itself--the problem with COI editing is that it tends to include behaviors like POV pushing and other forms of advocacy. The reason that this issue keeps getting raised here by new editors is that it's never been resolved. I raised it with another editor, to try to make him see that his COI was apparent, but Olive stepped in to deny there was a problem. That kind of team behavior is another aspect of COI editing that's unhelpful to the project.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a new editor on the TM entries and it's obvious to me that there are multiple COI's going on, esp. if one looks at past history. It's obviously a very concerted effort. If something isn't done, these entries are compromised.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said. But what to do about advocacy in the project, when it takes the form of every content dispute being portrayed as a schism between "my side" and "those with the battleground mentality," to summarize a commonly seen dichotomy? If there is evidence that an editor has outside interests that undermine the neutrality of the encyclopedia, and yet people deny a COI exists, it seems to show that the problem is widespread and ill-adapted to being solved by policies that target one editor at a time. Blackworm (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues with a single editor can be addressed in an RFC/U, but I've never seen one that concerns six editors. There's no rule against it, though, so perhaps that's the next logical step.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the adamant insistence of the TM-Movement employed and/or affilitated editors that they are free to ignore the prior clear findings and directions from administrators that they are not to edits these articles, but instead confine themselves to the talk pages, I frankly have no idea what anyone is supposed to do about this untenable situation. Is a series of arbcom discussions, similar to the ones on Scientology-affilited editors leading to account, IP and topic bans the only way to bring sanity to these articles? Fladrif (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking for administrative action, instead of community assistance, you should post over at WP:ANI, but there is so much accusation of unstated or undefined edits, that you are really making resolution harder. It appears that the desire by both sides is for sanctions or disciple against the other party, instead of working to have the best article. Tiggerjay (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the previous postings here have resulted in clear comments from editors that the COI was a problem and that the editors should stop editing the articles directly, but that community input has been ignored by the involved editors.

Creating the best articles is the goal, but if a hardcore bunch of editors is parked on the article then any one-time effort to make the articles neutral will fail. I came across an example of this in regard to a reference to the song "Sexy Sadie" in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi biography. The song is on what is called one of the ten-greatest albums of all time, and it was written specifically about the Maharishi as a rebuke by one of his most famous disciples. Two uninvolved editors were concerned that it wasn't included in the article and after a long talk page discussion the "pro" editors agreed to include it. But a while later, and without explaining his actions, another "pro" editor came through and rewrote the section, again deleting the song. When I recently noticed the song missing and asked about it, the "pro" editors simply said it was deleted properly and I'd need to get their consent to restore it. So even if we succeed in bringing the articles into compliance with NPOV, etc, unless they are continuously monitored I don't think the edits will stick. That's another problem with COI editors - they are dedicated to their POVs and drive off or simply wait out the less-involved editors.   Will Beback  talk  02:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the editor Will is referring to here on the issue of the Sexy Sadie reference in the MMY article. He and I have been through this on the MMY article talk pages. I have demonstrated that I clearly followed good Wiki editing policy, putting a draft in a sandbox, requesting feedback and participation from editors, giving people time to respond, and moving material from a sandbox to a live article after a reasonable amount of time elapsed. What's all the fuss about? --BwB (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not the editor. If there was only one editor then this would be easier to solve. Several editors, all with apparent connections to the movement, have deleted this material. The uninvolved editors have all said it's an important detail to include. I don't see BwB giving his reason for deleting this fact, nor defending its repeated exclusion. Nor do I see anything that would make me believe it wouldn't be deleted again in the future. This is exactly the problem.   Will Beback  talk  14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that in your review of what happens some of the time. And are probably correct about it in regards to this article. However, I've been around here long enough to know that persistence pays off. The POV pushers will pop up every now and then, and you must constantly monitor the page, but the articles are a moving target anyways, there is no setting an article in stone. The best way is to not take it personally, or get too involved - that is when you need a break for your own sanity. But specific usage of page protection and editor blocking, along with consensus in the talk pages will go a long way. Another tool is to simply agree to remove controversial information - instead of fighting over which wording is more appropriate, simply don't include it. Edit warring makes these issues worse. Sometimes the best thing to do is to let the POV pushers have their way for a while - leave the article for a while, then after they've gotten it out of their systems, you can go back and make NPOV changes. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice for many COI/POV pushing problems. But since these editors have been working on this topic for over three years, and have collectively made about half of all edits to the articles, I don't think that those suggestions will work in this topic. If there are a team of editors who exert control over an article and its talk page, and who ignore outside input and engage in tendentious editing, then just letting them get it out of their system isn't an option. This is a topic that involves pseudoscience, fringe theories, and remarkable medical claims. If the advocates of those control Misplaced Pages articles then the entire project's reputation is harmed.   Will Beback  talk  04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, the information on Sexie Sadie is a mischaracterization of what happened, and it shocks me that after the number of times I tied in good faith to explain, that you still hold to a notion that has nothing to do with what really happened, and drag it out again like some old shoe. The assumption that editors are POV pushers is not fair but is based on more mischaracterization . I have no desire to go to ArbCom or to in any way have sanctions placed against any editor, and no editor here should assume that is the case. If people could stop making assumptions and just edit the damn articles, but I am dealing with editors who immediately deal with any edit that doesn't jive with their own opinions as if the edit is a non-neutral edit, and who assume their position gives them the right to attack. I will assume these bahaviours are based on preconceived notions, and deeply held biases or beliefs rather than being truly personal but they effect the project, and the articles. I am beyond tired of mischaracterization and incivility and being harassed. I can't see what else to do. I have never in my life dealt with the kinds of attacks and prejudices I have here, and I have dealt with some nasty situations. I won't take this to ArbCom myself , but if that's the next step I will lay out what I know and have. What is going on is bad for the articles and bad for Misplaced Pages, and it needs to stop. And yes, I did support an relatively inexperienced editor who was being confronted by an experienced admin in what I thought was an unfair way. I would do that for any editor.(olive (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

I don't think I'm mischaracterizing what happened. I don't know what you mean about me dragging it out again and again since I haven't mentioned it outside of the relevant thread. I don't know why people from the Transcendental Meditation movement keep coming here to delete the fact that Lennon wrote a song which rebuked the Maharishi. You deleted it twice yourself. (The second time with a misleading edit summary.) So did a user called Maharishi International Publications Department. (Did he or she have a COI?) So did an anon using an IP registered to the movement. No COI or POV-pushing there either? Removing relevant, well-sourced negative material that is presented with the neutral point of view is a form of POV pushing. Several otherwise uninvolved editors have discussed this exact issue, but the TM-related editors are still insisting that they improved the article by deleting it. Part of the problem with COI editing is that when we're too close to a topic we don't even realize we are pushing a POV, or what neutral means. As for myself, I assure you I have no prejudice against the movement but if you have evidence of that I'd be interested in seeing it. Making unsubstantiated allegations over and over is a form of harassment, so please either give your evidence or stop making the charge.   Will Beback  talk  05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are some previous examples of the same behavior:

I had these links posted to me:

. This one is the most recent. Then there is the issue of Meatpuppets/Sockpuppets, anonymous or otherwise, which is another problem altogether. --Kala Bethere (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The discussion concerning John Lennon, February 2008, in which I clearly state I have removed the Sexie Sadie content and why, mischaracterized above. This is not a sneaky removal as implied, but in context of a larger discussion. I, as well, add another quote as suggested by the editor. Please note this was BLP at the time, (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has since died), and part of the discussion played around concerns with text that was possibly in violation of a BLP.

We could say Lennon was clearly bitter about the split... which is supported by the interview (Lennon himself comments on it), without implying anything about timeline. Nandesuka (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nandesuka and TG. In reviewing the policy on biography of living persons I realized that material already in this section does not comply by Misplaced Pages standards. Since I recently did a pretty extensive rewrite of the section I felt this was in part my fault. The policy states:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

The information, in what was in the article until today, on John Lennon, seems to have no reference, and is in addition, given the later explanations of what happened at that time, to be merely sensationalist and not appropriate for any biography . Thanks to Nandesuak we now have a sourced comment that explains how Lennon felt. I quote directly, although Misplaced Pages does not encourage quotes I felt that we could be most accurate in this kind of article with a quote. I also left out reference to Sexy Sadie because I think the words imply wrongdoing and again we must do no harm. I think this provides a appropriate compromise to the dilemma of what to do with the new source Nandesuka provided, and the appropriateness of considering a time line in terms accuracy of the claims and material presented.(olive (talk)

As well, I did not accuse you or anyone specifically in terms of behaviour on the articles, and in fact you are a civil editor. I am referring to a general environment and the behaviours of other editors which I really don't want to get into here.

• • Since you bring up the recent Sexie Sadie issue, this is what happened.

• Sept26: BWB...Suggestion section is too long. Asks for comments. No comments

• Oct.8 :BWB...Advises he will rewrite. One comment to go ahead

• Oct 28, and Oct 30: BWB....Notifies of rewrite in sand box, twice asks for feedback . No comments,

• Nov 4: BWB....Notifies he has moved rewrite into main space. No comments

• Nov 23: Kbob... edits to satisfy concerns about controversy of the section

• Jan 14: Will Beback.... asks why Sexie Sadie section has been removed.

• Olive says multiple times she is fine with re adding the Sexie Sadie content, whatever her opinion is, if its fine with all editors.

• Today in the middle of this COI Kala Bethere suggests this on the Sexie Sadie thread referred to above.

"Will to flesh out the Sexie Sadie reference it might be helpful to include some quotes from one of the Maharishi's former close assistants, Conny Larsson, who in his book Behind the Mask of a Clown wrote "Maharishi’s sex life, for example, was extensive, to say the least. That a man in his position had a sex life I regarded as quite incongruous. As I had been very close to him I was often in charge of the key to his room, which he asked me on various occasions to hand over to one of the young ladies."--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The way in which BWB a relatively inexperienced editor was treated in this discussion was not in my opinion, appropriate, and I did defend BWB and the procedure he went through on the "Sexie Sadie" rewrite and discussion I felt he had made an honest attempt to get input on what he was doing. I did not edit the content in or out of the article, but agreed to go with whatever was decided by the other editors. Where is the COI editing here? For an obvious starter there was no editing.

And Will, I am in no way responsible for an IP, or something that comes from Maharishi International Publications Department, whatever that is, and I would assume you wouldn't make the mistake of making such an implied accusation, especially here.

And being brought to the COIN several times with out any evidence of COI, and this kind of statement that has come from multiple editors is harassment too. If more diffs of that kind of comment are needed, I can certainly supply them. There are lots.(olive (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

The fact that Keithbob agreed with BwB about the deletion is more evidence of the problem. And your view that the material could be restored "if its fine with all editors" is an indication that you thought doing so would need the consent of the "pro" TM editors, which is a curious view of how editing on Misplaced Pages should work. I don't think Olive is responsible for other editors, I was pointing out that this same material has been deleted repeatedly by accounts linked to the TM movement, and restored many times by editors with no such association. The problem is with editors linked to the TM movement advocating for that movement and pushing its POV. The problem is with the virtual ownership of the topic by TM-related editors who have made half of the edits to the articles about TM.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Kbob supported the deletion? How do you read that in, I checked the rewrite because the content is contentious. And Will you are insulting my integrity and honesty. Lets be clear. When I said I would go with the other editors that's what I meant. I have no history of doing what you suggest, so why would you say such a thing? I find your comment incredibly disturbing and have no idea what one does in such an online forum when this kind of untruth is passed around as it its a given fact. (olive (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC))

Olive, I don't think I've ever said you are dishonest. What untruth are you talking about?   Will Beback  talk  00:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Little Olive Oil I have no intention to harass you, nor do I believe do other editors; it's simply that other editors claim COI, gave a reason for it and when you are asked you do not answer. I certainly have zero interest in outing you, but am interested in having the best editing we can on this topic.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

BWB is an inexperienced editor in need of your protection and defense? With over 6700 edits? If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a personal attack; I suspect that if I said such a thing, you would eagerly accuse me of incivility for maliciously maligning BwB. Moreover, I am utterly mystified as to what in all of this you regard as involving mistreatment of BwB by other editors. Fladrif (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of BWB's edits until recently were copy edits... this was a first time use of sandbox and rewrite, as I remember, and since I remember being in that position myself I know that it requires some learning and understanding. Sorry, Fladrif i'm not going to get into a wrangle here on who I can and cannot support. I've supported Will to for his extensive addition of content on the TM article, too. I've said how I see things. The thread is available for anyone who wants to look at it, and can be interpreted in any way you want. That's all I have to say.(olive (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

You can support whomever you want. You and I agree and support each other more frequently than either of us might imagine. But, I have read the thread, and I understand both from what you posted there and your statement above that you believe that BwB was not treated appropriately. But, I have no idea from any of your posts what the basis for that belief may be, nor what conduct and statements from other editors you think was inappropriate toward him.Fladrif (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The last time this came to COIN Atama concluded that it was a content dispute and suggested that it's healthy to have editors with opposing views involved: " I've always felt that it is actually healthy for people with opposing POVs to work on an article, as long as they are willing to collaborate constructively. -- Atamachat 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)" I think it can safely be said that Doc James himself has a strongly held point of view. Evidence includes his Arbcom restriction and edits such as this where he deletes a 2006 randomized controlled trial published by the AMA and conducted by independent researchers and then a few days later adds material sourced to a blog.. TimidGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, maybe it was an error to leave out the Sexy Sadie stuff in the rewrite. My mistake. Nobody added any comment at the time. when I invited them to participate. It was overlooked for several weeks before Will caught it and made a big issue out of it. I think the Sexy Sadie stuff is back in the article now. Wiki is a fun process. --BwB (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all Timid please read WP:MEDRS. Consensus for my edits may be found here and along with a number of other places. So my POV is that we should follow wiki policy. The papers you provided are primary sources. They are not to be used especially in a controversial topic like this. I am an expert in medical literature having my profession on my user page. I edit on over a 1000 different pages. Have brought a controversial articles to GA Obesity. I do edit on a number of very controversial topic and have been accused of all sorts of things. Please see WP:V and remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Tim is that you who has commented there btw http://spacecityskeptics.wordpress.com/2009/01/07/how-to-design-a-positive-study-meditation-for-childhood-adhd/? Would be happy to discuss the merits of this page on the talk page. BTW my ARB com restriction has expired and if it had not had nothing to do with this topic but pertained to ADHD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:TimidGuy ] and User:Littleolive oil ] seem to be WP:SPA. I have read evidence that TM actively sends out teachers to edit the internet to get the right point of view about there organization across. I have serious concerns about the distortion of the medical literature. As was as concerns of WP:COI.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The forum shopping that olive and TG engage in to try to avoid the clear directives of three separate administrators not to edit the TM-related articles, and the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT insistence that somehow that never happened or, even if it did, can be ignored is unacceptable.

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, DurovaCharge! 02:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova posted: "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 meditation-related articles."

Given that this is the Conflict of interest noticeboard, a response like "Not sure why you're making this point" is not straightforward and intelligent. This section is about editors, you for example, and in fact you in particular, with, yes, clear and immediate conflict of interest issues which it would behoove you to take seriously. It is not about Mason's (or anyone else's) book.

Misplaced Pages does not need another ream of paragraphs out of you, it needs you editing neutrally or not at all. No more long diatribes, no more changing the subject, no more disingenuity and smokescreens, capisce?

This section alone is already over 56 kilobytes. Enough, already. — Athænara ✉ 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the policies and guidelines, the relevant WP:COI guidelines calls on editors with conflicts that affect their impartiaility to avoid editing directly. Back in 2007, user TimidGuy was given clear direction on this page to stop editing directly. It isn't clear to me why he chose to ignore that direction, and why Littleolive oil, who is apparently similarly situated, also choses to ignore the guideline. I'd like to hear why they think it is necessary for them to keep editing the relate articles directly rather than making suggestions from the talk page as called for. Unless there is a strong reason to ignore the guideline, I think it should be respected. Will Beback talk 09:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI calls upon editors to behave in a certain way. There is evidence that you have not followed that guideline. If there is no evidence to the contrary, I will move that both editors with COIs be asked to comply with the guideline, in this case by not editing TM-related articles. Will Beback talk 04:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The WP:COI noticeboard is the place to discuss this. The guideline calls on conflicted editors to not edit in their areas of conflict so it's incumbent on you to show why you've done so anyway. Will Beback talk 05:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see that, after our discussion on WP:COI, that you are making edits which promoted a particular POV regarding TM. I urge you to seek consensus on the talk page and avoid making edits directly to the article except in cases of vandalism. As I explained on the article talk page, this is not a clear-cut case. Promoting one view by deleting another isn't consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies on NPOV. Will Beback talk 22:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Enough already. This keeps coming up again and again because the conflicted editors simply ignore it again and again, to the dismay of anyone who has looked at these articles for any length of time, and to the astonishment of anyone who comes to the articles with a fresh eye. Fladrif (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Fladrif, as in the last two COI cases you do not present any kind of argument that shows editors have had restrictions placed on them. And Will Beback's position on this holds no more weight than any other editor right now as he is a editor highly involved in both the editing, and contentious issues. I see also you completely ignore Atama's comments in favour of accusations.(olive (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC))

One of the reasons I got involved in the topic was that it had unresolved COI, POV, and ownership problems. When I made those comments I was not involved.   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. If that isn't a textbook example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I don't know what is! You seriously can read what Durova, Athænara and Will posted at COIN and your own talk page and say that no one ever told you and TimidGuy to not edit the TM-related articles but to instead confine yourselves to the Talk Pages? As for maligning Will, and claiming that he can be ignored, as he points about above, when he was active at COIN and told you and TimidGuy to conform to the decisions previously made by Durova and Athænara, he was not involved at the TM articles. I didn't ignore Atama's comments - I pointed out that your attempt to rely on Atama's comments is nothing but forum-shopping on your part. You are not a neutral editor. You do not follow Misplaced Pages policy on the TM-related articles. I would venture that you do genuinely believe that you are neutral and follow those policies, but that belief is so warped by your COI that it is nothing more than an article of faith having no basis in fact or reality and which no evidence to the contrary can shake. The diffs in the prior COIN discussions and above prove the contrary to anyone not so blinded. Fladrif (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And, I might point out that, Atama was not an administrator as of the time those comments were made, so, you can hardly claim that those comments could have trumped the direct instructions of three different administrators. Fladrif (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Now Doc James (whose six-month restriction for edit warring has just recently expired) has again deleted the 2006 study published by the AMA and reinserted the material into the article sourced to a blog. Okay, let's test WP:COI. I should be able to request a neutral editor to make a change to the article: I hereby request that a neutral editor remove the material sourced to a blog. I would also point out that of the editors posting here, Fladrif is the one who has been persistently disruptive. He's been blocked three times and has been given innumerable 3RR warnings, and isn't above violating 3RR. He's been warned so often that he frequently warns other editors not to warn him when he's at 3RR. And Will. To his credit he noted on the TM Talk page that Space City Skeptics is a blog and said it shouldn't be used. But would he ever revert such material? No. I can't remember an instance where he has deleted material that was put in by an editor whose point of view is aligned with his own. And in regard to Durova's comment, it's taken out of context, of course. And Aethenara also took my comment out of context. I would point out that in that particular COIN action, Dseer posted 6,000 words of accusations. How many mainspace diffs did he include? Zero. Both Ed Johnston and Durova told Dseer that he needed to present evidence. Durova told him that if he thought he had a case the next step would be an RfC or Arbcom, but that he must be sure to present evidence. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear colleague: The article talk page is the right the place to request edits of that type. The material that falls under WP:MEDRS is a special case and this isn't the forum for addressing it. As for the blog, that's an obvious case and I've already expressed my view that we shouldn't use it. I've deleted it now and I'll delete it again if it reappears. It's interesting that you raise the issue of alignment between editors. It's a topic on my mind right now in regard to this topic and COI. I'd like to ask again, with a sincere view towards resolving this finally, that all current and former members of the movement desist from editing the articles actively. They're good enough already.   Will Beback  talk  13:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would expect no less from TimidGuy. Avoid the issue? Check. Ad hominem attacks? Check. Try to change the subject? Check. Obfuscate, obfuscate, obfuscate? Check. Check. Check. Conform his editing behavior to the unequivocal direction of three different admistrators at COIN? No way. Fladrif (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of were a number of editors IPs originate from can be found here I second Will request to have all editors who are associated with TM desist from editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nthellworld

• Template:Cableforum - aka nthellworld.com this article is a clear case of conflict of interest. The people who run the organisation also created the article and guard it for any changes they don't like.

This is an ongoing issue which is easily revealed by looking at the history of the article.

Furthermore, the supposedly consumer group for Cable users in the UK is populated by people who themselves have a conflict of interest.

When I last attempted to edit the page I started receiving anonymous threats by email.

Some of the threats contained my full home address - I have no idea where they got it from, possibly from my past membership of their forum.

They will of course deny all this, but I kept all the email threats on file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.129.67 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Nthellworld. If you are getting person threats it is best to report them here Misplaced Pages:ANI. Get more traffic by admins who can help resolve issues.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the article being discussed is Nthellworld. A redirect called Cable Forum points to it. I changed the title of this COI report accordingly. Here are the article links:

• Nthellworld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking over the article history of Nthellworld, I see only three edits by anyone in the last 12 months and they are all of a minor nature. So I don't see "an ongoing issue which is easily revealed by looking at the history of the article." Where exactly is the abuse? A complaint about the Nthellworld article being biased was raised on the talk page at Talk:Nthellworld back in early 2007, but it did not continue past that time. Someone who was very discontented with Nthellworld did raise some COI complaints on Talk, and they were reminded of our policy on WP:Original research. The Nthellworld.com site, despite its free-spirited name, is owned by one of the major media companies in the UK so it would hardly be expected to be a beacon of independence. EdJohnston (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Incoming paid article

• Confidence FX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ClearQuest Biosciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See MER-C 03:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been watching out for that one for a few days now. Nice to see others doing the same. ThemFromSpace 04:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A pox on them. --96.233.40.199 (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have them on my watchlist too, so if and when they are created I'll be available. -- Atama頭 19:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Aubrey de Grey

• Aubrey de Grey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An IP editor, 212.183.140.52 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), stating that he is the subject, made several changes to this biography. I reverted, asking for talk page discussion, and placed a personal COI notice on the IP's talk page. The user reverted back. A discussion (IP and I) has begun on the talk page. I don't wish to be a bully and would certainly appreciate the continued involvement of this editor. Since I have in the past made several edits with which this individual apparently disagrees, advice from other users would be helpful. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Although editing one's own articles is not forbidden by Misplaced Pages, I really hate the idea of people doing this and I approach this question with an instant emotional bias against Aubrey de Grey's edits of the Aubrey de Grey article. I was therefore surprised to find de Grey's edit's almost acceptable. Replacing "scientific community" with "Some sections of the scientific community" isn't bad because the community isn't monolithic (although I think "sections" rather than "some sections" is a better word choice...the "some" seems to minimalize it). The way in which mention is made of the SENS Foundation's signed endorsement is problematic as the endorsement of de Grey's own cadre shouldn't really be presented as a counterbalance to the prevailing opinion. Mention of that endorsement made elsewhere in the article seems okay to me. Elsewhere de Grey replaces "a critical article in MIT's Technology Review" with "two highly critical editorials accompanying an article". Here he seems to be both clarifying what format the text in question appeared and (perhaps surprisingly?) letting us know that the folks at MIT think even less of him than the first word choice indicated. Elsewhere he has replaced "validity of the de Grey's theories on aging" with "legitimacy of de Grey's proposals for combating aging." This latter word choice is probably more appropriate, and the difference is relatively minor, but I believe that a person named in the article should not be the one determining these verbal nuances. In summary, I don't think de Grey has done much harm with these edits and with a little additional tweaking (by someone besides de Grey) the alternative content/word choices can remain. Conversely, since there was nothing about these edits which was urgent, factually vital, or otherwise really necessary, I feel that de Grey should have resisted the urge to make what even he characterizes as "trivial corrections." I do commend de Grey for revealing that he is the one who made these IP edits as we probably wouldn't have known otherwise. De Grey asked for a discussion of this matter via email. My guess is this wasn’t a shady attempt to keep the discussion public but rather indicates a degree of unfamiliarity with Misplaced Pages culture. If de Grey is unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages culture then I also embrace the “no hard feelings” attitude User:Keepcalmandcarryon seems to express towards de Grey and definitely thank de Grey for his efforts. It is people who have been versed on WP:COI but who maintain a “oh but my edits are NPOV” that are tumors poisoning our best efforts. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Dr. de Grey. I thank you both for your balanced remarks and your toleration of a Misplaced Pages newbie. Three brief points, of which the last is the most important:

- Concerning resisting the urge, I only made the trivial edits because I was anyway making the non-trivial edit to the first paragraph.

- The Technology Review edit clarifies what is already noted more accurately in the Technology Review Controversy article.

- I think you misunderstand the mention of the endorsement by SENS Foundation's RAB: it was only out of modesty that I did not mention in my edit the fact that the RAB members are not just my own cadre, but are at least as credentialed in scientific fields relevant to SENS as the authors of the EMBO Reports article (as can be seen from their one-line affiliations at the referenced page). Accordingly, their opinion does indeed entirely counterbalance the skeptical one, and any new edit that you or others may make would be wrong to remove this implication. I think it's fair to say that the neutrality of any article's first paragraph is particularly important and that lack of it is not adequately excused by compensatory text lower down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.164.81 (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was being a little bit playful in chosing the word "cadre" but as de Grey is a co-founder of SENS Foundation the structure of that part of the article should still be changed per the reasons I stated earlier. They might be very respected scientists, but they are still a relatively small group who count de Grey himself among them. If opinion about the validity of anti-aging methods was split down the middle that would be one thing, but as I understand it the majority of the sci community rejects much of de Grey's ideas for various reasons, right or wrong (scientific conservatism, paradigms shift slowly, etc.) I agree that the article should not give undue attention to de Grey's detractors, especially in the intro paragraphs, as long as the article is crystal clear about the fact that the majority of the sci community doesn't accept de Grey's ideas if that is the case. Right now sentences like "Some sections of the scientific community have expressed skepticism of de Grey's claims" (emphasis added) are muddling this. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
• Your logic would be compelling if there existed evidence to buttress your view that the SENS skeptics greatly outnumber the SENS supporters, but the RAB is in fact merely a selection. Support for the legitimacy of the SENS approach has been growing (and skepticism withering) rapidly since the "skeptical" article and the Estep-led entry to the Technology Review challenge were written (2005 and 2006), to the point where I am quite sure that it is the skeptics who are now outnumbered. (The RAB "statement of principles" is only a year old.) If you know of evidence to the contrary, I would be interested to hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.164.81 (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Note my statement "as I understand it the majority of the sci community rejects much of de Aubrey's ideas for various reasons" is open to correction. However if publications coming out of MIT -- by far one of the world's most respected scientific insitintuition -- give no credence to de Grey's claims let's see some good evidence that it is the "skeptics who are now outnumbered." --208.59.93.238 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• MIT Technology review does not "come out of MIT": it is (to quote Misplaced Pages) a magazine published by Technology Review, Inc, a media company owned by MIT. More importantly, the critical editorials (which were written by the editor and his staff, not by scientists, and which are worth a read if you want to understand the passion underlying the attacks being made on SENS at that time) gave rise to such a wave of reader protests that the magazine chose to run the "SENS Challenge" to answer the question once and for all. The outcome of that exercise is well documented on another Misplaced Pages page, and constitutes rather strong evidence that even back in 2005/6 the only skeptics who were willing to put their logic where their mouths were were in fact unable to mount a persuasive case. Also, who is this "de Aubrey"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.32 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed "de Aubrey" to "de Grey" in the text of my previous post. Apologies for the typo; if I missed any occurrences of this error I give blanket permission for anyone to correct them. My main point: Someone besides de Grey should be the one arguing for how well or how little excepted de Grey's theories are. The fact that this conversation is happening between de Grey and me, rather than between two Wikipedians whose first interest is Misplaced Pages, is a bad thing. Of course Misplaced Pages policies allow de Grey to participate, but not just because something isn't forbidden doesn't mean it's good. We should all recuse ourselves from discussion of articles about our selves, our companies, etc. Heck, three years ago I wrote an article about a notable 18th century person and I still feel a little "dirty" about it because he happens to be my ancestor. My intent was to comment on WP:COI issues and I'm not the appropriate person to assess how well de Grey is received in the scientific community. Neither is de Grey the appropriate person to make this assessment, so further conversation between the two of us on this matter is inappropriate and pointless. Best wishes on your work, Dr. de Grey, it seems very interesting and valuable. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rtol

User Rtol has a conflict of interest, and a problem with BLP with respect to the Rajendra K. Pachauri article. He has written an op-ed calling for this living person to resign his position, and is now attempting to use wikipedia to further his goal.

The following is in date order:

• Rtol states he is Richard Tol on his user page.
• first post by Rtol on the issue - states that "It is significant, because Pachauri may well have to resign if the allegations would be true."
• German op-ed on the issue by Richard Tol. I don't speak german.
• Rtol links to the german op-ed, stating it is the "First call for Pachauri's resignation in a major, by an academic, not anonymous" There is no note that he is the author.
• Rtol notes Richard Tol wants to have RKP removed.
• KDP notes Rtol is an author of the oped.
• Rtol notes he "should not be involved in debating whether should be reflected in Pachauri's article."
• MN states that Rtol should have said he was a co-author.
• Rtol notes that he was aware his peice would be publishd on Jan 24 around noon. (non responsive?)
• WMC calls Rtol's pushing the piece and not mentioning he signed it "very poor faith," and calls the whole thing "tawdry."
• Rtol states his opinion was clear for all to see.
• Rtol states that the reason he did not mention he was the author of the piece before it was published was that "I never write about unpublished material." He further states that WMC should provide evidence of someone else's bias.
• Rtol adds others who called for resignation to a list he curates.
• continues to refer to himself in the third person.

Given that Rtol cannot recuse himself from the debate that he stated he should recuse himself from, I suggest he be recused from the debate by force. I would ask that he be topic banned from Rajendra K. Pachauri, and certainly all of his future contributions should be carefully reviewed to determine if they are unduly self-promotional, and in sync with our policies. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, could you possibly simplify this for those (like me) who might like to opine but are too lazy or stupid to really digest the whole conversation that has happened so far? Do I understand correctly that the primary point of contention is that User:Rtol would like to introduce certain criticisms published in Daily Telegraph but that you feel he should not be the one to decide whether the Daily Telegraph article is important enough to mention or not because he's the co-author of said article? --208.59.93.238 (talk) 22:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Anon ip guy, it was in der spiegal not the telegraph. This call for a topic ban is massively wrong, richard has not taken part in the debate to include new text since he removed himself from the debate, just so there would be no COI. All he has done since then is add new links and answer a question which kim asked. He has done noting wrong here and calling for a topic ban is ridiculous. Hippocrate`s above timeline is also wrong, as i pointed out to him already. He has chosen to ignore that and uses the same timeline here. If necessary i will provide the diffs to prove it.--mark nutley (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark, it is incorrect that Tol hasn't involved himself since i asked. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: Not a single diff presented by Hipocrite or Kim is an article edit - they are all from the talk page. RTol has indicated he will no longer edit Pachauri's article, now that he has written about him publicly. Talk page edits are not forbidden by COI. In fact, from WP:COI: "Remember: an editor with a self-evident interest in the matter turning up on the talk page is an indication that they are playing it straight. Even if the changes they advocate are hopelessly biased, treat them with respect and courtesy, refer to policy and sources, and be fair."

This request should be closed. If Tol edits the article (as opposed to the article talk), this can be revisited. ATren (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trying to influence a WP:BLP article in a certain direction, in a conflict where you are an direct active participant is to me a significant conflict of interest. But i agree that WP:COI doesn't mention this particular circumstance. But i do think that the BLP concerns combined with the COI is very problematic. We are talking about trying to push a BLP out of Office. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors with potential COI are encouraged to reveal themselves and participate on talk pages. That's what RTol has done. There is no COI here. ATren (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And the fact that William M. Connolley now entered the discussion, accusing other people of COI, says it all. --bender235 (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the "conflict of interest". I wish the IPCC defined COI as strictly as Misplaced Pages does. I have not edited Pachauri's page since I decided to go public with my call for his resignation. I have no intention to edit his page. In my mind, this procedure is just another tactic to further delay an update of Pachauri's paper with recent events that have been reported by just about every newspaper in the world. Richard Tol (talk) 06:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no harm in delay. Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper and we'll present the facts once we know what they are. The problem here is that you seem to have been abusing Misplaced Pages to advance your opinion that Pachauri should resign. Your argument that you haven't actually edited the article doesn't change the fact that you have tried to build up the appearance that there is a general call for Pachauri's resignation. Since you yourself are one of the few people who have made this call, there is a potential problem for Misplaced Pages in your doing so. --TS 11:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The facts are that there have been calls for Pachauri's resignation which have been reported everywhere but on Misplaced Pages. Richard Tol (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening. (a) this isn't a newspaper and (b) it is irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your COI. Whether you are *right* or not is also irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(That comment is not by me.) WMC: I accept that I have a COI in this case, and I have not made any edit to Pachauri's page since. I did that of my own accord, before this bogus accusation was made by Hypocrite. I do note, however, that the silliness that is going on here seems to detract from the discussion on a balanced and accurate article on Pachuari. Richard Tol (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you refer to this case as bogus? You acknowledge a conflict of interest and here again you are using even this page to advance your case against Pachauri. --TS 11:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

@RT: you have a COI. That extends a little bit further than editing the page, though. As someone with a COI (and, in this case and other related matters, as someone with valuable opinions to contribute which we should encourage, and I do) you should be contributing *facts* to the talk page, but leaving discussion and interpretation to others William M. Connolley (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

COI does not forbid talk page discussion. He has a right to make arguments, just like all the pro-AGW POV pushers do on the GW pages. ATren (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As I read it, WP:COI specifically allows editors with a potential conflict of interest to present their case in the talk page. There, Tol's ability to influence the article will be limited by the soundness of his arguments. Frankly, I think this whole thing is an unnecessary distraction. J. Langton (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gorgi

Autobiography by Gorgikalpakidis (talk · contribs). I gave him an autobiography welcome message when I discovered it and tagged the article. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Central Washington University

Centralwashu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This editor is editing Central Washington University and I think the COI potential is obvious. I dropped a note on his or her page but received no response. Can someone else take a look at this and perhaps try talking to him or her, too? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Promotion of WASA Architects

740Broadway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WASA Architects is located at 740 Broadway, New York City. The user's edits, example here, promote this firm. CliffC (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary Goldschneider

I'd appreciate it if someone could tone down the commercialism and promotion in this biography - it seriously needs that. - Biruitorul 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Theserialcomma and Tucker Max

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

Now that Theserialcomma has effectively "outed" themselves, I would appreciate it if some uninvolved editors and administrators with BLP experience would have a close look at her edits to Tucker Max. Theserialcomma aka 'V' has a long history of bashing Tucker Max on her blog as Tucker Max writes a competing blog with a similar "rant-like" style.
While I am uninvolved in anything related to Tucker Max, his blog, and had never even heard of him until I discovered Theserialcomma's blog and edits to the BLP article, because I have been the victim of both off-wiki and on-wiki harassment from Theserialcomma for months, I do not wish to become any more involved in matters relating to the Tucker Max article other than posting this notification of Theserialcomma's COI.
Thanks! --Tothwolf (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am coming here as an administrator reading WP:AE#Tothwolf. The above request appears to be an allegation that Theserialcomma (talk · contribs) has another identity (on- or offwiki?) as "V", but does not provide any evidence for this. Taking into account Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Allegations against other editors, which held that "Tothwolf has made allegations of misconduct against other editors without substantiating them, and without pursuing relevant dispute resolution in cases where substantiating the allegations could not be done publicly", and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Tothwolf restricted, which states that "Should Tothwolf make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tothwolf may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below", I am blocking Tothwolf for 48 hours as an arbitration enforcement measure pursuant to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf#Enforcement.  Sandstein  08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution