"

WP:COI concerns and solutions for this article
User:Lordradish asked a question about my possible conflict of interest - WP:COI.  First, always look at Wikipedia policies if you think there is an issue, don't just go away angry. I know that I'm still learning Wikipedia policies and just reading the above I can see that in 2007-2008 period I was somewhat confused about a couple of them. The longer you are here, the more sensitive you become to all of them through experience.

Re: COI questions, usually its better to start that on a talk page per WP: ""The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline."" Actually, I thought this issue explicitly had been dealt with here before, but reading through I see I evidently confused it with a related COI question elsewhere. Anyway, I'll respond in interest of full disclosure, outline questions I think have to be asked on the talk page of any editor here who gives any indication of being familiar with the issue, and suggest some possible ways of dealing with WP:COI issues here.

My possible WP:COI
To answer Lordradish's question, I have contributed 43 blog entries to the secessionist blog Vermont Commons over the last 38 months. I have not been paid.  My blog entries have been more generally related to the topic of secession and occasionally make passing references to Vermont and its secession issues, including in comments on others' entries. I don’t live in Vermont and don't intend to. I don't consider myself a member of any Vermont Secession group. As far as I remember, I only have corresponded with the Vermont Commons editor, and that by email. I get some irregular Vermont Commons email and mailings and occasional Second Vermont Republic snail mails. 
I also have suffered a couple years of vicious and even libelous off wiki attacks from the anonymous blogger who does vermontsecession.blogspot, including because I edited this page, and including at another blogspot page he set up just to ridicule me with incredible sexist ire. Therefore I have come to know far more about what types of individuals may be making very POV and COI edits to this article than I would have otherwise.
I do feel I have sufficient COI to make sure I declare it, as I now have, and to be very careful of my edits per WP:COI#Editors_who_may_have_a_conflict_of_interest. 

Possible WP:COI of other editors 
In the 2007-2008 period there was some extreme POV editing of this article by individuals who I believe had very strong personal and financial connections to Vermont organizations and individuals, far stronger than mine. They are strongly motivated to trash or downplay the significance of Second Vermont Republic and don't care much about Wikipedia policies.  Therefore here are some questions that might have to be asked on such suspected persons' talk pages (or here, but guidance on that appreciated). And I hope it’s ok to outline these general questions given the track record of this particular article.

General questions include: are you the anonymous blogger who does vermontsecession.blogspot.com which, while using some information from reliable sources, has a track record of unrelenting nasty, exaggerated and unprofessional attacks on individuals, often with little or even contrary evidence presented; is that person a close personal associate?; do you work for or with that person in some other capacity, such as at a publication or a blog or a sometimes paid campaign staffer?; are you a Democratic or Republican Party activist or contractor or potential contractor who fears that secession candidates running in 2012 might take votes away from Democratic Party candidates and throw the election to a Republican. (According to official returns the candidate Pete Garritano mentioned in th is article got 3.7% of the returns, something not yet in the article.)  Depending on whether a candidate was a more right or left winging secessionist, such a 2012 candidate could away enough votes to sway an election to the opponent of someone support by the editor.

If other editors who seem to be too pro-Vermont Secession arise, obviously relevant questions could be asked of them on their talk page or here.

Dealing with special WP:COI concerns of this article
Given the problems described above, I can think of possible solutions:
 I am going to ask some neutral editors - those who have not been active opining on the secession topic or me - to look at this section and opine.
 If Wikipedia:Pending changes is implemented, this article may need to be put on the list.
 In the interim, any time individuals who may have COIs make questionable edits, perhaps a trul