Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 5

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Melaleuca (company) – Resolved. – 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Melaleuca (company)
- User:Siraj555 and User:Siraj88 seem to be connected to rmbarry.com, a distributor for the MLM firm Melaleuca. They have been making edits to Melaleuca (company) and Tea tree oil, along with adding tea tree oil references and links to rmbarry.com to many marginally related subjects. All of this seems to be driven by a desire to promote the Melaleuca brand in general and this particular distributor specifically. Mike Dillon 07:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, Melaleuca (company) itself survived an AfD a while back, so this notice is mainly motivated by what seem to be commercially-driven edits, not any desire to discount the notability of this particular MLM firm. Mike Dillon 07:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole article seems overpromotional, such as the detailed list of accolades - and ask yourself if there'd be such enthusiasm for the (unusual) inclusion of the sales graph it it were plummeting. Tearlach 15:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Though I disagree, I fully respect your viewpoint though (really). You must realize I have legimate reasons for my point of view as well. I just hope that you will respect mine also and that we can come to a better understanding here. Siraj555 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's what it says on their home page: This web site is designed to be the ultimate information source for anyone interested in discovering Melaleuca Inc. products, their incredible health benefits and the excellent opportunities in Melaleuca Business. It seems to be there specifically to promote the sale of products related to Melaleuca, Inc. Mike Dillon 19:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Specifically, here: www.rmbarry.com. Whether affiliated or not, it's a highly partisan site focused on promoting Melaleuca. Its research reportage on tea tree oil is selective (no negative studies included, such as the recent one on its possible implication in a few cases of prepubertal gynecomastia in boys).
 * But ... unless there's specific evidence of conflict of interest (i.e. some proven business relationship between Siraj555 and rmbarry.com or Melaleuca), this leaves the issue just as a content dispute. What about trying an article topic RFC to get a wider view on the neutrality of the article? I've posted it to Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies Tearlach 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Here is my view of my involvement in these articles:


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


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


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


 * Siraj555: I honestly think very highly of many of their products (there are some that I don't care for though) because of the *results* I've gotten from them
 * The point is, though, don't let that personal experience stray into promotion or advocacy: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I like Guinness a lot. I like the taste. It's got me pleasantly drunk many times. So I might legitimately take an interest, and research and add something about its history to the Guinness article. But it would not be on if I started adding "such as Guinness" to lots of articles referring to beer, and citing the Guinness Appreciation Society as an objective reference on its qualities. Tearlach 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | David R. Jones – Article deleted. – 05:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

David R. Jones

 * →  See also : Articles for deletion/David R. Jones
 * was created and edited by who is David R. Jones. More information can be found on the article's talk page // LevelSolve 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Transcendental Meditation – Content dispute. – 05:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Transcendental Meditation

 * et alia

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


 * , one of the major editors, admitted on the TM talk page that he is paid  faculty of the Maharishi University of Management.


 * admitted to being a TM practitioner of over 30 years, and has previously removed information in the article that "interferes with the normal business practices of the TMO [Transcendental Meditation organization]", and many of the other editors seem like they may have COI problems.

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

I've looked around a bit more, and found that
 * is or was also paid  faculty at the Maharishi University of Management, and
 * is another identified TM practitioner. --Philosophus T 00:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

If this section is archived, will another TM report appear in its place, or is it genuinely (whether or not resolved) inactive? — Athænara  ✉  03:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC):

I am not quite prepared to call it inactive, more like in abeyance, maybe boxing the bulk of it in the near future such as at Maharishi COI below, the collective group of TM articles still need attention, but we are making progress and closer to establishing what a clear COI requires. I'll see what happens on the talk pages. Neutral editors would be a real help. I like Durova's suggestions for resolution: 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.


 * I must clarify that TimidGuy in particular has done a lot for the article from the TM side and in dealing with obvious BLP violations, and his participation including comments on critical material is desired, but despite evidence of good faith, it is in the area of critical and controversial statements and that he and the others deeply involved in TM are not yet able to properly assess or effectively "write for the enemy". I do think we need to assure him that his input is valued but not paramount in decisions. The latest proposal from the TM advocates on the religion controversy in the TM article which they think satisfactory is yet another example, they have not really incorporated my previous input, including my suggestion to use the relatively neutral University of Virginia site to help identify more of the significant issues regarding the secular/religious controvery, and so it still vastly understates the scope of the issue while presumably inadvertantly suppressing information and minimizing the criticism:


 * Although controversy exists as to whether the Transcendental Meditation technique is a religion, official Transcendental Meditation websites state that the TM technique is a mental technique for deep rest and for contacting a so - called field of unlimited potential, and that does not require faith, belief, or a change in lifestyle to be effective. [12]


 * Dseer: The only source is the USA TM website, a partisan source. No critical rebuttal is provided to amplify the controversy. No mention MMY being called "His Holiness", or of his mission of "spiritual regeneration".


 * Clergy who find the TM technique be compatible with their religious teaching and beliefs include Rabbi Allan Green who finds the Transcendental Meditation technique to be calming, and the philosophy to provide insight into his work as a rabbi. (The Winnipeg Free Press, March 21, 2006), and Rabbi Raphael Levine who discovered that TM theory contains many of the same insights found in the teachings of Hebrew Prophets. [13] Father Adrian B. Smith, describes Transcendental meditation as compatible with any religion because of pertinence to human nature rather than to religious virtue. (Smith1993:11)


 * Dseer: Being calming has nothing to do with whether TM has religious overtones, neither does shared insights with Hebrew Prophets which are only "discovered" in one Rabbi's view, or the statements of one church father. And as sources, a feature article in a newspaper, and particularly and a section of an endorsement from the partisan TM webpage as representative sources are weak; not sure what the Smith source is.


 * Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, believes, as he outlines in his 1984 pastoral statement, that the TM perspective conflicts with Christianity. For example, unlike the Christian idea of God - a personal god caring for every individual – Cardinal Sin, understands that the inner reality one reaches through the TM technique to be impersonal. Man as described by TM philosophy is capable of increasing levels of perfection, but not born in Original sin, a foundation of Christian doctrine. Pain and suffering as redemptive, another foundation of much Christian thought, are lacking in TM theory. Cardinal Sin also noted the use of mantras described as apparent invocations to deities [14], although no information on mantras exists on official TM web sites, and information on mantras used in the TM technique is controversial.


 * Dseer: Cardinal Sin's message sourced on a Catholic bulletin board does not deserve this weight as token criticism, but the primary editor is Catholic and would think so. The bigger issue is whether a hindu based conception conflicts with the norm in Christian theology and whether most Christians see TM as religious. There are many better sources to show that a majority of more deeply religious Christians probably think so. Of course any details of the TM mantras would not be on an official TM website, because they are a product, and cost $2500 to obtain. Here again is where the exclusion of Mason despite my objections, who has documented the history of and essential rationale behind the mantras which use known hindu syllables with special religious significance, helps illuminate the controversy.


 * In contrast to Cardinal Sin’s pastoral statement, Father Basil Pennington, a Cistercian monk believes that the deepest self described by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as the Absolute is known to Christians as” our God of love, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Pennington 1977:73) Father Pennington describes peace and joy, as explained by TM to be the human being’s truest self, and the TM technique one possible source for reaching and experiencing this true self. (Pennington 1977).


 * Dseer: While ironically this supports claims of TM's religious nature and hindu origins, again, these testimonials by liberal Catholic Monks like this are given excessive weight.


 * An early controversy on the use of TM in the schools arose in 1979, when the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, which included the Transcendental Meditation technique, could not be taught in public schools because it violated the Establishment Clause [55] of the First Amendment, which creates a wall of separation between church and state. [56] The lower court, under Judge Meanor, based a ruling in part on the brief puja ceremony involved in Transcendental Meditation instruction and also in the fact that the Science of Creative Intelligence dealt with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions. Because the ruling centered around a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, and because the Wallace v. Jaffree decision in 1986 allows for quiet time/meditation with a secular purpose, instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique has continued in public charter schools, despite comments like those of sociologist Barry Markovsky, who felt that in teaching TM in the schools, there might be an undercurrent of religion. He labeled this as “stealth religion”. [15]


 * Dseer: This is not that bad, but the case link should be sourced, and noted that objections come not just from sociologists, but rationalists/atheists, religious groups, and watchdog groups on church state issues. While not needed in this section, the Maharshi's dislike of democracy mentioned in the source is significant and another controversy that needes highlighting.


 * Principals of public charter schools, Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse in Detroit and the Fletcher-Johnson School in Washington, D.C., note that in their views the TM technique is not religious, and point out the benefits of the technique, one of which is to help to relieve stress in the students. [16][17]


 * Dseer: These Principlas are advocates of TM, and their credetials for evaluating what is religious dubious, so what would one expect? Furthermore, the sourced article is presented in a skewed way, the article illuminates a cotroversy regarding these claims that is not mentioned at all.


 * Although, Maharishi calls Transcendental Meditation, "a path to God" "[10], and in his teaching often makes references to "God" or a creator, [11], Transcendental Meditation Program websites make no reference to Maharishi’s religious affiliations. Kelly Zellers and Pamela Perrewe clearly delineate the difference between religion and spirituality, and describe spirituality as broader than religion, a search for higher power, the sacred, and defined for some as God. They describe meditation, yoga, and the TM technique, one form of meditation they note, as spiritual, but not religious, and are coping strategies people may employ in business and in life in general. (Perrewe and Zellers 2002:301).(olive 13:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC))


 * Dseer: The claim that TM is spirituality which is distinct from religion can be made, but is legally suspect given case law, and highly controversial, and the qualifications of Zellers and Perrewe for making such statements are not identified, yet no rebuttal is given.


 * Looks good, Olive. Thanks for doing this. I don't have any major suggestions at this point, just a couple possible minor changes in wording. TimidGuy 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dseer: That in a nutshell is the problem with having a COI, its hard to recognize the issues and problems from a criticla perspective. I appreciate TimidGuy's willingness to work through this issue, though, I think we are getting somewhere now that neutral editors are assessing, and that should be noted. Again, this is not an effort to ban or demean anyone, only to improve edits. --Dseer 05:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Maharishi Mahesh Yogi – Content dispute. – 05:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


 * I consider the following established:


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Another procedural point: could you bear in mind the instructions at the top of this page?
 * Please make your comments as concise as possible.
 * Fellow editors and administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes.
 * Tearlach 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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

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


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


 * Actually, I haven't been all that active "in opposing critics who raised COI issues and supportive of TM related positions". I've only supported TimidGuy in these undeserved accusations of COI because I strongly believe he is an excellent editor who brings a lot of value to Wikipedia.  If you notice, I've made no substantial edits to the TM articles, because I know nothing about TM.  I support good editing and good editors, that is all that's involved in my participation here.  Dseer's above accusations are false and unwarranted, basically a personal attack on me in an attempt to discredit my input in this case.  That little ploy should not work, and should only serve to erode Dseer's positions and credibility. Dreadlocke  ☥  19:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing, or two; most of what Dseer points out was me helping a new user, which is something we're supposed to do as experienced editors of Wikipedia. To try and turn that into something "bad" is ludicrious.  TimidGuy was being personally attacked by Sethie.  Sethie apologized for his behavior several times,  , said the article is better off with TimidGuy involved, and rated him a better, more civil editor .  To try and find fault with my involvement there is quite simply ridiculous, as is this COI charge.  I can provide more diffs if needed.  Dreadlocke  ☥  20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't got the time to waste responding at length to such apples and oranges comparisons and logic defending a Wikipedian you like and respect. I did not say and do not assert the article was better off without him, to the contrary. Actually, I think we will work this out, coming here is part of the process. But, based on what you say, how can you claim to have no knowledge of TM (you did positively edit on Chopra, a long time TM advocate) and yet assert there is no COI effect if you don't know the subject, and in particular regarding the attributability of Mason? Civility and likeability aside, what makes you given your stated position of limited subject knowledge the best judge of whether any of the following in some way related to COI was occurring: A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. In this manner, the full range of views on a subject can be unfairly presented or concealed...Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way: Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. Making one opinion look superior by omitting strong and citable points against it, comparing it instead with low quality arguments for other POVs (strawman tactics). Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors. Editing as if one given opinion is "right" and therefore other opinions have little substance: Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible. Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds). Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value. Thus, verifiability, proper citation and neutral phrasing are necessary but not sufficient to ensure NPOV. It is important that the various views and the subject as a whole are presented in a balanced manner and that each is summarized as if by its proponents to their best ability. Yes, Sethie was tough on many, including me, but you have not shown those apologies are directly related to all the comments I cited or that Sethie's percieved attacks equated to being wrong factually. You are mistaken in emphasing demonstrated civility as equating to factual credibility, or that civility trumps NPOV and ATT, it does not. In fact, Wikipedia states: "Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to." --Dseer 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * User:Dseer makes a point that there is no Criticism section in this article. That seems like something we could work on. While we're thinking how to do that, can I ask if anyone following this debate has access to a physical copy of Paul Mason's book, in either edition? I assume that Dseer has been able to get one. Is he the only one who can look up passages and supply page references?  EdJohnston 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just ordered the 1994 edition, since the 2005 isn't available on Amazon or Half.com. TimidGuy 19:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC) By the way, a check of the OCLC database shows that no library in the U.S. has the 2005 edition, so I can't get it through interlibrary loan. TimidGuy 20:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As the editor of the rewrite of the Tm and religion article I thought I'd better make a statement or two. Like TimidGuy, I would like to deal with the COI interest allegations, if this is cause for banning then that's fine.I tried to create a balanced article that made connections to TM and religion.The article was initially very anti-Tm and I attempted to introduce balance. If this is cause for reprimand or banning then so be it I really can't do any more.I considered Cardinal Sin's pastoral statement to be a strong comment on TM and Christianity from a highly authoritative clergy in a major Christian religion. I also included strong statements from several  clergy who support TM. I am beyond explaining anymore.  I feel that Dseer threatens with NPOV and COI and turns any attempt to explain into a COI issue, and I find this exhausting. I want to mention that the religion article is on a discussion page for input from editors, and is not final. I have received input from TG that I will attempt to incorporate. Although Dseer clearly does not like the article I don't know what he wants . Including Paul Mason here was not an option in my mind because as I attempted to explain earlier , one of the problems with this article was the murky reasoning and lack of delineation between religion and spirituality. Mention of God is not necessarily religion, and Mason does not comment on religion in the statements in the present material. Distinctions between religion and spirituality are clear in the literature I have been researching. I tried in this article to only reference religion to make the connections very clear, very concrete.I'm afraid that Dseer has an ax to grind that blinds him to the possibility that I, although as I clearly stated on my user page have a connection to TM, might also be able to present a relatively neutral article . I am also a Catholic and am aware of the weight a pastoral statement carries. Is that also a COI. I don't enjoy having what I say in good faith twisted around to suit and argument or particular view point. If an editor doesn't like something fix it but do it with balance. Efforts to discredit TM, should be introduced with material to support it, so the balance is continually and equally achieved -  a constant state of equilibrium. At least in my limited time here at Wikipedia that has been my understanding.(63.162.81.220 22:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)) (olive 22:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Just to clarify, when Olive says "article" she means the religion "section" of the TM article. Good points, Olive. It is indeed problematic that Dseer's COI campaign seems to disallow good faith participation in discussion of the points you raised. TimidGuy 10:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Move to Talk page?. This issue has been open for a long time, and it's made some progress, but it needs a lot more focus. How would people feel about moving this discussion to Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? I would 'box up' the above comments to save space but keep the COI issue open until some progress is made on the Talk page. If talks break down, the COI could be resumed. Please respond if you have an opinion. EdJohnston 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. TimidGuy 15:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So the focus on the Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi page will be only on the article and the focus here will be only on conflict of interest? I think that's a good idea. Roseapple 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've other priorities right now and may not be active right away but I intend to be more active again soon. I agree with Ed's suggestions, with a neutral observer familiar with COI issues involved, moving the discussion to the talk pages of the respective Maharishi/TM related articles, provided the COI issue remains in abeyance, is agreeable.


 * For the record, in the interim, my issues are simple. My work on the Ramana Maharshi article paraphrasing other sources is simply clarifying known inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The Maharishi's guru, Guru Dev (Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati), and Sri Ramana Maharshi were both highly respected contemporaries widely considered liberated in India, who died before the Maharishi started teaching, both humble and without significant possessions, claims of hypocrisy or scandals, who did not charge for or personally accept donations for their teachings and initiations,  and whose actual teachings in practice were related, not limited to one approach, and aligned with the Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) traditions. I've already said that where those like the Maharishi, who despite claims of secularism here in the West, while in his native land is referred to by his own organization as "His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", "A Living Saint", etc., has deviated significantly from those traditions while claiming them as sources, recognizable by a scholar of the Dharma and sourced by others, I too am critically skeptical.  I don't want any editors banned, and I'm not just focused on Mason or bashing the Maharishi. I just want an NPOV from the eyes of uninvolved, neutral readers, to include reasonable mention of controversy and criticism that does not currently exist, and a clear understanding of the obligations editors with apparent COIs have regarding NPOV, which affects all related articles.


 * One more illustrative example here of how the COI issue is not trivial and affects the article. Employees and associates of TM editing here offer many public, written assumptions and insinuations in these discussions that are derogatory and even libelous regarding Mr. Mason and allegations his is a self-published and hearsay based book, indistinguishable from the positions taken by organized TM. Yet, though Mr. Mason is not some dead or inaccessible figure, not one of the TM associated editors who assert a COI has no influence on their edits has taken the simple step of contracting Mr. Mason, whose email, premanandpaul at yahoo dot co dot uk, is widely listed and who responds promptly, regarding any of these concerns! More neutral editors would be inclined to do so, while editors involved in TM are not, apparently prefering speculation, personal "knowledge" coming from the organization, and original research instead. As a result, I contacted Mr. Mason via email, because we do not want to skew or misinterpret what Mason has said and done, both about his attributability, and statements in the article sourced to him, once it is established that Mason is an attributable source. I provided  the entire text of both proposed statements, to make sure he was not in disagreement, along with what was said about him personally. These are the relevant portions of what he said in reply:


 * Mason: Thanks for contacting me. I should state that far from being self-published, the original version published by Element was commissioned by them, and I undertook the task having secured a good contract. Subsequently, Element Books went out of business (allegedly because they took to publishing too many titles on Reiki). The new paperback edition is published by Evolution who have a website http://www.maharishibiography.com/ from which copies of the new edition can be purchased.


 * Mason: I have written the biography of Maharishi, and I am translating Guru Dev's teachings. If anyone has any problems with material I produce they are doing themselves an injustice, as I tend to source my material rather carefully. So, I cannot see that a controversy could emerge about the accuracy of the information contained in any of my writings on Maharishi or Guru Dev, as I seldom use hearsay and state if I do. I seldom look at the Wikipedia profiles on Maharishi, Transcendental Meditation or Shankaracharya Swami Brahmanand Saraswati and it does not surprise me to hear they are inaccurate.


 * Mason: I should address the issues of motivations and qualifications. I have practiced transcendental meditation for over three decades and as regards qualification to write on this subject, I have found the material, I have presented the material, it is materially correct, so no problem. Bear in mind the movement tried to suppress the book, Element and myself had a lot of pressure from legal department in Chicago and 'representatives' in the UK. If there was any material problem with the book, it would not have been published. As it was the movement offered to present my publishers with their own version if they would withdraw my book! Now, if there was ANY reason they could have found, any material inaccuracy or libel or whatever, that book would not have been out. It is ironic, as initially I envisaged the book as a showcase for Maharishi's thinking, and actually avoided taking a bias.


 * Mason: The first edition hardback is good to quote out of, new edition paperback is good to quote from too. The thing is that there over 380 footnotes giving chapter and verse for quotations. Of the quotations that I have lifted directly from audio and video tape, the quotes are quite correct. Wanting, I could even get the relevant passages copied, if necessary. Clearly, the movement understood this much, that the book was well researched and fairly unassailable.--Dseer 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dseer. It's still not clear why you made this into a COI issue. You initially referenced a book published in 2005 that was apparently self-published (and all the evidence still points to its being such). I questioned that as a source. I had reason to doubt the book's scholarly nature, based on informaton that you presented from it in discussions. You then noted that there was a 1994 edition. I asked that you show that it was published by a reputable publisher after I wasn't able to find any information on Element Books. Instead, you came here. So now that we've been through thousands of words of unsupported COI accusations, you've finally answered my question. For which I thank you. You didn't answer Ed's question regarding whether you actually have a copy of the book, and if so, which edition. If there's a prominent controversy regarding Maharishi, I don't have problem referencing it. We can discuss that on the appropriate Talk page. (And by the way, I'd never heard of this book until seeing it referenced in Wikipedia. And none of the several citations actually gives a page number or proper bibliographic citation, which has been sort of weird and which has added to the confusion.) TimidGuy 10:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In any case, I really really appreciate your tendency to discuss debatable edits to the article first rather than just inserting material and enforcing the addition via edit warring, as other editors have been inclined to do. For the record -- I admire you for that and am grateful. TimidGuy 14:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Thanks, Durova. Not sure why you're making this point. The discussion has indeed established that the 1994 edition wasn't self-published and is available -- the debate about that has been settled. I'm not disputing that -- and am looking forward to receiving the book. Regarding COI, no one has shown that my editing has been disruptive, and everyone has praised my work. Why should I be restricted? In an ideal situation, I'd make suggestions and a neutral editor would implement them. But no neutral editor has ever appeared in these articles. They are edited by people who are knowledgeable about Transcendental Meditation and the research and by people who are ideological opponents of Transcendental Meditation and Maharishi. TimidGuy 11:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As mentioned, time is scarce right now, so I will make this brief. Agreed, I hope that means we can continue to make progress. I simply cut to the chase, RVing is a waste of all of our time, we need to use the dispute resolution process as necessary, and progress is being made. I have a basic outline of the key, widely identified controversies surrounding MMY, which won't take that much space to flesh out since the primary purpose will be to illuminate the sources to readers, not rehash them. The primary reason I came here is because discussions broke down over whether a group of TMers a priori assessments and assumptions of what is notable and then attributable regarding criticism still needs neutral evaluation even if most critics have abandoned the field for now, and which does not trump Wikepedia guidance as it is. Nor does mere civility trump NPOV or ATT or prove no COI exists. We need to include the missing critical perspective and help build a more balanced article, and as long as I provide attributable sources, which I will be working on, they should be accepted with the same latitude as given what the TMers provide. This is not just my or some critic's responsibility, as I quoted, "writing for the enemy" applies, it is in fact the TMers responsibility too to help craft the best possible critical/controversial statements for NPOV, not effectively suppress them in the ways I have quoted, even in good faith.


 * IMO, given those responsibilities, your continued assumptions about Mason being self published, etc., should have been addressed to Mason for clarification, not made a matter of public inuendo and hostile speculation about him on Wikipedia, since he too is a living person. A simple search shows that Mason has done a lot of research and is cited by a number of others than himself, and in other articles, particularly for his work on compiling and translating Guru Dev's writings and documenting MMY's earlier sayings, and has the sources for his quotations from MMY, including a rare, complete copy of Beacon Light of the Himalayas linked, the first book on MMY's teachings before he became famous, and other material gathered from years of TM practice. Given that, if you would put aside your assumptions and write him regarding your defamatory assertions about him, and read what he has written, you would realize that Mason has extensive documentation for what he says, even if he isn't a Professor, which is not required anyway. Given your latest claim about the 2005 book, Mason has responded to your "self-published" claims regarding the new edition and the new publisher as follows, which I hope settles the matter once and for all for any neutral parties reading this:


 * "Do the hardback and the paperback differ? Yes, the paperback contains material unavailable at the time of the publication of the English hardback. There are also German and Portuguese editions but these follow the English language hardback. With the advent of the internet age my current publisher decided to make it available solely by access to the web. Perhaps there will be a change in this policy at some time, I don't know." --Dseer 03:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Dseer. Sounds like you're taking a good approach. I'm glad you're finding attributable sources, presumably in accord with the BLP guideline. TimidGuy 15:07, 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.

Wikipedia 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)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Adam Jones (political scientist) – Deleted on AFD – 08:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Adam Jones (political scientist)

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


 * - I'm fairly sure the single purpose editor is the subject. I don't know enough about the subject to really check it someone else might want to go through and see if its okay.--Crossmr 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm working on culling content. I've moved it to a disambiguation page in order to remove the academic title. --Iamunknown 06:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And even though I directed the editor to the conflict of interest page he's continued to edit the article. Its clearly a single purpose account solely used for editing that article and the related article of gendercide, which points to a very high probability of it being the subject.--Crossmr 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


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

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


 * Updated section heading, article links for current name of article:
 * Adam Jones, Ph.D.
 * Adam Jones (Canadian scholar)
 * Adam Jones (Political scientist)
 * Adam Jones (political scientist) (current).  — Æ.   ✉  09:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why hasn't this article been nominated for deletion? It's a vanity page. Tempshill 15:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominate it!  — Athænara   ✉  09:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done... now !vote. &mdash; RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 13:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | George Deutsch and other articles – Resolved for now. – 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

George Deutsch

 * , aka Nick Anthis, has repeatedly inserted himself into this article, and others --
 * R.L. Paschal High School
 * The Scientific Activist (a vanity article)
 * William James Middle School
 * List of people from Fort Worth, Texas
 * List of Texas A&M University people
 * List of Texas A&M University people

-- as a means of self-promotion (using the term "influential science blogger," among others). Similar edits have been made from
 * [This account not used for editing since 12 February]
 * [This account not used for editing since 27 January]
 * [This account not used for editing since 15 March] EdJohnston 20:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

addresses traceable to Oxford, where Anthis is studying. // 208.255.229.66 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The recent eds. by Biochemnick to The Scientific Activist are in my opinion not vanity, tho some earlier ones there may have been. the above posting is by an anon ed from a multiple-user account, who has also been revert warring on that page, using a different anon account, 66.177.173.119, User:DGG 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * apparently believes that
 * is Anthis. 66.* and Cell* have both broken 3RR.   — Æ.   ✉  22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article on The Scientific Activist appears legit to me. Nick Anthis's efforts to add himself as a notable alumnus to all his schools will not improve his reputation on Wikipedia. I suggest that anyone who follows this noticeboard and observes him violating the WP:3RR ought to report him, because this kind of a pattern isn't good. His activities have begun to draw complaints on his Talk page (some though not all of them justified) and he has been deleting the complaints. For someone who would apparently like to be more famous, that's unwise. He could be getting known for the wrong things. With respect to the edit war on The Scientific Activist, his opponents seem to have done some unreasonable things. So he has been fighting back against his unreasonable opponents (usually anons), breaking many of our rules and drawing blocks in the process. The submitter of this COI complaint, 208.255.229.66, has himself been blocked five times during March. The record of User:Biochemnick (Nick Anthis) is already bad enough that he could be looking at a long-term block if he continues to be so stubborn. This is too bad because someone with his background could be a useful addition to Wikipedia in the scientific areas. EdJohnston 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Recent activity on this issue:
 * Nick Anthis created an autobiographical article Nick Anthis, but it was speedy deleted on 28 February.
 * He has apparently stopped using his two IP accounts for editing, and his possible sock account Cellularesque
 * It looks as though he used his sock account to *evade* the most recent block on Biochemnick from 12-14 March
 * He has not been blocked since 12 March
 * He has begun writing to people's Talk pages
 * Most of this is progress. I'm not 100% sure the The Scientific Activist is notable enough for an article. (Most of its '3rd-party references' are blog postings). If Anthis settles down and becomes a normal editor, I think we should leave it be. The article has gone in and out of page protection. If the article continues to be a lot of trouble and a source of constant edit wars, then an AfD debate should be considered. I know this sounds like funny policy, but what to do in case of a COI is not always obvious. Someone else may know if the apparent block evasion using on 12-14 March is a serious matter. EdJohnston 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can we close this? The Scientific Activist was protected from 16-26 March, and the vandalistic reverts by two anons have not restarted. User:Biochemnick has not been editing since mid-March, so there's nothing else to comment on. The current state of the article looks fair to me. If the article gets any more grandiose, I think we might get involved again, but it's all right for now. The George Deutsch article does credit Anthis for exposing the misdeed, but that is correct (The same thing is reported in the NY Times). EdJohnston 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support closure: Given the inactivity by all parties and the stabiliy of The Scientific Activist page, I think we should let this go unless further self-puffery arises. -MrFizyx 18:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Taborah – Article deleted. – 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Taborah

 * - An article about a singer that was speedy deleted once already. Maintenance tags have been deleted twice by the author, and I'm starting to suspect that the singer may not be as notable as said author wishes to make her appear.  The username of the author is, the same as Taborah's record label. // JuJube 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


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


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Cathy Jourdan – Article deleted – 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Cathy Jourdan
This article was created by. R.C. Book Publishing is the company responsible for publishing and marketing at least one of this author's novels reference. Believe this is a promotional username vio per WP:U in addition to being a COI issue. RJASE1 Talk  21:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me count the ways... BLP vio, COI vio, a single book says NN vio. Sounds like a prod to me... Done. &mdash; RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: #ffd8a0;" | Security guard – Resolved. – 02:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }
 * style="text-align:center;" | The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. 
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

Security guard
Every edit done by, since the account was created, has been to introduce a link to Valley Security Services across several Articles. I have also attempted to begin dialog to resolve this possible COI, see [ here], but to no avail. After this attempt to resolve, the User did [ again] post the link to the company rather than the Authoritative link to the SIA. Any help would be appreciated. Exit2Dos2000 •T•C• •  00:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They've all been removed, too, which is why link searches 1 2 3 now come up empty. The most recent one was yesterday, so it behooves us to watch it awhile longer.    — Athænara   ✉  17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, you can look at the links to any URI in that domain with Special:Linksearch/*.valleysecurity.co.uk. All clean (minus the one on Patrick's talk page.  --Iamunknown 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * style="text-align:center;" | The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. 
 * }
 * }