User talk:Willscrlt/MEDCAB/Cases/2006-12-28 Insider201283 and Will Beback re Alticor, Amway, Quixtar issues/Archive 4

Insider's responses
Now, regarding COI, there seems to be some commentary from others trying to "prove" I have a COI. This is pointless, since I've always admitted a COI. My view of this is exactly the same as expressed by admin Jossi - "You are welcome to edit articles, just you need to be extra cautious with your edits and So, as long as you have your research straight, and you add material that is backed up by such sources, you will be OK".

When Jossi became aware that the admin in question was User:Will_Beback they ceased to discuss the matter further and just said to listen to his directions. A review of various talk records show they are well known to each other and thus have an element of COI in providing such advice. Again, I stand on my editing record. User:Will_Beback has falsely claimed I've made dozens of links to my own site, which is false. There has actually been no substantive criticism of my actual editing. My additions are backed up with sources and removals explained. In my view User:Will_Beback has no justification in the direction to cease editing the articles. If a user is editing in good faith and following WP:RS and WP:NPOV in those edits, then as jossi stated their editing should be OK as long as they are following the guidelines. I think perhaps Will_B has erred in assuming that any edit that is "positive" or removal of informatio that is "negative" is by definition POV, whether the edits themselves confirm to WP:RS and WP:NPOV or not.

The ultimate aim is for Wikipedia to have accurate, sourced, encyclopedia-like articles, is it not? The ultimate question is whether I am contributing to that are not? Again, I stand on my overall editing record. If it can be demonstrated otherwise, please do so. Will BeBack provided a list of my edits on my Talk page up till November and claimed I was primarily promoting my site and reducing or removing critical material. As you can see if you actually look at the edits, the great majority of "instances of me adding my site" were reverts to deletions of the link while POV "critics" sites were allowed to remain. I never deleted POV sites while adding mine. The other major "linking" item is reversion to constant deletion of a sourced section on the FTC position, where a copy of the PDF letter was linked to. So virtually all instances of me "linking to my own site" are actually the same two edits, the second of which was valid as a "convenience link" and which I removed myself when it was no longer directly relevant to the article. You'll also note removal of positive stuff about N21 and addition of negative stuff about Amway (eg found guilty in FTC case). later I removed positive claims about XS Energy drink sales, even though sourced, because I've investigated and found the source is questionable.

Any removal of materials was because it was false and unsourced. If these edits were not correct, why have they not been challenged or the information readded? The edits and descriptions are below. Apart from ignoring the prohibition to adding your own site, which I was unaware of, I stand by these edits, though some of the earlier ones I could have done a better job of, primarily rewording and properly sourcing the N21 article. You'll also notice my numerous attempts in a number of articles to try to achieve a good faith consensus. Since the edits Will_B posted I have been even more careful in my editing, and contrary to his claims have submitted all edits I think are necessary that could be contentious in to the Talk pages. Check My contributions over the last few weeks and you'll see virtually everything is in Talk, stuff that isn't has primarily been adding tags requesting claims in articles be sourced and NPOV. Furthermore I've pointed out to Will_B on his talk page that continued additions of the POV site amquix.info are by the owner of that site. Will_B never replied.

Here's the list of links to my edits Will_B provided, and a summary. Judge for yourself.


 * October 2006

Added my own site to the Quixtar article, I'm now aware that is not to be done. The site is not a blog, though there is a blog on it, there is much sourced factual and multimedia material. I believe it passes muster as a relevant external link. Removed a site that was solely a blog, which I believed from my starting wikipedia education did not pass muster. The site has not been reaccepted, so my judgement was apparently correct. Added my own site to the Amway article, as above I'm now aware this shouldn't have been done. I believe though it passes muster as a relevant external link.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * September 2006

Added some factual information re John Maxwell, who was already mentioned. The edit remains and has not been challenged, so is also apparently acceptable. Looking now with my greater experience, it should be linked to the ISBN number. truthaboutquixtar site had been removed, if this was considered unacceptable, amquix.info shouldn't be included either, so I removed it for balance. I did not readd thetruthaboutquixtar Article re googlebombing. This is the start of a battle I pretty much gave up on, as mentioned earlier. A Quixtar critic wrote a blog post saying a Quixtar IBO claimed he heard a Quixtar IBO leader say that "they" were googlebombing and the blog interpreted this as meaning Quixtar had admitted googlebombing. If you understand the business model you'll know that an IBO stating they were doing something does not mean the company is doing it. Unfortunately a journalist friend of the blogger wrote an article based on the blog post. Despite Quixtar explicitly denying google bombing this particular "fact" has been repeated and persists. Since the journalist wrote about it, Wikipedia considers it factually sourced, and the internet echo chamber has emphasised its "truth". I at least got the article clear of the most egregious claims. This went to mediation. more google bomb stuff more google bomb stuff truthaboutquixtar.com had been removed from external links, readded it. amquix etc critic POV sites still there. Added some sourced information on the FTC's position re "internal consumption", providing balance to some false claims. Despite what has been said, this was not a link to my site per se, it is a link direct to the PDF of the FTCs letter Removed some dead links. Removed two irrelevant links, not even about amway Will_B has listed this twice. Was removal of dead links Removed spam of self-published POV site
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * October 2006

truthaboutquixtar link removed, so readded for balance, amquix and others were still there. Still not aware of prohibition on adding link to own site. removed the googlebombing reference. Source was a blog in violation of WP:RS and as pointed out above, based on false understanding. Wasn't even Amway accused anyway. reworded a link about the googlebombing to make it less POV and more factual reworded googlebombing article to try and achieve consensus continuing the googlebomb battle. Informed that if a journalist reports it as fact, it's fact! :-/ continuing the googlebomb battle. Independent Patriot had removed all 3rd party POV-type sites in support of Amway, so I did the same with the critic sites. Should have both or neither. Continued the above clearing of all POV sites from external links
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * November 2006

Removed a completely false and unsourced POV claim from the N21 article. Some rewording of N21 article for clarity and change to proper company name Added a section to "endorsements" of a video hosted on my site. My reading of the guidelines said not to link direct to Youtube, and the site also provided a partial transcript and summary. I was still not aware of the prohibition on linking to ones own site. above was deleted, so I readded More cleaning up of N21 article, nothing new added Minor rewording and removed a small section with nothing but self-published POV webbook as source. Minor clarification and tidying up. Removed some incorrect unsourced POV stuff Readded the FTC position that had been removed by Independent Patriot. It's valid as a "convenience link". Readded again after Independent Patriot removed it. And again. And yet again. And again. Independent Patriot challenging it purely on the basis the PDF is hosted on my site. He does it again. deleted again by Independent Patriot. Readded and text reworded to address some concerns of Will_Beback Reworded the whole section removing all POV in order to achieve consensus. This included removing the link to the PDF hosted on my server NPOV rewording False POV stuff addressed by FTC letter had been readded in a different way, so back goes in the FTC letter Removed a duplicate sentence re average income - already in the article Readded some text that had been removed. Removed some POV stuff and duplicate income claims again. reorganizing of article Removed duplicate income claims again. It's in the article already, Quixtar publishes it and by law supplies it to all IBOs. Someone keeps adding in as "Dateline revealed!". :-/ Removed unsourced POV section. NPOV rewording. further NPOV rewording Removed some spam and a N21 highly POV claim (note this was a positive claim I removed) Removed some Original Research Original research readded, so I did some sourcing and reworded it to hopefully bit fit wikipedia standards Turned it in to a footnote where I believed it belongs. reverted removal of footnoting - latter gave up the fight, still think should be in a footnote Added some "In the News" articles I'd become aware of clarified a link description Added info on Amway being found guilty of price fixing in FTC case Reverted stuff re FTC position, which IP had again deleted, reworded to address concerns of Will Beback.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

All of my "removals" remain. Most of my rewording and other edits remain, if not it's because the whole section was removed. If my edits are so POV, Will_B, why are they left to stand? I can tell you why - because I'm attempting to generate factual sourced articles and these are previously extremely POV articles. The Amway one still is, as I have outlined in Talk. Despite numerous requests in talk, the great majority of issues have not been addressed, and unsourced POV claims remain.

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

That's pretty much where I am at regarding the WP:COI guideline. --Insider201283 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Will_Bebacks's responses
I'm not tied to any particular process. I do not think, though, that a review should be limitd to the three of us. There are editors who have shown they have a clearly negative viewpoint on the topic, and unless we bring in at least one such viewpoint then the review can't include all significant viewpoints. Whether a review proceeds formally or informally dosn't matter to me.
 * WS Both parties feel an in-depth review of the articles in question would probably be beneficial, as do some of the outside comments I've seen. Will appears to favor a more formal process, while Insider fears that such broad input, especially at this point in time, would do more harm than good because there is a lot of bad information out there that would likely be added back into the articles.

I don't think that past actions are relevant to the inclusion of external links and sources. I thought we had a rough consensus on what sources to include and exclude.
 * WS On the matter of external links, specific editing decisions, and so on, I'm not sure that there is really any consensus yet. One option is to reopen old wounds and examine specific actions, but it is my feeling that such actions might be more harmful to good will, than simply moving on and establishing new, better rapport in the future editing and reviewing efforts.

Clearing the air is a good thing. This mediation has been helpful.
 * WS It doesn't seem that we have really done much yet, except vent some feelings in an open and safe environment with a commitment to thoroughly listen to each other; however, it seems that there is a sense of hopeful optimism that this will resolve amicably if we can get past a few remaining sticking points and then develop some new history through working together.

Wikipedia, with its millions of registered users, has a core of just a few thousand editors many of whom are known to each other through their contributions and talk page interactions. Jossi and I certainly know each other but we disagree on as many (or more) topics as we agree. Despite our differences on content and policy issues, we respect each other's good faith based on our histories of working to improve the project. That's a model I'd hope to see repeated with every serious contributor.
 * IN A review of various talk records show they are well known to each other and thus have an element of COI in providing such advice.

When an editor routinely removes negative information and adds positive information the balance of their activity may have the effect of promoting a POV, even if the individual edits are worded neutrally and respect attribution requirements.
 * IN ''I think perhaps Will_B has erred in assuming that any edit that is "positive" or removal of informatio that is "negative" is by definition POV, whether the edits themselves confirm to WP:RS and WP:NPOV or not.

Other POV sites were removed. The exact timing or sequence isn't relevant.
 * IN  I never deleted POV sites while adding mine.

The reliability of the sales claims for the XS Energy have long been debated on the article talk page and were central to the AfD on the article Articles for deletion/XS Energy Drink. The "questionable" source was, in fact, added by Insider. I'm pleased that Insider feels comfortable removing assertions for which there is no consensus.
 * IN Later I removed positive claims about XS Energy drink sales, even though sourced, because I've investigated and found the source is questionable.

I don't know what reply was expected. We'd already agreed that Amquix was another one-person website and so not a reliable source.
 * IN Furthermore I've pointed out to Will_B on his talk page that continued additions of the POV site amquix.info are by the owner of that site. Will_B never replied.

I dispute this characterization. Many issues raised in Insider have been addressed. I am not aware of any POV claims that are unsourced. If any still exist I encourage Insider to use the talk page to list them specifically.
 * IN  Despite numerous requests in talk, the great majority of issues have not been addressed, and unsourced POV claims remain.

General comment:

I am encouraged that this mediation is progressing in a positive fashion. I am discouraged that although Insider acknowledges that he has a conflict of interest he is not following the clear guideline we have on the matter and that he is asserting it does not apply to him or to this situation. He is actively editing Bill Britt (a major Amway/Quixtar figure), he is editing articles about Amway critics (including Steve Hassan), has participated in an AfD regarding an Amway product, and is even seeking changes to WP:RS and WP:COI in order to allow him to link to his website and to edit Amway-related articles. I don't think that Insider has fully committed to working within the framework established by the Wikipedia community, and that he is active in the project only to affect the articles concerned with topics in which he has an overall monetary interest.

Update at 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I started writing a response to Insider, but I decided I wanted to wait and see what Will_Beback's responses were first. I'm not ignoring the case. I just want to get feedback from both sides, before planning how to proceed with mediating this case. Thanks for the long list of links, Insider. Lots of light reading before bed for me. ;-) Seriously, it is helpful to document that if it is a source of concern for the two of you. It appears that we will need to look at some of these decisions on a case by case basis, since they do appear to be a source of ongoing resentment (perhaps not the right word, irritation perhaps?) between the two parties. --Willscrlt (Talk|Cntrb ) 11:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, one light has flashed on for me - Will apparently sees each separate edit including a link to my site as multiple link-spamming.When it's in response to for example, it's deletion while retaining or re-adding POV critics websites I consider it the same instance. I'm relatively happy with the Quixtar article as it stands now, but yes, I certainly do resent being accused of something which I don't believe to be true. --Insider201283 21:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Edit warring over the inclusion of a link to your own website is not condoned by the community. When someone removes your contribution that's the time to check back on the talk page and see how it can be changed in order to get consensus; it's not an excuse to keep restoring the information until you outlast your opponent. -Will Beback · † · 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have specifics that we should look at that substantiate your claims of edit warring? -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Give me a break, these are edits done by different people at different times over the space of weeks if not months, not exactly an "edit war". --Insider201283 01:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but it is possible that a slow-motion edit war occurred without anyone really realizing it. Such things can and do happen with the most innocent of intentions. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Update at 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
In many ways, Wikipedia is not only about what you edit or even how you edit. It's a lot to do with why you edit, or more correctly how other people perceive why you edit. If you come across as a well-meaning, but somewhat inept editor, you'd find a lot more Wiki-love than if you come across as someone who is a highly competent, very knowledgeable troublemaker. I am beginning to think that a lot of the people editing the Amway/Quixtar articles fall into that second category, even if it is not their intention. I also understand that when people revert your sound and logical edits, contradict each decision, and such decisions are met with suspicion it can certainly bring about such an attitude. The question is, can you rise above it and become a model Wikipedian that clearly works within the rules, makes fair and balanced edits on a topic that some/many would say you have COI in, and work with others in a productive manner to
 * Addressing Insiders comments

The more I look at the edits in question, your relationship with the companies, and all, the more I feel like you are not so much in a conflict of interest, but a conflict of specialty knowledge which could lead to claims of WP:OR (of all things) in addition to WP:COI. This is because your clear insights help you filter through all the static and lead you to write information that may be difficult to source. Because you appear to have a strong COI, it is assumed that's what is your driving motivation, when really it is more likely a fascination with the topic. The same would be true if you were an organic chemist writing about some theory you know to be true, but there isn't a large body of well-respected evidence supporting your theory. What is out there is largely suspect, because it is the newest theory on the block or contradicts long established perceptions in the community. If you created a website dedicated to refuting the erroneous claims for the status quo, it would be much like your current site is for Quixtar. The problem is that WP:COI would still kick in for the scientist, just as it does for you. COI is not concerned only with money, but with any kind of strong interest.

I realize now that it's a good thing I got involved with the mixed drinks project instead of the computers project I had intended. With mixed drinks, my attitude is really "ho-hum", because I have rarely, if ever, drunk any of the things I edit or write about. I'm completely dispassionate. I don't really have any favorite mixed drinks, no financial connections (positive or negative), and no overwhelming motivations except to see Wikipedia improved. It is one subject where I have absolutely no COI. Computers, on the other hand, would have been a very different story since I am a computer consultant by trade. I still think I could do a good job on most articles, but I'd be very likely to run into some articles where I have strong opinions. And in those cases WP:COI kicks in.

Does WP:COI make sense to you in that light? Reread WP:COI one more time and try to understand 1) how others see it applying to you, and 2) how it can help shape your actions here so that your edits are less contentious. Bear in mind, that WP:COI works both ways, and there are probably several other editors who should be keeping WP:COI clearly in mind, too. But you can only control your own actions. You can choose to embrace WP:COI and edit Amway, Quixtar, Alticor, Bill Brit, N21 and other related articles in a way that nobody (reasonably) can find fault with, or you can continue to assert that WP:COI gets in the way of good editing, and deal with the fallout.

WB: "I do not think, though, that a review should be limitd to the three of us"
 * Addressing Will_Beback's comments
 * I am fairly certain that I already indicated that I was in complete agreement with you on that subject. If the two of you have aired your views adequately, then we could close this case with the decision being to proceed to the talk pages of the articles in question to begin an open, informal, but structured review of each article looking for unsourced statements, poor references, POV, and grammatical and other copy errors (why not, right?). Then we head over to the Quixtar talk page (since that seems to be the least contentious page at the moment). I will introduce myself, set out a few ground rules to keep things hopefully from getting out of hand, solicit participations, wait for consensus and agreement, set up a few subpages for clarity, and then we proceed through the article in an orderly manner and clean it up. If that process has worked well, then while the Quixtar page is wrapping up, we can repeat the process on the Amway page. And then repeat on the ___ page. By that time, a regular pattern should be in place, and I certainly shouldn't need to remain involved. And hopefully everyone will be much, much happier. This reviewing process might even launch a new WikiProject. Probably a WikiProject on just A/Q would not be broad enough to gain acceptance, but the experience all of you gain might be helpful across all MLM or home-based business articles. So do I think such a review should be kept between the three of us? Not in the slightest. But I also don't think that an announcement in the Signpost (as-if) would be helpful either. We need serious people with an interest.

WB: "Clearing the air is a good thing. This mediation has been helpful."
 * I am most pleased to hear that you feel that way. This is my first case, and I really wanted to help achieve a good outcome for both of you.

WB: "has a core of just a few thousand editors many of whom are known to each other through their contributions and talk page interactions"
 * This was my point, too. I mean, certainly all of us have developed a significant history together now. That doesn't mean that I will automatically side with or against either of you in any future situations. I have considerable respect on various aspects of each of your skills, and if I were in Jossi's shoes, chances are I would have said much the same thing for the same reasons. There are too many fires to put out and too many things in and out of Wikipedia on which we can spend our time to check on the actions another peer is involved with when we generally respect the actions of another who is already involved.

WB: "I am discouraged that although Insider acknowledges that he has a conflict of interest ... that he is asserting it does not apply to him or to this situation."
 * In general, I agree. I think that to many of us WP:COI very clearly applies here. Insider appears to feel differently. Or, perhaps he feels that it is being applied unevenly. It is the potential for uneven application of that guideline that concerns me. I doubt that most people editing that article truly have no COI (except probably for WB since he only got involved for editorial issues, not topical ones). On the other hand, few other editors edit quite so voraciously that have admitted their COI. Standards work best when they are applied fairly and consistently.

What do you want to do next? Where do you want to go next? Another round of discussion to try to resolve lingering concerns or questions (like COI or specific edits from the past)? Are you tired of discussion and are ready to move ahead with the editing? Shall we close the case with the resolution outcome being solicitation and involvement in an informal, yet structured review with all interested and involved editors of the articles in question? Something else entirely? You tell me how you wish to proceed, and that's where we will go next. Even if it just to stay right here and discuss things some more. -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 05:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Final thoughts for this round

Insiders Reply
Without going through a point by point, some brief thoughts. First, again addressing COI. It's a misunderstanding to say I don't think it applies to me. It obviously does. Where the problem is that I think I have essentially followed it, as per the jossi clarification, whereas Will_B thinks I've not. I'd note that he hasn't addressed my claim he has been unfair in his accusation of my link-spamming, he's just gone and dug up another guideline to accuse me of breaking instead. I think perhaps Will_S hit the nail on the head when he said "almost any edit that attempts to bring the article to a more NPOV would appear to be an off-center POV" and that that is the situation and perspective from which Will_B is seeing things. The types of misinformation, exaggeration, over generalizations and outright falsehoods I'm trying to address have remained unchallenged on wikipedia and the internet in some cases for a decade. In that context it is easy for a third party to simply accept them as reality and any challenge to that status quo would appear as highly POV.

The OR problem is something I'm very aware of and not sure what to do about, short of publishing my own book - which I have considered! In some cases there has not been any third party WP:RS reporting I am aware of that directly addresses various accusations. A classic example would be the "cult" allegations. While there is a large deal of controversy over what a cult is or is not, and a public, though not much academic, controversy over "mind control" and "brain washing" issues, nobody has directly addressed these topics as they relate to Amway. I plan on addressing them on my site, but that of course will not be valid under WP:RS. Simply put, my own view (and this is with a background as a research psychologist with peer-review published articles, though not in this field) agrees with that of most mainstream researchers - brainwashing and mind control simply don't exist without actual or threatened physical violence or restraints. Even ignoring that, the anecdotal evidence given by folk like Hassan and Ross to claim their model applies to Amway are remarkably consistent in that their experiences all relate to the same group within Amway, and they have no such reports from other groups - indicating the issue isn't with Amway, but with certain independent business groups within Amway. Finally, when you do look at their models, even these groups don't actually fit their theory! There's simply not enough in the way of "control" of any aspects of the model.

Any recommendations on good press or publishing agents? :-)

Now, as Steven Covey says, "start with the end in mind". It's easy to get distracted by my personal irritation with what I perceive to be Will_B's unfair actions ... however ... my purpose is entirely to have accurate NPOV articles on these topics. I believe the Quixtar article had approached that, and it wasn't until after that point (helped by my contributions I believe) that Will_B decided to warn me against further editing. I was hoping to achieve the same status with the Amway article. Despite Will_B's claims to the contrary, I essentially limited my contributions to the talk page. As outlined here and via email, much of that was IMO ignored or dismissed with little thought or discussion. Without other active editors the COI recommendation of contributing via talk verges on useless, or at the least is an exhausting and time consuming process, particular if I am outnumbered by folk interested in pushing their POV, which I believe would be the case. Independent Patriot by the way, if he is who I think, runs an anti-amway website complete with googleads (something not on my site). Does that constitute a financial COI? Now, blatant POV edits (aka the China situation) were added and have been "allowed" by Will_B. As pointed out, the current misleading wording (re pyramid schemes) isn't even mentioned in the quoted source. Yet it remains. Actions like that, and the aforementioned CV sourcing, plus constant accusations of me not acting in good faith, are quite obviously unlikely to endear me to Will_B or to lead me believe he is acting in good faith and that editing via talk will result in good articles.

Nevertheless, this is the goal - good articles, not getting either Will_B (or I assume from his perspective, myself) marked as editing in an overly biased fashion. I would recommend that we do indeed undertake a rewrite, I'm open to suggestions on the mechanism. Once those rewrites have been done and all are happy with them, I'd recommend a "lock" (or whatever the wikipedia term is) being placed on the article. Apart from updates on sales data and such, once an article is properly written there's unlikely to be much need for change. I for one don't want to spend my life monitoring it for accuracy, but if it's not locked that's probably what I'd have to do. Regarding the articles on the organizations like Network TwentyOne, BWW etc, I'm frankly skeptical as to their notability re wikipedia guidelines, I'll have to review the guidelines more closely.

Will Beback's response
Hello Will. Are you interested in persuing this still, or were you just enjoying the holiday? Just checking. I don't want everyone to be waiting for someone to do something, and nobody ends up doing anything. Or something like that. :-) -- Willscrlt (  Talk &middot; Cntrb  ) 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Waiting for Will_Beback's response


 * I'm happy to respond if called on. Are we doing a round four? -Will Beback · † · 21:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a complete rewrite of all articles is a major undertaking and I'm not sure who'd be involved. The existing text is the result of compromises and consensus between many contributors. There's always room for improvement, but I don't see a need to start from scratch.
 * IN I would recommend that we do indeed undertake a rewrite,

When Insider acknowledged that he was an Amway IBO and that he was the operator of www.thetruthaboutamway.com I pointed out WP:COI.
 * IN I believe the Quixtar article had approached that, and it wasn't until after that point (helped by my contributions I believe) that Will_B decided to warn me against further editing.

These are well-known people who have notable opinions. Insider is now engaged in re-writing their biographies to question their notability. No, apparently, because he cares about them but just because they are mentioned as having a negative view of Amway. This is exactly the kind of behavior which introduces POV.
 * IN Ross and Hassan

We've dealt with the China issues as Insider has raised them. I don't think there have been "blatantly POV edits" - at most there was a sloppily-worded edit, but it was quickly changed.
 * IN China

We don't lock articles on Wikipedia, except as a short-term response to severe vandalism.
 * IN Once those rewrites have been done and all are happy with them, I'd recommend a "lock" (or whatever the wikipedia term is) being placed on the article.

I don't see much to be gained by further review of past edits. Insider acknowledges that he has a ocnflict of interest and that the guideline applies to him. The mechanism of discussing problems on talk pages has worked well. I'm all for encouraging broad involvement and review.
 * WS ''What do you want to do next? Where do you want to go next? Another round of discussion to try to resolve lingering concerns or questions (like COI or specific edits from the past)? Are you tired of discussion and are ready to move ahead with the editing? Shall we close the case with the resolution outcome being solicitation and involvement in an informal, yet structured review with all interested and involved editors of the articles in question? Something else entirely?