Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6

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

• Scientific data withholding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific data withholding (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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 Wikipedia administrator, William is respected by many editors on Wikipedia. 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.[1] 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^Charge! 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 [1] 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 [2] [3] [4] 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 [5] [6][7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Use of Real Climate.org as a source [14].

Noting here that a blog comment is not notable[15] dispite his defence[16] of blogs that agree with the RealClimate blog or the use of the RealClimate.org blog.

Editing refrences to himself[17]. Limiting cleanup on Realclimate.org wiki site[18].--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: [19]. 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 Wikipedia: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 (^Talk/_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.[20][21][22][23] The defence of the Mann article can be seen going back as far as 2003 (a month after the article was created.)[24].--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.[25] 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.[26] But (ahem) When Connolley provides evidence that RonCram actually did canvass Cram responds William, I did not know that "canvassing" was frowned upon.[27]

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.[28][29][30] 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.[31] 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 Wikipedia and I don't recall interacting directly with him on any issue, on or off Wikipedia.

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^Charge! 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.[1] 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. [32] 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. [33] 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. [34] 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^Charge! 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''' Wikipedia article or '''website of your organization in other articles''' (see Wikipedia: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): [35] by WMC (→Other reaction - if we're not allowed rebuttals in the flim section, they don't get to rebut in the reaction section), [36] (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)), [37] (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 Wikipedia 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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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^Charge! 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 Wikipedia at RealClimate aren't germane to this particular discussion. Durova^Charge! 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". [38] And another example where he implicitly alleges a financial connection. [39] 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 (^Talk/_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, [http://racetotheright.com/GW 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^Charge! 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.[40] 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^Charge! 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. [41] 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. [42] 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^Charge! 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[43][44] they co-authered and one that lists the contributors as being Mann and WMC[45] and a RealClimate article they wrote together[46]. 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." [47] Then I learned that RealClimate is registered to Betty Ensley of Environmental Media Services. [48] 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." [49] 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)

Your first link leads to the following disclaimer: Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation. We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. All of these facts have always been made clear to everyone who asked (see for instance: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5705/netwatch.shtml). Your second link goes to a domain name search tool - I'm not certain what you intend to prove there. Your third link goes to an Environmental Media Services profile from Activistcash.com, which I suppose you expect me to take at face value and apply to RealClimate.org in spite of the disclaimer you also provided. Activistcash.com yields this Wikipedia entry, which is hardly an unbiased source. It's rather simple to prove an actual conflict of interest between Connolley and Mann if one exists. Simply examine their scientific publications in peer reviewed journals and see if they've coauthored any papers. I don't mean look up some slide show about RealClimate to demonstrate that they've both contributed to RealClimate: that's like trying to base a COI argument upon a slide show about National Geographic to show that two photographers are credited. If you can prove that one of them holds editorial control over the other at RealClimate then you might have something to go on, but please cease these overreaching claims. Durova^Charge! 15:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not bringing new evidence to this discussion, as I wish to stay out of it as much as possible. But it seems to me necessary to bring this "inquiry" back on a right track, as much as I can help with this.

The spirit behind any rule regarding COIs is to prevent a person from promoting his/her own interests at the expense of those of others that he/she is supposed to protect of promote (in this case, Wikipedia's). That WMC published in the same venue than Mann is perhaps part of what should be examined, but should not be the focus.

It has been said by the reviewer herein that "there is no evidence of a COI here". My conscience would be clearer if it rather had been said that there was actually evidence of a COI but that it was deemed not strong enough to call for a sanction under WP:COI, but the fact that many unrelated editors see a COI and that this discussion is pretty much alive indicates at least that there is a point worthy of discussion here, not the opposite. WP:COI suggests to "be guided by the advice of other editors" regarding possible COIs.

So far, everything that has been raised to support the COI allegation has been tossed on the ground that publication at the same venue does not constitute a COI per se. Additional material has been tossed on the ground that it was Argumentum ad nauseam.

If we come back to the core question we have all agreed on previously, and if we keep in mind that WP:COI states that "As a rule of thumb, the more involved you are in a particular area in real life, the more careful you should be to adhere to our core content policies" while also stating that "On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject", it seems obvious to me that there are grounds to believe that WP:COI is relevant here but that we are asked to determine wether WMC has trespassed the "expertise exception" that the policy allows.

Questions :

1- Is WMC sufficiently involved with Mann that this should raise concerns of bias with regard to articles involving this well-known scientist and thus call for WP:COI? (User:Durova seems to believe No, but further evidence should not be tossed without due attention)

2- Making a living out of AGW science, does WMC has a personal interest in participating in a fairly respected web site supportive of AGW theories and to protect this site's scientific reputation and flawlessness?

3- Being a scientific known on Wikipedia but not widely known yet in the world's scientific community, does WMC has a personal interest in being published on the same venues that Mann and in protecting these venues' scientific reputation and flawlessness?

If yes to either 1, 2 or 3, is it a violation of WP:COI for WMC not to avoid editing articles related to these subjects? If no to all after due care given to all sides, close the debate (unless I missed a material question).

Sorry for the length. --Childhood's End 16:51, 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)

Ankhilleus, I copied and pasted your question above the line because it relates to the COI itself. You are correct, but let me explain why the Mann paragraph is William's main issue. When the paragraph on Mann was found on the Scientific data archiving site, he deleted it several times.[50] [51] [52] The discussion on that Talk page convinced me that data archiving and data withholding should be discussed in different articles, even though they are related topics. I thought I had reason to believe other editors agreed. Soon after I created the new article, William nominated Scientific data withholding for deletion calling it neologism and POV fork. After nominating it for deletion, he deleted the paragraph on Mann again.[53] He also deleted a section that showed that Mann hid some of his data in a subdirectory called "BACKTO_1400-CENSORED." [54] This is a hugely embarrassing fact for Mann because hiding data is just plain wrong. Connelly called it an attempt at "NPOVing" but NPOV is not achieved by deleting accurate material from reliable sources. In defense of Scientific data withholding, it is not an NPOV fork because no consensus existed on NPOV at the Scientific data archiving article. The defense against the neologism charge is that "data withholding" is a common term a big problem in science. Try googling "data withholding." Connelly had to resort to deletion because he could not refute the information or provide any mitigating facts. RonCram 20:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron as has been pointed out to you lots of times - there is more than one side in that particular controversy. And since you are only presenting one side of the issue (calling it "accurate material from reliable sources") you are by default not adherring to NPOV. You seem to ignore the discussion here - and just forge ahead and put it on a new page - unaltered by the discussion that had already taken place. Simply put: There is dispute about Mann's hockey-stick - and you are only considering one side as factual. --Kim D. Petersen 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read Ron's diffs along with the edit histories and complete talk pages of both articles. After giving the whole matter a good look I've asked Connolley to clarify a couple of points.[55] Durova^Charge! 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kim, I do not know much about the "other side" regarding the data withholding of Mann. I do know the NSF supported Mann in his attempt to withhold the source code, something that is completely contrary to their stated policy. That fact is in the paragraph. It is wrong to say that Mann was within his "rights" to withhold the quote (as William tried to do in one of his edits) because the policy quoted above makes it clear that source code has to be shared. I have made it clear if there is some mitigating fact in Mann's favor that I did not know about, I would be happy to have it included as long as it has a reliable source. But when the facts are against your friend and your cause, it is wrong to try to delete the article. That should be clear to everyone involved.RonCram 14:07, 6 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^Charge! 04:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Other relevant links might be Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive77#Reigning_in_Uber's_trolling and

Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Text William Connolley deleted from "3RR: William M. Connolley, reported by Zeeboid". 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[56] dispite his defence[57] of blogs that agree with the RealClimate blog or the use of the RealClimate.org blog.
2. Removing discussion from the discussion page: [58][59][60]

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[61] 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)

I won't bother replying to the regurgitated diffs: proof by assertion isn't going to work here. The contention that Connolley is an environmental activist isn't supported by the diff provided, but since I've read previous discussions on the general topic of Connolley's wikicritics I'll infer that the claim constitutes an oblique allusion to his participation in a mainstream political party in a country where even the conservative party acknowledges global warming as a legitimate problem. Connolley's use of an external blog link falls within the legitimate scope of WP:RS#Exceptions.

This subthread, however, is not about Connolley's actions but about the actions of two of his accusers. Zeeboid's defense is a false analogy: Connolley and Mann do not participate in the same Wikipedia WP:AFD discussions, but Tony and Zeeboid both voted within 5 minutes of each other at the same AFD and both admit to being close associates. Whether that work is volunteer or paid is irrelevant to the meatpuppetry and vote stacking clauses of WP:SOCK. Also, unlike Connolley and Mann, Zeeboid and Tony have aggressively pursued an editor with baseless claims of malfeasance and have extended this conflict of interest discussion to absurd lengths through logical fallacies and wikilawyering. That's WP:POINT and you're both blocked for a week. Durova^Charge! 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The proof by assertions seems to be by your persistent assertions of proof by assertions. More importantly however, you asked for proof where Mann and William have published works together. I believe Zeeboid presented to you three such occurrences, but you have seemed to ignore them thus far, only focusing on non-relevant material--a fallacy in itself. ~ UBeR 20:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also felt uneasy about this. And these blocks have been issued following a quite executory process following this presentation. AGF should work both ways. I found that awkward to see Nethgirb accusing Zeeboid and Tony to cast concomitant votes while he himself votes accordingly to and wherever WMC votes. --Childhood's End 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Blocks of Zeeboid and Tony are all well and good, but does anyone feel bold enough to summarize the current situation, as it pertains to Conflict of Interest (re Mann and William)? It sounds like the original allegation is not correct, but some of the participants are being blocked for misbehavior during this very thread. Can anyone who has been closely following this clarify matters? It will affect whether the COI item can be closed. If we are to continue this, what is the new focus? EdJohnston 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to put back this discussion on the right trick above in my previous edit. Feel free to comment. --Childhood's End 22:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in continuing this discussion--it's clear that it won't reach any consensus. If I hadn't commented in the discussion I'd close it myself. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to Childhood's End, I've handled this whole matter quite conservatively: being very patient with obvious shortcomings on the part of Connolley's accusers and offering them the opportunity to explain or justify hard evidence of serious policy violations on their own parts. The diffs against them were conclusive enough that I really had no need to be so circumspect. On the good faith assumption that there might be some larger context I hadn't understood I offered to let them set me straight, and what I got was prompt confirmation of these two editors' close association from Zeeboid. The rest of his response consisted of tu quoque and a few other logical fallacies that were irrelevant to the question I had posed, and which (even on their own merits) amounted to a paltry attack.

One of Connolley's critics has asked until Friday to locate the type of evidence I've offered to consider. That's a fair request. I've posted a query to Connolley's talk page regarding RonCram's latest set of diffs. This is a contentious debate and in order to be scrupulous I'll wait until Saturday. Durova^Charge! 02:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edit conflicted with MER-C. Hope nobody minds if this thread remains open per the request. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, no response to my post. Nobly conservative, as perhaps you would state. ~ UBeR 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted, Durova has asked William to comment on the COI issue regarding William's relationship to Mann. Durova's comment can be viewed as a summary of how this COI stands. EdJohnston 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

William also has a tendency to abuse the trust Wikipedia places in him as an administrator to allow neutrality in articles that his friends participate in. One example today, no sooner had I edited an article, Kim came in and deleted it, I replaced it because it was reasonable and not breaking rules. William decided to agree with Kim and duly deleted it again. --Dean1970 04:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Burden of proof rests with an editor who makes an allegation. That depends on evidence, not word count. Despite many long posts and a lot of red herrings the meaningful evidence against Connolley has been quite thin. A few brief and well substantiated posts have provided devastating evidence against a couple of his critics. So yes, at this point the matter has taken a certain shape, and I'm rather surprised that Connolley's critics continue to try fruitless tactics. I've explained what type of posts I disregard (except to note as aggregate WP:POINT violations) and I've given examples of the type of evidence I'd consider seriously and none has been forthcoming. I followed up thoroughly on the first post of circumstantial evidence that made a reasonable case for appearance of impropriety. You've got another day and a half to two days to demonstrate that Connolley is anything worse than a scientist who edits in his area of expertise. Although I'm about as distant from his controversies as a Wikipedia sysop can be, his history in Wikipedia dispute resolution is no secret: he's been under extraordinary scrutiny. I'm keeping an open mind in case something substantial comes up in the next day and a half, and I've restored this thread after it had been deleted in order to guarantee its openness and fairness. For the record, however, I will cease rephrasing my replies to regurgitated arguments and evidence that have already been rejected. If you don't see an answer, look higher on the page. Durova^Charge! 04:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer UBeR, thanks for raising that again. This crashed my browser three times and I couldn't read it. This is a slide show that basically credits all the RealClimate contributors in the final screen, which doesn't indicate much. This and this are somewhat more meaningful. I mentioned the authorship issue in my earlier post to Connolley, so let's see what he says in reply. What I would prefer to see you produce if you wish to make a COI case is peer reviewed journal publications, which neither of these are. That would establish them as collaborators on some specific research project rather than as scientists who are willing to make public statements that their findings are in agreement. What I stated to Connolley and what I want to make clear here is that the basic COI argument I'm examining is not a particularly strong one: Mann was a subtopic of the article Connolley nominated for deletion, even in the version Connolley's critics preferred, and both the mention of Mann and the presence of the article at Wikipedia are assailable on various grounds. So unless some startling evidence emerges to back up the serious but unsubstantiated allegations that have buzzed around this thread, the likely outcome would be that I'd leave a polite note for Connolley about avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Now I hope my next words are superfluous, but from the tenor of this discussion and my research into this COI complaint this looks like something worth stating proactively: if I ask Connolley to defer to other editors about specific mentions of Mann, that shall not be construed as a wedge issue to promote WP:POINT and WP:NOR. That is to say, if people exploit the names of Connolley's colleagues to inoculate articles against his intervention I will issue aggressive userblocks. Durova^Charge! 05:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I don't doubt Williams good offices as a scientist, and that he believes truly in his point of view. However, I honestly believe that he has to be partial when resolving a dispute when it involves someone he has had a "run in" with before and one of his friends. There is no excuse or valid reason to delete reasonable edits, esp where there is no abuse nor lie. If it is valid, and can be verified then it is worthy of inclusion, like it or not! --Dean1970 05:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, surely an administrator using his position as such to give a 3 rr warning to an editor cleaning up the opening paragraph of an article relating to a documentary he has a beef with is wrong? A documentary that the same administrator (who fair enough, is a scientist) makes critisisms later in the article? I'm not suggesting he should lay off completely, but he should understand that usually the opening paragraph of a docu has a synopsis that the film makers claim is true, its their docu, critisism and outside analysis have their respective section? --Dean1970 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dean, your posts presume the reasonableness of certain edits. We're talking about a technical subject in which Connolley has expertise. This also happens to be a subject that has political resonance to some people (most of them nonscientists). I take several elements of this thread to indicate that the editors who oppose him are far more sophisticated politically than scientifically, for instance the general confusion that ensued after I requested evidence of Connolley and Mann coauthoring scientific papers. I had presumed that at least some of his critics possessed enough understanding of science to understand what type of paper that means and what coauthorship of such a piece implies and I find it rather disturbing that individuals who demonstrate so little understanding of the fundamentals are pursuing the matter so aggressively, particularly because the Ross ice shelf doesn't care one whit about politics. Durova^Charge! 13:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Durova. Thanks for the time in reviewing this issue as it must be time consuming. As I said previously, I am not here to bring new evidence against or for Mr. Connolley. But perhaps I can help streamlining this "inquiry".

We agreed above that the main question that must be adressed is wether WP:COI applies here or not. What we have seen so far leaves me no doubt; this policy applies. Yourself noted that what allows Mr. Connolley to edit articles about climate, Mann or Climate.org is his scientific expertise in the field (this is in line with WP:COI#Close relationships). Otherwise, he'd be too close from the subject, irrelevantly of Mann or of anything else. Climate science is his living.

From there, I do not understand why the process should be constrained to scrutinizing whether Mr. Connolley published peer-reviewed papers with Mann. Focus must be put on "personal interests". I still suggest that the following questions be considered:

1- Is WMC sufficiently involved with Mann that this should raise concerns of bias with regard to articles involving this well-known scientist? (so far you seem to believe that the answer is no, but perhaps further evidence will be submitted by Ron, let's see).
2- Making a living out of AGW science, does WMC has a personal interest in participating in a fairly respected web site supportive of AGW theories and to protect this site's scientific reputation and flawlessness?
3- Being a scientific known on Wikipedia but not widely known yet in the world's scientific community, does WMC has a personal interest in being published on the same venues that Mann, peer-reviewed or not, and in protecting these venues' scientific reputation and flawlessness?
If yes to either 1, 2 or 3, is it a violation of WP:COI for WMC not to avoid editing articles related to these subjects? If no, has he gone beyond what the "scientific experise" exception of the policy allows him to do (this exception is not an unlimited free pass)? Finally, if no to all after due care given to all sides, close the debate (unless I missed a material question). --Childhood's End 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this a courtroom? Raymond Arritt 16:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a courtroom, but Durova is trying to focus a COI thread that has already run on for pages and pages and seems to have a rather insubstantial basis. She indicates she will close it soon unless someone gives her specific data (as she described), and this plan seems appropriate. EdJohnston 16:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. This is my first substantial experience with a COI case, and some of the commentors are using very legalistic language, so I wasn't certain of the implications. Raymond Arritt 16:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a time limit on that closure so this has about one more day to go. I'm working this around my schedule so I'll probably reach a conclusion either late morning or early evening California time. Durova^Charge! 16:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors who are interested in this thread will probably want to follow User_talk:William_M._Connolley#WP:COIN. Most of Childhoodsend's questions are already answered by my previous posts. Complex investigations are my specialty as a sysop. I hope the participants at this thread are aware of my reputation as something of a maverick: once in a while I reach a conclusion that goes against another administrator, most recently here, and I sometimes err on the side of WP:AGF when dealing with disruptive editors - which I think is appropriate since I also cowrote the WP:DE guideline and proposed the WP:CN board. I come to this particular request with a clean slate and with the goal of giving everyone a fair hearing. One bright spot at this thread is that none of the editors have questioned my objectivity and you all have my thanks for that. Now if you'd like to change my mind, go find some evidence. Durova^Charge! 16:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, I just want to remind everyone that Conflict of interest/Noticeboard is a community process, and that Durova's "conclusion" or that of any one individual will be their own opinion only and will not be definitive nor binding without strong consensus being shown. 151.151.73.167 17:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, on William's Talk page he indicated the Mann paragraph represented the views of Steve McIntyre only. That is certainly not true. McIntyre played a key role because he was the one who was auditing Mann's papers and requested his data and methods. But take a look at the number of sources the paragraph links. I was not able to link to the Wall Street Journal article that launched the Congressional investigation (WSJ doesn't make much available without a subscription), but I did link to the letter from Congress which requested Mann to provide his data and methods and mentions the WSJ article that spawned the investigation.[62] I also linked the English translation of the article from Natuurwetenschap & Techniek [63] and the peer-reviewed Wegman Report which also discusses Mann's data withholding. [64] Michael Mann is currently the poster boy for data withholding in climate science (although he may be joined by Phil Jones). It is not often Congress gets involved in a data withholding case, so there is no question of the notability of this event. Connelly has a history of edit warring in order to delete well-sourced edits that are negative to Mann. [65] [66] Too many diffs to list them all. See History.RonCram 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The IP appears to confuse this process with an administrator conduct request for comment. If you wish to conduct a discussion on those terms, then by all means go to the appropriate venue for it. Durova^Charge! 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding RonCram's diffs, we can presume that Connolley's actions prior to December 2005 were adequately addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. If you wish to renew examination of his actions prior to that date then the appropriate route would be to take it up with the arbitration committee. As I posted to Connolley's talk page, at this point my reading of Connolley's deletions of the Mann discussion at the Scientific data withholding article is that his actions were covered by the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV. Mann was a poor example at an article that purports to be a general discussion of scientific practice: an older, simpler, and settled example might enlighten the reader. Adequate discussion of the Mann issue would have carried that particular article too far afield of its central topic. While I appreciate the contentions that McIntyre may not have been the sole source, that bolsters rather than undercuts my view about undue weight: if this is controversial enough that editors need to line up three different sources in support of the contention that Mann did this and balance that by presenting a defense of Mann's actions, then an understanting of scientific data withholding becomes prerequisite to an understanding of the Mann situation and he doesn't make a good illustrative case for a reader who wants to understand what scientific data withholding is (even if we assume for purposes of discussion that the page is not a neologism or a POV fork). Durova^Charge! 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, William also says on his Talk page that the article he wrote with Mann was basically "a blog posting." This is also not true. You can tell from the look of the pdf, that it was intended for print publication. Whether it was ever printed, I do not know. OpenDemocracy is a not-for-profit organization funding by large philanthropic institutions. They also syndicate the writings they publish and the profit is split between the authors and OpenDemocracy. I quote: "We assume your permission to syndicate your writing around the world for one year, and will offer to split revenue generated by this activity 50/50 between openDemocracy and the author." [67] I just read your above comments. It baffles me how when McIntyre is thought to be the only source it causes you to think of "undue weight" but when he is shown not to be the only source, it bolsters your view about undue weight. I am certain I would not be the only one confused by this. I was trying to write an interesting and informative article, not thinking I needed to "line up three different sources in support of the contention that Mann did this." I did not present a defense of Mann's actions because I do not know of any. I openly requested Mann's defenders, including William, to put in any information he thought was necessarity to make the entry NPOV. None was forthcoming. Mann's case is a great illustration of data withholding and also illustrates how researchers can be forced to provide their data. RonCram 21:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

While agreeing that Mann's behavior is an instance of data withholding, and agreeing that the Michael Mann data-withholding case could deserve attention in some appropriate article, I find this particular COI nomination hard to fathom. The current Scientific data withholding article is just too hard to justify whatsoever, because of neutrality issues, and the case against William is basically that he nominated this article for deletion. The material about Mann could find a home in some better-chosen place, for example Michael Mann (scientist). RonCram seems to think that William would struggle against including it anywhere, but this assumption has not yet been tested. We could ask William to voluntarily refrain from edits on the Michael Mann data-witholding issue and he might agree. This seems like a more plausible approach than parsing the fine details of any past collaboration between him and Michael Mann. EdJohnston 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, I appreciate the suggestion as it is a move in the right direction. I would prefer that he refrain from suppressing any negative information about any of his close friends or organizations, whether Michael Mann, RealClimate or British Antarctic Survey. I would not expect him to refrain from adding favorable or mitigating information about these people or oganizations. We want articles to be NPOV. He may know mitigating info that I don't know, so I don't want to block all of his edits on these subjects. I just want the censorship to stop.RonCram 23:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I find your accusations of censorship (above, as well as here‎) to be tiring. Scientific data withholding was deleted not because "a controlling group or body" (phrasing from here) prevented the material from being displayed, but because many editors independently came to the conclusion that it was inappropriate. As far as I can tell, William never used special admin priviledges in this whole affair, so he had no more power than you or me. Unless you can provide some justification, it will appear that you are using that wording simply so that other people view you as being oppressed. --Nethgirb 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific data withholding, the article which this thread ostensibly concerned, has now been deleted, so I think it's time to close this discussion. If editors are still interested in discussing William M. Connolley's editing generally (which is what this discussion was actually about), an RfC would be more appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether William failed to restrict his editing in the presence of a COI. This is the COI noticeboard, so it's reasonable to hash it out here. EdJohnston 03:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb, if you find my description of the censorship tiring, you should experience how tiring it is on this end. If you knew how much I have wanted to say and have restrained myself from saying, you would be proud of me. I do not believe the nomination to delete the article would have passed if William had not been the one to nominate it. RonCram 04:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, you seem to think the Scientific data withholding article was not neutral. Since you have stated that opinion, can you tell me what is wrong with the article? What information was left out that should have been included? I have asked this question repeatedly and no one has ever given an answer.RonCram 04:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the AfD debate; I prefer not to continue that discussion. On his Talk page, William seemed to open the door for some material about Mann to be added elsewhere: It doesn't really belong in Manns biog - but it does belong in, and is covered in, hockey stick controversy 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC). In a quick look, I didn't see what he was referring to in the Hockey stick controversy article, but you might have more luck there. EdJohnston 17:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova's conclusion

William M. Connolley's conduct at Wikipedia has been subjected to extensive scrutiny at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2. In evaluating this request I bear those decisions in mind along with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2 which established his administratorship after both arbitrations concluded. The particular basis for this COI request is rather weak: the community has deleted the article in question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific data withholding.

Nonetheless, my task is not to determine whether William M. Connolley is overall a good editor who has the general support of the Wikipedia community but whether his particular attention to Michael Mann violates WP:COI policy. The margins of that policy are blurry and my analysis follows the example at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal.

Connolley denies that he has ever coauthored a peer reviewed paper with Mann and Connolley's critics have provided no evidence to the contrary. What Connolley's critics have provided is evidence that Connolley and Mann published popular audience writings through the same venue and on two occasions they both shared authorship with several other people, one of which may have had the potential for earning them a (probably small) amount of money. This does raise my antenna, as I think any neutral and objective observer's antenna should be raised. Yet what raises my antenna to a greater degree is the vehement bad faith of Connolley's accusers despite the weakness of their evidence and apparent weakness of their understanding of the underlying science. In the course of this request I have issued two weeklong userblocks against editors who had themselves violated pretty nearly the same policies that Connolley's critics have accused him of violating. This is disturbing: site policies apply equally to everyone and those of use who wish to be taken seriously should scrutinize our own individual behavior foremost.

Most of all, I urge all concerned to avoid pursuing this dispute along a paradigm of consensus reality. Although I don't actually know whether global warming is a genuine phenomenon or not, I'm certain the earth's glaciers and ice caps pay no regard to human consensus at Wikipedia or anywhere else: the planet cools or warms without regard to what a few editors think is happening. Our business as Wikipedians is to supply the best and most neutral information possible to the site's readers. Per the undue weight clause at WP:NPOV, expert consensus in 2007 appears to be that global warming is a real phenomenon. That may not have been the case in 1967 or 1977, but it is today, and (speaking generally) when Connolley edits articles in accordance with that position he reflects the expert majority. The extent to which this is a controversial issue is largely in the political arena rather than the scientific arena. Editors who have heartfelt opinions on both sides of the divide would do well to respect that distinction.

So I advise Connolley to exercise care with regard to WP:COI where edits regard colleagues with whom there might be an appearance of impropriety. Specifically, please bear in mind that some editors are unaware of the significant differences between professional collaboration and general audience authorship. It would help to provide talk page edits at a general readership level. To an editor whose background is more political than scientific, some of these actions appear to hint at real impropriety. Although it is not my opinion that meaningful impropriety exists, our common goal is to avoid long procedural debates such as this one and get back to writing an encyclopedia.

My advice to Connolley's critics begins with a caveat: as the creator of the controversial Category:Eguor admins I have pledged to scrutinize all Wikipedians' actions with equal fairness, up to and including Jimbo. A generous serving of WP:AGF would do wonders for global warming-related topics, particularly on the conservative side, and I'm more than a little concerned that a phenomenon I've observed in various topical disputes may be operating here: editors who have any vehement POV are prone to construing misconduct into the actions of opposing editors, then once they convince themselves that the other side has breached policies (whether or not it really has), the vehement POVers begin violating policies themselves. Sometimes they violate policies blatantly. Other times they seem to misread policy or fail to appreciate when they apply an unequal standard. Neutral administrators such as myself do our best to explain how this site really works and encourage turnaround. When that fails we have the sysop tools.

I'm a firm believer in article content requests for comment. When they work they're good at bringing fresh air and fresh opinions into a discussion, which sometimes breaks a deadlock. I understand those have been done before on these topics, and maybe the duration and changing faces of this dispute limits the value of RFC but it seems to be the best you've got.

So try to be gentlemanly (or ladylike?): shake hands, agree to disagree, and get back to creating an encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 05:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe such a tendentious, baseless COIN filing was even entertained, much less to the degree it is was. The facts presented as evidence here are exactly what I would expect to see of an expert in the field, but claiming they add up to a conflict of interest is beyond a stretch, but surreal. And looking at the initiator's history with WMC (specifically his block log and articles editted) and it becomes apparent that he may have his own conflict of interest in this filing; it appears to be personally motivated.

Situations such as this do not warrant the amount of time, effort and disruption devoted to it. It has squandered much precious time of long term, significant volunteers in good standing simply encourages pov pushers and trolls to attack others in the hope of gaining the upper hand in simple content disputes. WMC is one of WP's most valuable, selfless and tireless contributors. In situations like this I simply cannot agree with or support wasting the community's time entertaining baseless objections and suggest that the initiator move along and stop wasting the community's time and goodwill. FeloniousMonk 16:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I appreciate your work and I know it is difficult to be neutral when the community as a whole is so emotionally charged on the larger issue of Global Warming. The facts in this case speak for themselves and you have come to a reasonable conclusion. Speaking for myself, I am willing to shake hands and work together with William to improve Wikipedia. RonCram 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Durova for her conclusion, the analysis, and for her discussion with Connolley to clarify matters. Does anyone object if we now close this COI item? EdJohnston 19:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Global warming (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

→ See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 6#William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - has made multiple personal attacks accusing me of bias in an article directly related to his area of employment. I have been blocked for an hour and banned from global warming, both without any explanation from either admin. He has repeatedly shown that he is unable to refrain from making personal attacks. //James S. 11:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. We have just been over this. "Directly related to his area of employment" is something that any expert is likely to fulfill, i.e. it's an empty standard. And who is "either admin" and what does your ban have to do with William? --Stephan Schulz 11:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No assertion of violation of WP:COI, sense of deja vu. Let's not have this again. MER-C 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Nrcprm2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ("James S.") — blocked seven times since January 2006 — claimed COI. That "assertion" was not supported by evidence. — Athænara ✉ 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hd1080ip (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hd1080ip.

Hd1080ip (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
HD1080 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Carlos von Son (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Cvonson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User (apparently the article subject) is the creator and sole editor of the above article. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Author blanked. No article, no problem. MER-C 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

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

His first edit summary indicates he's the same person as Nicholas Stix.[68] 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".[69] He's also engaged in serial incivility for which a block may be warranted.[70][71][72][73] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. -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 Wikipedia. (We're not in the realm of subtle issues). See also his block log at [74]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

I see a clear pattern there, despite the claims of not being him. 151.151.73.169 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova issued a 48-hour block of 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on 4 April for personal attacks. Scan his contribution history to appreciate the nasty edit summaries. In this edit Stix re-inserted a link to his own blog into an article, and declared himself to be reverting vandalism by Will Beback! Provocation just to get a reaction, or is that the definition of WP:POINT?

It seems that the the incivility, if it continues, might justify a series of escalating blocks, without having to do deep analysis of the COI issue. The repeated re-insertion of links, after they are removed by regular editors, often leads to a quick verdict of spam, which is simpler to reason about than COI. EdJohnston 03:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the less 70.23.* posts, the more Yakuman posts. It is possible that the two are totally unrelated, but Yakuman seems singular in his unswerving support for 70.23.*, and has championed his cause, and taken up his quest to spread the word of Stix, like no others have. Yakuman seems slightly more civil, but I'm not convinced they are not indeed the same editor. Andyparkerson 06:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

EJ makes a good point. Incivility is simpler to deal with than COI and doesn't require delving into identity. On AP's matter, I doubt for several reasons that Yakuman is the same editor. -Will Beback · † · 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. I simply wanted to address the possibility. Andyparkerson 07:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova points out that this IP hasn't edited since 4 April, and has asked to be notified if problems resume. EdJohnston 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs) removed due to length, please keep statements to 200 words. MER-C 05:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

And don't try to get around the limit by posting multiple comments. It's still a long diatribe. MER-C 12:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the diatribe itself diff) is actually a very good example of 70.23*'s writing style, complete with misrepresentations, ad hominem arguments, conflations or confusions of multiple editors', personal commentary, etc. I actually had never read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing before today, but it's as if it 70.23* is conducting an experiment by, literally, demonstrating each one of those bullet points. --lquilter 12:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should migrate to another noticeboard, but since this has been a forum for the issues I'll say here that I have blocked the account for 1 month due to the latest set of personal attacks, this one in particular.[75] It is the editor's 4th block for NPA violations. -Will Beback · † · 16:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[Don't respond here: Just a quick note regarding a long-time entry here that I didn't get a chance to add before it was archived. I'll add this to the existing archive after a day or so.]

In response to an additional complaint I blocked user 70.23.199.239 at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by 70.23.199.239. The block is up for review. Please post further comments there. -Will Beback · † · 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Terry (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Tom Terry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -
• Cheesenut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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^Charge! 15:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Faisal Gill (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Faisal Gill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -
• Jimhuber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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^Charge! 15:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Gletiecq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 · 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)

I think the concerns here have been resolved in spite of the concealment of user Gletiecq's coi in the initial report. There have been no edits from that account since March 29. — Athænara ✉ 02:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Marie Killick (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

• Marie Killick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -
• Cynthia killick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 [76][77] - 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^Charge! 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) [watchlist?]

• Esther Springer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Original username was a COI-obvious Studiosarch (talk • contribs • logs).
• 68.173.24.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 ^{Talk Contrib} 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^Charge! 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Simon Treves (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

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

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

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)

StartCom (history|Watchlist this article|unwatch) [watchlist?]

→ See also: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Startcom

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StartCom

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

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 (^Talk/_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)

Norcomm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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 ^Talk 16:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

User concerned has not edited since mid February. I'd call this one inactive. MER-C 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)