Misplaced Pages

addresses traceable to Oxford, where Anthis is studying. // 208.255.229.66 02:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The recent eds. by Biochemnick to The Scientific Activist are in my opinion not vanity, tho some earlier ones there may have been. the above posting is by an anon ed from a multiple-user account, who has also been revert warring on that page, using a different anon account, 66.177.173.119 , User:DGG 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• 66.177.173.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently believes that
• Cellularesque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Anthis. 66.* and Cell* have both broken 3RR. — Æ. ✉ 22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The article on The Scientific Activist appears legit to me. Nick Anthis's efforts to add himself as a notable alumnus to all his schools will not improve his reputation on Misplaced Pages. I suggest that anyone who follows this noticeboard and observes him violating the WP:3RR ought to report him, because this kind of a pattern isn't good. His activities have begun to draw complaints on his Talk page (some though not all of them justified) and he has been deleting the complaints. For someone who would apparently like to be more famous, that's unwise. He could be getting known for the wrong things. With respect to the edit war on The Scientific Activist, his opponents seem to have done some unreasonable things. So he has been fighting back against his unreasonable opponents (usually anons), breaking many of our rules and drawing blocks in the process. The submitter of this COI complaint, 208.255.229.66, has himself been blocked five times during March. The record of User:Biochemnick (Nick Anthis) is already bad enough that he could be looking at a long-term block if he continues to be so stubborn. This is too bad because someone with his background could be a useful addition to Misplaced Pages in the scientific areas. EdJohnston 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

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 Cellularesque (talk · contribs) 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 Cellularesque (talk · contribs) on 12-14 March is a serious matter. EdJohnston 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Taborah (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

• Taborah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 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 Lahlahmusicand vision (talk · contribs), 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)

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

I asked this editor to disclose any coi's he might have with some of the external links he's used , but now that I see he's been doing this since October, 2004 , I feel I'm in over my head.

Possible coi because:

• poweroid.com redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/poweroid/
• poweroid.co.uk redirects to www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk/
• bestpricecomputers.co.uk is the same company
• experienced-people.co.uk appears to be run by the same admin

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

External links to bestpricecomputers:

• Business performance management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Content management system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Customer Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Program management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Records manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Supply chain management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Intranet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

External links to experienced-people:

• Confidentiality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) removed
• Non-disclosure agreement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Salary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Webmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Website (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm guessing there are many more considering how long he's been editing. --Ronz 05:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong, surprisingly. See Special:Linksearch/bestpricecomputers.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/experienced-people.co.uk, Special:Linksearch/poweroid.com and Special:Linksearch/poweroid.co.uk. MER-C 09:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Those searches don't appear to work. I just found another bestpricecomputers link in Intranet. --Ronz 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Whoa! I'm in the middle of something but give me a few seconds and I'll comment in full. Poweroid 13:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, first, on the user name: It's not a random word, it's a word that's clearly associated with Best Price Computers Ltd, at bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. In fact, there are thousands of pages in a Google search for that word ALL of which would lead you back to that company site. Poweroid is the only brand that company sells. And nobody can mistake that I'm associated with that company/do work for it. I intentionally use that user name here and I openly log in with that Poweroid name to edit. Have been doing it for years. I don't believe I've ever added a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk.

I have edited, proofed or otherwise worked on over 50 sites in the last few years some of which are/were owned by that company or by other companies. Those sites include pcnineoneone.com (which has plenty of links from Wikipeddia, many from before I ever joined), graphic.org etc., etc. (I'll try and compile a full list if anyone's interested). I've often taken content from a site I'm familiar with and added it to a Misplaced Pages article with due acknowledgement to the source - whether I ever worked on that source site or not.

I believe I made a useful contribution yesterday to Web site, with a note in the Talk page prior to attempting further improvements. I notice that Ronz has removed a reference link to the experienced-people site on the article. Whatever s/he believes about the authority of the experienced-people site Yahoo claims that there are almost 3,000 other places that link to it, so obviously there are some, like abcnews.com who link to a particular article there, who think it's worth linking to. I notice also that the content from that source site is still on Web site though the reference was removed. Just as with VoIP. VoIP happens to use an image and content from one of the source sites. I notice that the image is still in use here though the link to the site was removed.

I've edited probably thousands of articles in Misplaced Pages ranging from hundreds on Indian cities to articles ranging from pregnancy/medical to business management to foodstuffs/recipes, most of which I've found no reason to add links on. I admit I may not have read every single word of the rules here but if it is forbidden to ever quote from a site I've worked on in the past it will reduce my output considerably (as it would cut out a large chunk of topics I am familiar with) but I'm happy to comply. Poweroid 14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so far I've only removed the links, because they don't meet WP:SOURCE or WP:EL, and some come across as WP:SPAM. I've kept the other content, assuming it can be verified from other sources if necessary. As for the potential coi issues, I'm deferring to this noticeboard. --Ronz 16:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i am observer and i don't understand : who is Ronz , i have look the ronz's contribution to WIKIPEDIA and (always removed) please can you say me what he has realy build? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.11.145.92 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.16.118.211 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have problems with my edits, take them to the appropriate venue. This discussion concerns the conflict of interest issues with Poweroid's edits. --Ronz 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

A glance at Yahoo's Site Explorer for incoming links to www.experienced-people.co.uk doesn't suggest much merit. Looks to me like one of those non-sites that provide token content, but primarily exist as vehicle for Google ads and affiliate schemes. Tearlach 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There are about 2,700 links to that site according to your Yahoo listing. I haven't examined them all but the first page itself shows links from sites I'm familiar with, like problogger, and about.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.247.89.250 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

See my comments above. The issue here is COI. --Ronz 16:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Poweroid seems not to have added his links normally to be avoided to articles in the past month—am I missing something? — Athænara ✉ 01:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Just the one that he admits to above. . He's been completely upfront here about his actions, though. It might be useful for him to provide the list of sites that he mentions above. He's not contending that the links are inappropriate. It appears that he often edits as an ip, but not in any way that violates WP:SOCK that I can see, other than maybe to avoid a few spam warnings. Other than that, I think the situation is fine as long as he no longer continues to add such links to articles. --Ronz 16:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't be wise to give away the farm to the competition by posting my client list publicly. But, like I said, I'll put a list together for anyone here who's researching me in relation to this CoI claim. Please tell me how and where I can provide it. Poweroid 11:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent — Misplaced Pages:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest (emphasis added.) Particularly in light of your defence of your contributions as a good faith editor, it is inappropriate to suggest that other editors should do the cleanup after you've spammed Misplaced Pages with your clients' links. — Athænara ✉ 23:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is a Misplaced Pages:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames issue as well: "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Misplaced Pages policy against spamming and advertisement." — Æ. ✉ 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names. — Athænara ✉ 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Result was allow: policy against company/product names as usernames had not yet been implemented when the user registered.

In re conflict of interest, links, clients: It would be helpful if someone higher up the administrative chain can answer the user in re a list of clients whose links the user has added to the encyclopedia ("Please tell me how and where I can provide it") if that is the most straightforward way to clear this up. — Athænara ✉ 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the RFCN include that this case is starting to smart of desperation and that WP:SNOW may be applicable. Cascadia suggests something is just not right about the RfC and that it seems you're just looking at ANY (his emphasis) way to deal with a conflict. On your own talk page Shenme has trouble believing the "problem" is at all as serious as presented.

Yes, let's find a straightforward way to clear this up. Poweroid 15:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, he's added links to:

• poweroid-video-editing.co.uk (18 October 2004)
• bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk (14 August 2006)

--Ronz 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you'll continue to find links. While I added links in very few of the edits I did over the years there are a handful that link to pages that were - at the time of the linking anyway - useful and relevant pages kinda like the type Shenme thought looked perfectly OK (see comment on http://en.wikipedia.org/Business_performance_management on the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User names page). Poweroid 17:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)17:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you said yourself that you didn't think you made a link to bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk. It turns out you did in August and December of last year. Also, you've linked to a site that has your username in it, something you should have brought up when this COI was started. --Ronz 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Poweroid admits to coi regarding choosing the name. An RfC/N resulted in allowing the username because it predates the prohibition on such names. --Ronz 16:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: Poweroid appears to have choosen his username after introducing links to poweroid-video-editing.co.uk as 213.235.36.175 (talk · contribs). 213.235.36.175 has only a few edits total, from 6 September 2004 to 18:11, 15 October 2004. This editor introduced links to bestpricecomputers.co.uk and poweroid-video-editing.co.uk in the same manner that Poweroid has done. Four minutes after 213.235.36.175's last edit, Poweroid begins editing for the first time in the same articles as 213.235.36.175. --Ronz 17:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

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

"A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Misplaced Pages, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products… Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest. Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client.

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

From the introduction at the top of the policy page. — Athænara ✉ 07:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The user has selectively cited other editors' views and mis-characterised as "desperation" other editors' attempts to address the user's conflict of interest reasonably. S/he was advised on how to change the username and expressed a willingness to comply a week ago and yet has not followed through since then. All of this combined with repeatedly downplaying the obvious conflict of interest makes it increasingly difficult to assume the user's good faith. — Athænara ✉ 12:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ronz, my username issue has already been discussed. It's already on record as associated with a particular company and their sites. And you/Athaenara subjected it to an RFCN which failed.

Athaenara, I'm glad you bought up the neutral encyclopedia issue as you'll find that that's exactly what my edits are - including the ones you claim as CoI. Your special concerns of organization conflicts of interest and editors paid to edit Wikipeidia are irrelevant unless you are making an allegation that I've been paid to edit Wiki articles.

Please provide examples of the selective citing and mis-characterisation of other editors' attempts you accuse me of as I don't believe there have been any at all.

Re my user name: You will note that I do not have to change it. I was not compelled to change it. I was not requested to do it. I was not even asked to consider it. My name is 100% OK. I did however volunteer to change my name. So I'll do it when I want. That I haven't had the time to do it within the last week is nobody's business and, with the greatest of respect, isn't yours either. That I haven't put on top most priority something I volunteered to do is, you argue, grounds to dismiss presumption of my good faith? What was that about misrepresentation and mischaracterisation again?

Is this really about a CoI anymore? Poweroid 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because the RfCN failed, doesnt mean that we should ignore other evidence relevant to your COI here when it concerns your name. --Ronz 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have looked over this page and the talk page of User:Poweroid and some of his contributions.By his own admission, he has worked for the company (www.bestpricecomputers.ltd.uk and related sites) which holds the trademark on Poweroid (his current user name), so it seems clear there is a conflict of interest on his adding links to at least those company websites.

The debate about his username, and whether a list of his clients should be provided and how, do not take away from the fact that this editor has added links to (see above) and images from company websites with which he has a professional relationship in clear violation of WP:COI. This is not passing judgment on the links and images in question either, but it is a conflict of interest for Poweroid to add them to Misplaced Pages.

If he feels these are valid links and images he should suggest them for inclusion on the talk page(s) of the article(s) in question for other, more neutral editors to decide. He is also, I believe, obligated to remove such edits he has made in the past until they can be decided on by other editors. The problem may be larger than this (the client list issue) but that in no way should obscure the fact that there is already a substantial COI problem here. This is no single purpose account for purposes of linkspam. However, he seems to be doing little to resolve and much to obscure and perhaps obstruct the solution of his COI problem. Hope this helps and apologize if I got the gender wrong, Ruhrfisch 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Three of those left (one to an image, two on talk pages)—I removed fourteen of them. — Athænara ✉ 16:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a US Government PD image and put it in the Voice over IP article as it was clearer in thumbnail than the COI image here (which is now orphaned), so we are down to only two COI links on talk pages for *.bestpricecomputers.co.uk. Ruhrfisch 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, better quality and public domain. That obsoletes the COI image, now listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 2. — Æ. ✉ 04:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Essay: I recommend the excellent Misplaced Pages:Search engine optimization essay to all editors and particularly to users with conflict of interest issues who are tempted, like the subject of this report, to linkspam the encyclopedia. — Athænara ✉ 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:

• 70.23.173.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.23.170.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.23.177.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix. Stix is an "internet columnist" who has occasionally mentioned Wikipeia in his blogs. Except for that first edit he hasn't identified himself as Stix even while fighting over links to his : websites. Despite using variable IPs he has attacked another anon with a variable IP as the "Bloomfield College Sockpuppetmaster". He's promoted himself, including a long entry to a list of "notable journalists". He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted. For the time being I've asked him to stop adding content about or by himself. -Will Beback · † · 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The serial incivility extends to multiple other interactions; see Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2 and the user's talk pages for numerous examples. --lquilter 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement. He also claims:

a.) His accusers misrepresent Misplaced Pages rules to criticize or redact his edits.

b.) His accusers misrepresent print publications as "blogs."

c.) His accusers stalk and censor him and anyone who supports him.

2.) His connections come from Verizon, so he may have dialup or another setup without static IP addresses.

3.) His accusers claim he is "self promoting," that he is apparently Nicholas Stix, a veteran freelance writer. They haven't demonstrated that his material, at least some of it, is improper.

4.) FYI, I have no ties to Stix, nor do I endorse his writing, but some of the accusations laid against him may not mesh with reality. I encourage anyone who wishes to examine this situation to look carefully. Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Yakuman 01:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

At what are we to look carefully? The editor has identified himself as this person. His edits are chiefly promoting links to his self-published materials and websites. It's a COI to link to one's own website, and this editor has done so dozens of times. Furthermore he's engaged in scores of reversions adding the links back. Failing to acknowledge the relationship between subject and writer is not a good faith action.

Nobody is trying to censor this or any editor. However spamming links across Misplaced Pages is not a useful or acceptable activity. All I've asked is that this editor stop adding content about or by himself. Is that unreasonable? I'd also ask that he be more collegial and less confrontational. Civility is a core policy of Misplaced Pages. -Will Beback · † · 08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Readers of this board who want to study this case, and may not want to read all the diffs above, might content themselves with a quick scan of User_talk:70.23.199.239 to get the flavor of this editor's communications. This is really, really Nicholas Stix and there's no sock-puppeting issue, this is just his attitude to the world, at least to the other editors on Misplaced Pages. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at . Unfortunately this seems to be a case of WP:DE. The actions already taken by administrators were not excessive. This COI noticeboard is most effective when there is still a chance to persuade people and to remove misunderstandings. That does not appear to be the case here. The question of whether some of Stix's own articles deserve to be linked in Misplaced Pages is dwarfed by the behavior issues. Stix should by now be concerned about the number of administrators who have independently posted to his User talk with extremely polite language. Does anyone have another idea for how to resolve this? EdJohnston 03:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More than conflict of interest is involved—this is an extremely disruptive and tendentious editor. How about Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct? — Athænara ✉ 07:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I had been trying to figure out the next steps both with respect to this editor's edits on the Nadine Gordimer article and the editor himself, but I was derailed for the last several weeks by personal stuff. I don't know the process but would be happy to start it or support it. --lquilter 18:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a Talk message for User:Will Beback, the nominator of this COI, but haven't heard back. EdJohnston 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So for the lag; I've been travelling. I've only been concerned with the COI matter because it appears fairly cut-and-dry. However the disruptiveness, tendentiousness, and lack of civility are more serious issues. I'd support efforts to get this editor to respect collegiality. -Will Beback · † · 08:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am not him, do not know him and do not speak for him. I guess I'm at a loss. I still believe that this is a bit of a misunderstanding. While I think he may not have said the right thing at times, I believe he is an established writer and not the utter nuisance he is made out to be. His edits on Gordimer are valid and I have spoken up for them and some other contributions, although not all. Much of this does seem to have a political bent. To be honest, I've seen some admins (not Will) behave worse. Also, it seems every edit of his, good or bad, is quickly reverted, regardless of article. That really isn't fair. Yakuman (数え役満) 11:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I quite disagree with Yakuman's characterization, but editors can review the relevant pages for themselves: particularly Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 2; see also Talk:Nadine Gordimer/Archive 3; User talk:70.23.199.239; and User talk:70.23.177.216. --lquilter 12:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

• Superdeterminism (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Throughout the current AfD on the Archimedes Plutonium article, a user, Superdeterminism, who most feel is Archimedes Plutonium himself, has been editing the AfD, the article, and the article's talk page. What are the guidelines for a BLP being edited (owned) by the LP? Here, in the AfD, referring to the Misplaced Pages article, he wrote "on my page I refer ..." Somehow, this just doesn't seem appropriate. Thanks for your input. Keesiewonder 02:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: WP:COI doesn't expressly forbid a person from participating in this regard, but they're strongly encouraged to be very cautious. The diff you linked to seems to corroborate the claim that he is indeed the subject of the article, but it also expresses a reasonable concern on his part. It looks like the AfD will result in a Keep, which is good (IMO, Misplaced Pages gets stronger every time a biography is determined to be keepable,) but he should be encouraged to take a step back and let others do the editing for him. WP:AUTO is a suitable guideline to cite from here, too. -/- Warren 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks; where's the best place to request that someone other than me provide this strong encouragement to this user and encourage them to take a step back and stop editing their (auto)biography? As best I can tell, several admins are aware of what is taking place, but not warning the user in ways that are proving to be effective. Keesiewonder 10:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will take a look and give a warning if warranted. Jehochman (/_Contrib) 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Both Afds (one, two) resulted in keep. — Athænara ✉ 05:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Terry (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

• Cheesenut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - In some of the uploaded images, statements of "uploaded by author" implicate that this user might be the subject of Tom Terry, which is his sole topic of editing. On the other hand, a blatantly incorrect edit like this could also point to a misguided fan. In either case, the situation should be looked into. --Latebird 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Are his edits problematic? Do they conflict with WP:COI if he is the author? Vassyana 17:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. The book pages needed work: they neded removal of promotional links, and all the categories were referred to the author rather than the books. There's also a deal of subjective stuff: "The stories presented in the collection often take sharp, disturbing turns not normally found in modern religious fiction". Sez who? The Tom Terry article itself completely lacks third-party sources. Tearlach 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No activity since 25 March. This editor may have gotten the message. Follow up if problems resume. Durova 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Faisal Gill (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

• Jimhuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a paid political consultant to the Faisal Gill campaign for the House of Delegates has been reverting content despite being warned of a conflict of interest problem. I'd appreciate other eyes looking into this and helping address this ongoing problem. Gletiecq 14:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• User Jimhuber's most recent contribution was five days ago on the article talk page: a request for feedback about inaccuracies in the article. There have been no responses to it from you or from any other editors. — Athænara ✉ 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The revision was made without discussion, none of the information is factually disputed, and I have indeed responded. Instead, after being warned of a COI and being told not to edit the page by Dar-Ape he again edited it without proposing changes and allowing for discussion.Gletiecq 13:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No activity since 21 March. Contributions look problematic so fix the article as appropriate and follow up if necessary. Durova 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Gletiecq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be the defendant in a suit filed by one of the clients of Faisal Gill's law firm. Gletiecq wanted a section about that client's 2006 campaign, allegedly derailed in part by Gletiecq's blog, in the article. Alleging COI (while neglecting to disclose his own COI) he reported the user who removed it.
• Majwooten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was another SPA with related issues which he explained in a post to Dar-Ape, about blog content (guess whose blog) repeatedly being added to this BLP article. — Athænara ✉ 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Marie Killick (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

Cynthia killick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the daughter of the subject, Marie Killick (and there are many other problems with the format). But this looks a notable and interesting topic - Killick vs Pye - that could be salvaged with a bit of tact, as she'd be uniquely able to advise. Tearlach 11:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No activity from this account since a post to her user talk page on 29 March. Follow up if any problems resume, but this looks like a good faith attempt to contribute. I suspect this editor would be willing to restrict contribution to talk pages on this subject if asked nicely. Durova 15:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a good topic - just a case of finding independent sources. Tearlach 11:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Studios Architecture (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

• Esther Springer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Original username was a COI-obvious Studiosarch (talk · contribs · logs).
• 68.173.24.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Contributions show explicitly dealing with this article, IP traces to NYC where company has a large presence. Started showing up roughly after I warned above user of WP:COI violations. — RevRagnarok 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, obvious COI. No problems since the report was filed so I've semiprotected the page for a month. Follow up if necessary. Durova 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Roberto Valente (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

A new user, Sygun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has recently created an article on an artist called Roberto Valente. He has also started an article on the Sygun Museum in Wales. There's an ebay seller called museumofwales selling a lot of work by Valente as surplus items from Sygun. I'm concerned there may be a COI here. Another artist mentioned in the Sygun article (Miney Todd) was added to the Viyella article but has now been removed. --HJMG 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Links added to your post. I'm surprised they've got anything much left in the museum; the chief Google hit (5000+) for "Sygun Museum of Wales" is eBay! I've tidied and tried to source the Sygun articles, and asked User:Sygun what's going on . Tearlach 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This one has gone cold. No reply or further edits from User:Sygun, just the talk page blanked and message "not connected, just visited a few times" from an IP. I've sourced Sygun Copper Mine and proposed Roberto Valente for deletion for lack of RS. Tearlach 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

• Long Way Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - MDennett (talk · contribs) is extremely keen to include an unsourced reference to "International SOS", a commercial organisation he claims was paid a fee for involvement with the Long Way Round project. MDennet first added this in early November 2006, revisited it later that month, and has returned now. MDennet has asserted that he was involved in said deal , and that the lack of any sources to verify this fact is not a problem, as we can just ring him or his friends up and ask. Neither the 388 page book nor 10 episode TV / DVD series make any mention of this organisation. He came perilously close to 3RR this evening, and continues to argue the point on his talk page. The account is single purpose, with the only edit other than on this issue being creation of a speedily deleted auto-bio in mainspace. His latest rebuttal of my attempt to enforce policy is that as Ewan McGregor and I are both Scottish, perhaps I (and presumably the 4,999,999 other Scots) have the conflict of interest?? // Deiz talk 13:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

are both Scottish

So am I, partially, so it's a clear conspiracy. But no, whether there's a COI or not, WP:NOR makes "we can just ring him or his friends up and ask" completely unacceptable as a source. Only a third-party published source will do. Tearlach 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that if MDennett (talk · contribs) was involved in the deal then he has a conflict of interest. You might want to leave a note about this issue on the Talk page of the article itself. You might also ask MDennett to clarify further his role in the Long Way Round project. I did not find his name on the longwayround.com web site. EdJohnston 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Out of interest, there is a Martin Dennett , Business Development Director for Energy, Mining and Infrastructure at International SOS. Tearlach 12:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope he feels great about this edit then. Deiz talk 13:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a uw-coi warning on User talk:MDennett. Hopefully he will get the message. Jehochman (/_Contrib) 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Anchor (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

Anchor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) User:Badmonkey is likely a representative of an anchor manufacturer (Ronca Anchors), is attempting to include favorable biased information of his anchor in article and reporting removal attemps of biased information as vandalism. Russeasby 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Defense: Refer to incident report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR concerning violation of 3RR by User:Russeasby and also request for page protection at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_page_protection (article now fully protected). Russeasby has been repeatedly deleting a section of Anchor which he is calling spam. The content in question is sourced and perfectly NPOV. Third party opinions in Talk:Anchor are against this deletion, e.g. that from Hoof Hearted, and advice from one other solicited third party (Shell Kinney) warned cessation of these edits. This "conflict of interest" notice seems a revenge act for these reports by myself. Lastly, attempts at identification, especially for purposes of discrediting another editor, is contrary to Misplaced Pages's right to anonymity. Badmonkey 14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nm.: Russeasby has been blocked for 3RR violation. Badmonkey 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

No. See the description of this noticeboard's purpose at the top of this page.

After several days of disruptive and tendentious editing, much of it by single purpose account user Badmonkey, the article has been protected. — Athænara ✉ 15:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• In view of user Badmonkey's own three-revert rule violations, I have reported them and requested that Russeasby be unblocked. — Æ. ✉ 16:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Optical Carrier (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

Optical Carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been edited by Cyberdyneinc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the content of which has been reverted twice (first time by Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the second time by myself (NigelJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))), upon the second revert, I kindly posted a message on Cyber's talk page asking him/her to:

• Ensure a NPOV
• To avoid a Conflict of Interest
• To properly cite their additions

Sadly, Cyber has added the section again (which I can't actually verify via Google), the wording has changed a little bit, but I believe a COI still exists. //NigelJ 03:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Simon Treves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

• Simon Treves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Frederick Treves (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (his father)
• Neither Here Nor There (radio series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bitter with a Twist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

• I {{prod}}ded Bitter with a Twist on the grounds that it hasn't sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, though it's certainly suitable for inclusion in its author's article. I have no objections to the two biographies—I think they're well done. — Athænara ✉ 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• I prodded Neither Here Nor There (radio series) for the same reason. Note that the title of the article misnames it as a 'radio series', it was a one-off 60-minute documentary. EdJohnston 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cathy Jourdan (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

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

Security guard (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

They've all been removed, too, which is why link searches 1 2 3 now come up empty. The most recent one was yesterday, so it behooves us to watch it awhile longer. — Athænara ✉ 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, you can look at the links to any URI in that domain with Special:Linksearch/*.valleysecurity.co.uk. All clean (minus the one on Patrick's talk page. --Iamunknown 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

StartCom (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

→ See also: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/StartCom

• Startcom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StartCom Certification Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• StartCom Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

The above articles have been nominated for speedy deletion already. Why has User:Startcom been nominated for speedy? Is that a normal thing to do? Jehochman (/_Contrib) 17:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

CSD G11 is a general criterion that applies to spam in the any namespace. It is useful for and is occassionally applied to user spaces, particularly if the user has no other edits and especially if the user has been registered for a long period of time. --Iamunknown 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Appears User:Startcom has removed the tags on the articles --Hu12 05:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Hd1080ip (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Scientific data withholding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Scientific data withholding (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I see no evidence that Connolley has canvassed for votes at that page. Upon what specific evidence do you claim his expertise in the field constitutes COI? WP:AGF constrains these assertions: please provide specific diffs. Durova 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Durova, Why are you exploring at all the sub-issue (at best) of canvasing? The main issue is the textbook example of a conflict of interest and the failure to act accordingly? And is it not the entire premise of the Noticeboards that the actions being complained about are out of line regardless of the intent (i.e. the assumption of good faith). Most decisions impose on users a 'guilty unless good faith is proven' rationale...which is obviously NOT AGF. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Connelly is too experienced to canvass for votes using a public forum. I do not claim his expertise is COI. I am claiming that his relationship with Mann is WP:COI. See the RealClimate website in which Mann, Mann's coauther Bradley, and Connelly are all listed as contributors. They are part of the same organization. RonCram 03:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• RonCram, I suggest not engaging in the Canvasing issue at all (including in responses). It is not the issue. In every complaint (most of which were legitimate) over the past 2+ years against WMC the tactic by him and his defenders was to move discussion to a sub-complaint or onto the accusser personally so there would be no discussion whatsoever on the actual indefensible violations. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In relation to the COI, please review this user's edit history, and the stance he takes. Please also note his removal of information or questions that don't synch with the website Realclimate.org Many examples of this can be found through out his edit pages/history. The POV of his edits in any Global Warming related page seem to duplicate the view of RealClimate.org

Use of Real Climate.org as a source.

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

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

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

• The painfully blatant misrepresentation here by excluding likely applicable acceptable exceptions of a guideline should be noted. Beyond that, that topic is not the main complaint nor relevant. The issue is textbook example of a conflict of interest and not acting accordingly. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

William, I did not know that "canvassing" was frowned upon. I only saw people suddenly show up in droves and vote to delete the article who had obviously not read it closely nor read the related Talk pages. The fact they felt compelled to express themselves on a subject they were not informed about made it obviously clear to me that you were contacting people to get them to vote your way. I am only stating the facts as I see them. So I followed what I believed to be your example and asked someone to vote who I felt would see things my way. You cannot call my statement a lie as I am only expressing my opinion and I will not withdraw my opinion. The bigger point is that you are trying to change the subject. William, why not explain here why you do not see your relationship to Mann as WP:COI. You are both part of the same organization. The credibillity of RealClimate is linked to Mann's credibility which is, in turn, linked to your credibility. How is it that you do not see a COI here? RonCram 12:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• RonCram, just to reiterate, this diversion is a rhetorical tactic commonly used by a party (or parties) when their position on the main issue is a losing issue, embarrassing to discuss, indefensible, etc. Do not engage in any issue (especially as they attempt to turn the focus on you, the messenger) beyond the the main issue: textbook example of a conflict of interest and the failure to act accordingly. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

William, Please read Misplaced Pages:Canvassing#Friendly_notice and if you realy want to push that issue with Ron, you will have to show somehow that his one message to Uber was either "Mass posting" (or as definded by mass:"A large but nonspecific amount or number") or that the post on the one person's talk page was not neutral. But, Back to the topic at hand... You. I believe these examples speek for themselves. Perhaps we need more?--Zeeboid 13:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Zeeboid, first, the main issue: textbook example of a conflict of interest and the failure to act accordingly. Second, if any discussion on THIS case about WP:CANVAS is discussed it should only be about alleged Canvassing by William M. Connolley, if any. No one else is the subject of the complaint here and any complaints about any other parties should be their own complaint in an actual charge. Do not enable through discussion any "defense" of conflicts of interest complaints with personal attacks or counter-complaints against the complaintant. This is not a court, their pseudo-counter-complaint should be disregarded if not outright reverted as not germane whatsoever. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I didn't notice when a pile of people showed up to vote for your side. You have asserted as a fact that I canvassed. I didn't - you did. Now have the honesty to admit that you have no evidence for this at all William M. Connolley 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• William, I noticed no comment on the main issue: Conflict of Interest and the continued editing, Rfd discussions (not to mention being the requestor), etc on articles where the COI exists. -- Tony 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to talk about that once RC has withdrawn his unjustified lie that I've been canvassing William M. Connolley 14:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting...continued avoidance of the actual complaint and focusing on, at best, a sub-issue. It is quite revealing. -- Tony 14:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

I don't see an allegation of COI, yet. Connolley and Mann do both contribute to RealClimate.org, but that itself does not establish a close connection. I contribute to sites with other writer with whom I have no connection whatsoever. Connolley does cite, mention, or link to Mann at least 12 times on his own site, WMConnolley.org.uk, but this isn't exceptional because they both work in the same field and may need to cite each other.

If the article nominated for deletion generates no Google hit, it is a non-notable neologism. The content can be merged into another article, so I don't see an attempt to suppress negative material. Jehochman (/_Contrib) 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if i'm wrong here, Ron, I know I refrenced COI above, but if you want an official Allegation of COI, you have it from me above. William's COI can also be seen in respect to the Realclimate.org blog, by the editing and defence of all RealClimate.org's member profiles that are on wikipedia (Realclimate#Members) and the cretion of most of the RealClimate.org blog user wiki articles. The defence of the Mann article can be seen going back as far as 2003 (a month after the article was created.).--Zeeboid 15:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not only about the relationship with Mann, but with protecting Real Climate.org. Please read Zeeboid's edit above. --Childhood's End 16:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, you disprove your own allegations, since RC wasn't created until late 2004 William M. Connolley 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Something is really fishy here. To delve a little farther into this subissue of canvassing, RonCram raises it in the opening request. Then when I question for evidence he demonstrates a good understanding of site standards: Connelly is too experienced to canvass for votes using a public forum. But (ahem) When Connolley provides evidence that RonCram actually did canvass Cram responds William, I did not know that "canvassing" was frowned upon.

Yet my real question remains unanswered. Upon what specific evidence do you claim his expertise in the field constitutes COI? The responses so far have been little more than the proof by assertion fallacy. Two people who happen to work in the field of climatology contribute to the same website. It isn't unusual in specialized disciplines for experts to eventually publish in the same venues. I see no evidence that either held editorial control over the other's writing or that they collaborated directly on the same project. Allegations about Connolley's POV are unsurprising: mainstream scientists generally do agree with mainstream scientific consensus so that argument is mere tautology.

What I find particularly interesting are the words In every complaint (most of which were legitimate) over the past 2+ years against WMC the tactic by him and his defenders was to move discussion to a sub-complaint or onto the accusser personally so there would be no discussion whatsoever on the actual indefensible violations. That comment's placement at a portion of the thread where my post was the only challenge to the assertion of COI implies that, somehow, my request for evidence is a diversionary tactic and that I'm politically aligned with Connolley. Actually I have had no prior involvement at all with Connolley's climatology disputes at Misplaced Pages and I don't recall interacting directly with him on any issue, on or off Misplaced Pages.

Everyone may regard this conclusion as completely unbiased: Connolley's actions in this nomination are fully explained by his original description. I will view any actual COI evidence dispassionately. If none is forthcoming and the dramatics continue I am prepared to issue blocks for WP:POINT, wikistalking, gaming the system and WP:AGF. Durova 16:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I will restate the original text in the initial complaint for you, reformatting it for, perhaps, better readability.

1. William Connelly works closely with Michael Mann on a website called RealClimate.
2. Connelly has nominated for deletion an article that provides accurate and well-sourced but uncomplimentary information about his colleague, Michael Mann...He is...too close to Mann.
3. The guideline reads: "Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest. Failure to follow these guidelines may put the editor at serious risk of embarrassing himself or his client."
4. Connelly and Mann are part of the same organization.

There is a demonstrable conflict of interest. The next question is the ability to remain objective specifically on articles about or sourced by the associations causing the COI, and more broadly on topics related to the COI. A sampling of documentation demonstrates the inability to remain objective in matters relating to the COI (in this case with WMC's participation in articles about Mann, RealClimate and Global Warming theories). For that demonstration please refer to the above links...clearly maintaining any objectivity is a problem. Thus, intervention is necessary.

And, while this is related indirectly to RealClimate (because it is not the subject on the related article, but a defended source of text within the topic), the following are deletions by WMC of comments by others on a Global Warming theory Discussion page. This gives a strong indication of the inability to maintain any objectivity whatsoever.

1. done at 16:25 on 3 April 07 to delete edit done at 16:19 on 3 April 07, and edit done at 16:21 on 3 April 07, and edit done at 16:22 on 3 April 07 (minor correction of previous edits in block)
2. done at 21:17 on 3 April 07 to delete edit done at 21:08 on 3 April 07 and edit done at 20:57 on 3 April 07
3. done at 20:09 on 3 April 07 to delete edit done 12 minutes earlier.

Just one example from yesterday (examples available daily) demonstrating the inability to remain objective in actions...this COI issue needs action. -- Tony 16:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As the editor for whom the Sherlock Holmes Deductive Reasoning Award was created, I have no need for such repostings. You may trust that I have already read those diffs and reached my conclusions. Durova 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Durova, quick clarification. My comment about diverting focus was made with an edit in various locations. This was done instead of in a series of edits out of fear for being reported by WMC for 3RR as he recently did to someone who made a series of related edits amounting to a revert. (The decision in THAT case was the edits were counted individually, new lesson learned, old one unlearned.)

At the time of that edit the well established tactic by WMC was in full force. You innocently provided the initial shift (usually one of the editing colleagues will make the initial shift of focus, and typically with an ad hominem attack included). The comment was a reminder to Ron Cram (under whose comment I wrote that portion), who at that moment already had a few responses on the diverted issue (which, btw, was by then focused on the initiator of the complaint--as is the MO).

So, the RELEVANT question is WHY do you believe there is not a COI?

1. From WP:COI: "edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or '''where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject''', are strongly discouraged. Of special concern are organizational conflicts of interest." Does this apply? YES.
2. From WP:COI (con't): "if you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: (1) '''editing articles related to you, your organization''', or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with, (2) '''participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization''' or its competitors, (3) '''linking to the''' Misplaced Pages article or '''website of your organization in other articles''' (see Misplaced Pages:Spam); '''and you must always: (4) '''avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view''', attribution, and autobiography." Do these apply? (1) YES, in that the Article in the Rfd discusses a co-author of a regularly updated website, not just a particular journal. Additionally the edits throughout the topic relating to his colleague are adding positive content, removing sourced negative content. (2) YES, in the same manner. (3) YES, the organization's reports are regularly used and defended as a source (and sometimes to replace other sources with the same or similar material) by WMC et al. (4) Arguable, considering that over 2 years of POV complaints surround him (and from different people--the constants are WMC and Global Warming pages) the reasonable conclusion is 'breaching POV' is occurring. Recent examples (diff and edit summaries): by WMC (→Other reaction - if we're not allowed rebuttals in the flim section, they don't get to rebut in the reaction section), (put Wunsch back into the intro - the fact that he has repudiated this film and feels swindled is highly important ; flim is propaganda not doc (rv)), (this thing is set to become another Climate of Mars).

I would like to know what else you are looking for? (I'm also wary of providing to much as I have been accussed of "Wikilawyering" and then WMC deleted the whole of the text...so I'm in a bit of a pickle to give you enough without having it reverted by WMC). -- Tony 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, there's no need to quote policy to me either. I've got nearly 15,000 edits on this project and I've applied COI many times. Show me something more compelling than that these two individuals have published in the same venue. If I carry that argument to its logical conclusion then I'd have to disallow edits by a professional photographer to another photographer's biography because - somewhere along the line - they both published in National Geographic. On the other hand, if you could demonstrate that William Connolley and Michael Mann coauthored scientific papers, then I'd take your argument seriously. As it is, what I see is that your userpage is in serious need of editing per WP:ADVERT, which gives the appearance that you are attempting to parlay Misplaced Pages participation into full time employment as a conservative radio talk show host. The fact that you're aggressively advocating the conservative POV on global warming and making allegations of misconduct against a well known scientist, of course, has nothing to do with that? Tread lightly: you have my attention. Durova 17:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have your attention. That means that finally a decision maker is looking at the whole presentation. I will also state that I quote policy not only for your benefit but for all those who are reading. Too often the references to a policy are left to assumption and thus miscommunication.

Thank you for your feedback. Of course, it will take time for me to find those diffs and the information that meets the threshhold you lay out. I do not know what timeline is normal for a decision on a COI, but request extending that to at least Friday. However, the link is not just a report by 2 people together. The link of co-authors of a blog is more analogous to co-board members of an organization as the relationship is continuous and regular...or analogous to co-hosts of a radio show. Rhetorically: Would it be a COI if my producer were aggressively editing a page about me? Would it be a COI if an editor from a newspaper were aggressively protecting a POV on a Misplaced Pages article about that paper? Certainly.

And a final note, my User page is per the advice of several edit-vets and admins. Long story short, that is a parsed (and updated) version of what was a Misplaced Pages article for about a year and then failed a Rfd...at that time 1 (maybe 2) told me online and 3 (or maybe 2) told me in direct e-mail to move the text to my user page instead. I was again recently advised that the content was acceptable. As for the POV on GW...that discussion can occur in more appropriate venue if desired, but suffice it to say that I seek balance and follow the examples set by the experienced editors on the various articles. And my edits are fewer and fewer on those pages...what is the point, unless the edits meet the approval of certain admins & editors the text will not be changed or discussed but deleted outright. Seems to be a waste of time editing anything in Global Warming, to be frank.

If you want evidence of my impartial decisions on politically charged topics, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel where I gave evidence as the lone supporter of a young earth creationist on policy grounds. All I want is a dry just the facts, ma'am set of evidence and diffs. Durova 17:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If I may add something to this discussion... I think that we need to start with the proper question. "Upon what specific evidence do you claim his expertise in the field constitutes COI?" seems inappropriate because this is not really the issue that has been raised. Everyone agrees, or so I hope, that Mr. Connolley's expertise does not constitute a COI per se. The issue that must be addressed rather appear to be "Under what grounds and supportive evidence do you claim that WP:COI is relevant and should be applied in this case?".

The possibility of a COI here has been raised under two angles. The first is the relationship with RealClimate.org as an organization. Even without Mann as a contributor to RealClimate.org, a COI seems possible here. The second is the relationship with Mann, for which the relevant text is WP:COI#Close relationships.

Of concern I'll note that Mr. Connolley's page on RealClimate mentions that " the wikipedia project is developing into a useful resource". --Childhood's End 18:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll go along with that rewording of my question. I'm scrutinizing all sides here. Bear in mind that it's pointless to rehash angles I've already examined unless new evidence is also brought into play. Mr. Connolley's comments about Misplaced Pages at RealClimate aren't germane to this particular discussion. Durova 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the expertise is not the COI. Also should clarify for everyone the existance of COI is not in itself an issue. It is IF a COI exists AND objectivity is too difficult to maintain THEN action to solve that issue is needed. And, unless I am mistaken, Durova is not convinced on the first step (is there a likely COI). After that Durova will tackle the objectivity issue (which I think has been demonstrated but is moot on this case w/out a COI). -- Tony 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Understood and appreciated. My office is 15 minutes away from being moved to another location which means I will be offline for up to 2 days. I believe it we all (both sides) understand the very objective criteria you have. For the time being, on top of the position I laid out (the contributors to a blog are more than simply professional careers converged for a single project) I will give you a few other items to establish a more frequent interaction (and thus stronger candidate for COI). (1) This document from 2005 lists WMC & Mann as "contributors to the Real Climate project". The Real Climate describes on is "About" link lists the following:

Contributors * Gavin Schmidt * Michael Mann * Eric Steig * William Connolley * Ray Bradley * Stefan Rahmstorf * Rasmus Benestad * Caspar Ammann * Thibault de Garidel * David Archer * Ray Pierrehumbert

(emphasis added). It is self described: "RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists"--in other words, a blog. It further lists in the disclaimer, "The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them." (emphasis added) This undermines the possibility that their working together is simply professional career crossing or collaberation. This is the consequence of more that such. Finally I offer another project of collaberation...see the final page.

Thank you, and more will come. -- Tony 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron appears to be making claims he cannot substantiate (or at least has not substantiated). For example, here he claims that Connolley and Mann are "business partners". And another example where he implicitly alleges a financial connection. Apologies if the moderators here are already aware of this. Thanks. --Nethgirb 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I've seen enough to make up my mind. You've had plenty of time and space to make a point, but you have failed to do so because there is no evidence of COI here. I am slightly familiar with the COI guideline because I recently edited the very sentences that were quoted above. My friendly advice to you is find a productive outlet for all your excellent energy. Rather than filling up a useless talk page which will soon disappear into the archives, here's a long list of articles that people have requested. I am sure you can find a topic that interests you. Go write an article to educate and amuse people for all posterity! Jehochman (/_Contrib) 01:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with Jehochman, everything that Tony has presented resolves to one basic fact: two professional specialists publish in the same venue. On the other hand, this has come to my attention, which is quite troublesome. A user conduct RFC on Tony wouldn't be out of the question here. Durova 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. A lot has happened while I was out of town. I would like to make a couple of statements. I was told by a source I consider reliable that Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, William Connelly et al were the "proprietors" of RealClimate. Perhaps I misunderstood. If William is not a partner in the website, then I apologize. Just so I am clear, has William denied being a business partner? Even if he has, the COI still exists. The policy clearly states COI applies if there is a organizational relationship. If Mann's credibility is damaged, then it damages the credibility of RealClimate and, in turn, William's credibility. William's motivation to delete well-sourced negative information regarding Mann is obviously very high. Here is an example of William's attempt to resuscitate Mann's work. In the piece, you will read William saying that McIntyre was wrong about Mann's approach generating a hockey stick from trendless red noise. The only problem is that two (count them - 2) peer-reviewed publications agreed with McIntyre that Mann's approach does create a hockey stick from red noise. (I refer to Von Storch and the Wegman Report which were both peer reviewed.) Unfortunately, William has not updated his website to show the facts. Because of William's COI, he is too concerned with promoting a particular POV to get the facts right. The analogy to National Geographic is not fitting. National Geographic has a great many contributors and their identities and credibility are not inextricably linked as are the credibility of Mann and Connelly. Connelly earns his living off of climate change research funding. Mann, in years past, was one of the icons of global warming. Connelly obviously sees any damage to Mann as damage to his bread and butter. At the very least, William needs to be told not to delete well-sourced negative information about Mann or any organization he works with such as RealClimate, British Antartic Survey or Hadley Centre.RonCram 03:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in a couple of statements that amount to hearsay and attempts to dictate the standards by which I evaluate evidence. You have come here seeking my opinion, not vice versa. The sole link provided misses the point. Durova 03:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not understanding. I gave one linked that showed that Mann and Connelly are involved in the same organization. The other showed that Connelly has spent a great deal of time defending Mann and still displays a posting on his website that defends Mann even though his defense has been shown to be wrong in peer-reviewed journals. Which one of these sole links misses the point? RonCram 03:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad nauseam is not going to persuade me. I have already explained via reductio ad absurdam why mere publication at the same venue does not constitute actionable COI. The only thing new you have provided is a link to a page where Mr. Connolley makes a dry technical analysis of Mann's findings. That by no means establishes COI: specialists in any field keep abreast of their colleagues' work. If you can produce substanial evidence then do so, but stop grasping at straws. My first post to this thread stated that I'm considering handing out some userblocks for WP:POINT, wikistalking, and WP:AGF. I don't like to repeat myself and I wasn't kidding. Durova 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't kidding when I said I apologize for not understanding. The previous post was not an attempt to persuade, it was a question. I still do not know which of the links you were referring to. If I knew that, I could ask a followup question more efficiently. Lacking that knowledge, let me try to plow ahead anyway. I understand your perspective on Mann and Connelly both contributing to the National Geographic. If they were contributing to NG, I would agree with you that no COI exists. But since they are not, is there is any corroborating evidence that would convince you that William has a COI in relation RealClimate and Mann? If so, what kind of evidence? Regarding the second link I provided, would it have helped if I had pulled out some of William's quotes which were later proven wrong in the peer-reviewed literature and then provided links to the peer-reviewed literature so you could see for yourself? What evidence exactly are you looking for? It is possible I can provide it, but I need to know what you will find significant. I do apologize for not being here today. I have to work and am sometimes out of town. And I will have to work tomorrow as well, but I will get around to this if you can provide me with more info.RonCram 04:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You stated "Show me something more compelling than that these two individuals have published in the same venue." and "On the other hand, if you could demonstrate that William Connolley and Michael Mann coauthored scientific papers, then I'd take your argument seriously."

Has this not been accomplished? There were two links above to papers they co-authered and one that lists the contributors as being Mann and WMC and a RealClimate article they wrote together. Could you please explain how these do not apply or not good enough? Also, as Ron said, What would convince you? You stated it earlier what you wanted (papers that were co-authered), and they were given (I thought, thats why i'm asking why they don't apply).--Zeeboid 14:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, in the interest of fairness, I found a page stating that the contributors of RealClimate are not paid. However, the same page indicates the site is not a general circulation magazine like National Geographic, it is a public relations site for the global warming cause. Quote: "RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary." Then I learned that RealClimate is registered to Betty Ensley of Environmental Media Services. Quoting again: "EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994." This shows that Connelly and Mann are both part of the same activist organization designed to put out a monolithic message about global warming and to censor or discredit statements or messengers who disagree. I am certainly capable of providing you with additional information. I am still wondering what information is still lacking? RonCram 15:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

A new wrinkle on this COI discussion

Would anyone care to explain the facts presented here? WP:COI, WP:MEAT, and WP:SOCK#WP:Voting_and_other_shows_of_support are all applicable. Durova 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Other relevant links might be Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Reigning_in_Uber's_trolling and Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#Text_William_Connolley_deleted_from_.223RR:_William_M._Connolley.2C_reported_by_Zeeboid.22. There seem to be quite a few editors who want some sort of action taken against Dr. Connolley. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could be worthy of a checkuser, especially after the AFD closes. MER-C 07:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Could we get any good out of this? part of the big problem here is WMC's inability to use the same standards across the board for justification of his actions. I know you've read everything above but for some examples fo what i'm talking about are:

1. Noting here that a blog comment is not notable dispite his defence of blogs that agree with the RealClimate blog or the use of the RealClimate.org blog.
2. Removing discussion from the discussion page:

I'll keep it there for now.

1. I would like an explination on why stuff like this from an Administrator is ok.
2. We all have bias, but for someone who is a self proclimed environmental activist to hold the same POV throughout all of his editing on the topic he is an activist for... that wreaks of COI.
3. Are we the only users who feel this way about WMC's POV/COI? Did you look through this admin's history of people who he has torqued off?

Also, while you bring up Tony's link to an outside site (note the outside site i just refrenced is available on WMC's userpage), I have trouble seeing anything wrong with that other then one user's documented issues with a group of users who push a POV on a string of Wiki articles. Is the information collected on those pages inaccurate?--Zeeboid 13:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea... To explain here. I assist with the show, in a voluntary manor, That is accurate. Even Tony does the show voluntary. There is no compensation, so I guess Tony's use of the word "Staff" is a little inaccurate. Much like an editorial page in a newspaper, but Tony has a few watts behind his voice instead of a printed paper, and I help out sometimes, and newspaper editors get paid. Kind of like WMC and Mann, except... we do not get paid, and our opinions can be swayed depending on the facts presented to us, as we do not work for a group or volunteer for a group that depends on a POV. The fun thing about a Volunteer position is you can't be swayed in that respect. If you would like to verify this, you could contact the radio station that Tony broadcasts on. You have access to this information.--Zeeboid 14:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The article in question is Scientific data withholding. You're writing as if the entire article is about Michael Mann, who only appears in one paragraph of the article. This discussion seems irrelevant to the reason why the article was nominated for deletion, which is that "scientific data withholding" is a neologism and the article is a POV fork from Scientific data archiving. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion here is about the Conflict of Intrest on the User WMC for editing articles that reflect posatiavly or negatavly on the groups he is in or the people he is in those groups with. Scientific data withholding is one example of this, and the article in question that WMC nominated for deletion that spawned this discussion.--Zeeboid 15:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Marko Kitti (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch)

Marko Kitti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article about a (seemingly) very minor Finnish author that I removed a couple of POV sentences from shortly after its creation. It was created, and almost exclusively edited, by Mustepullo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), to whom I also dropped a line about encyclopedic language etc. Notice that this is a single-purpose account.

I recently checked back to see if this article had been improved and found that Mustepullo had added quite a few interwiki links to it. I checked a few of the other articles to see if they contained any more information that could possibly be translated to make the article less stubbish. It seems that every single one of them, nine non-English languages in all, were created by the same username, Mustepullo. I think we have a case of long-term, cross-language COI abuse. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, darn me. A remarkable coincidence that in all the world, in all the online listings of Finnish websites, here at Fennica.net Mustepullo Graphics and Marko Kitti are adjacent. Tearlach 02:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)