User William M. Connolley – Resolved. – 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
Use of Real Climate.org as a source [14]. 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)
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)
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)
(edit conflict)
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)
(edit conflict)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A new wrinkle on this COI discussionWould 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)
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)
I'll keep it there for now.
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)
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 breakWilliam 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 conclusionWilliam 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)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Global warming – No assertion of COI – 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hd1080ip – Deleted on afd – 06:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Hd1080ip (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Stewartmilleronline (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) At the top of this noticeboard is Alex Bakharev's bot-generated listing of possible conflicts. In this edit an IP editor ingeniously removed his own COI from the file, with no edit comment. Very discreet. A man named Stewart Miller has patented a new video format called HD1080ip and has been adding mention of it to articles. Since the only reference so far is one forum comment in Engadget's web forum, I think all these mentions should be deleted. Also the Hd1080ip article should be deleted (I prodded it). I'm drawing attention to it here so that we keep a close eye on the edits to Alex Bakharev's listing. Since 161.51.11.2 shows such a close interest in Stewart Miller's work, I'm assuming it's the same guy. EdJohnston 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Carlos von Son – Speedied (G7) – 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User 70.23.199.239 – Blocked one month. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
70.23.199.239 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:
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)
1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement. He also claims:
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)
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)
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)
[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) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tom Terry – Inactive. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Faisal Gill – Resolved. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
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)
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) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Marie Killick – Resolved. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Studios Architecture – Semiprotected one month. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Simon Treves – Resolved. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Simon treves ( talk · contribs) Is the author of some serious autobiographical vanispamcruftisement and other COI stuff, including:
Although the user/subject be notable himself, this is less clearcut with respect to his works. MER-C 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
StartCom – All articles deleted on afd – 11:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
see also WikiProject Spam case-- Hu12 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion discussion here. Don't you just hate corporate vanity? MER-C 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User Norcomm – Inactive – 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Norcomm ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)This account has been active since January. The first action was to create the article Norris-Whitney Communications and all edits since seem to be associated with products, publications, people and events associated with this particular company. I could make a list but it would be lengthy and it's probably easier just to look at the user contribs. In addition to the articles shown in the contribs, it appears there may also have been several other articles speedily deleted as either non-notable or spam - at least I saw some nominated while I was typing this. RJASE1 Talk 16:04, 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) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User William M. Connolley – Resolved. – 00:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
William M. Connolley ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
Use of Real Climate.org as a source [14]. 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)
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)
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)
(edit conflict)
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)
(edit conflict)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
A new wrinkle on this COI discussionWould 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)
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)
I'll keep it there for now.
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)
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 breakWilliam 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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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 conclusionWilliam 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)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Global warming – No assertion of COI – 11:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
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)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Hd1080ip – Deleted on afd – 06:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Hd1080ip (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
Stewartmilleronline (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) At the top of this noticeboard is Alex Bakharev's bot-generated listing of possible conflicts. In this edit an IP editor ingeniously removed his own COI from the file, with no edit comment. Very discreet. A man named Stewart Miller has patented a new video format called HD1080ip and has been adding mention of it to articles. Since the only reference so far is one forum comment in Engadget's web forum, I think all these mentions should be deleted. Also the Hd1080ip article should be deleted (I prodded it). I'm drawing attention to it here so that we keep a close eye on the edits to Alex Bakharev's listing. Since 161.51.11.2 shows such a close interest in Stewart Miller's work, I'm assuming it's the same guy. EdJohnston 15:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Carlos von Son – Speedied (G7) – 03:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User 70.23.199.239 – Blocked one month. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
70.23.199.239 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)This user has been editing with a conflict of interest. He has added dozens of links to articles he's written elsewhere and then he's edit-warred over their removal. He's used at least four different IPs in the same range:
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)
1.)The anonymous editor says he is being singled out because of his continued political engagement. He also claims:
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)
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)
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)
[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) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Tom Terry – Inactive. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Faisal Gill – Resolved. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
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)
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) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Marie Killick – Resolved. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Studios Architecture – Semiprotected one month. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
Simon Treves – Resolved. – 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Simon treves ( talk · contribs) Is the author of some serious autobiographical vanispamcruftisement and other COI stuff, including:
Although the user/subject be notable himself, this is less clearcut with respect to his works. MER-C 10:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
StartCom – All articles deleted on afd – 11:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
see also WikiProject Spam case-- Hu12 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Deletion discussion here. Don't you just hate corporate vanity? MER-C 10:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |
User Norcomm – Inactive – 12:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC) |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above Please do not modify it. |
Norcomm ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)This account has been active since January. The first action was to create the article Norris-Whitney Communications and all edits since seem to be associated with products, publications, people and events associated with this particular company. I could make a list but it would be lengthy and it's probably easier just to look at the user contribs. In addition to the articles shown in the contribs, it appears there may also have been several other articles speedily deleted as either non-notable or spam - at least I saw some nominated while I was typing this. RJASE1 Talk 16:04, 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) |
The above is an archived debate of the possible conflict of interest related to the article above. Please do not modify it. |