Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DPeterson

message: Relatively recent examples have been provided, but it is important to note that the behavior described in this RfC has been sustained since DPeterson first began editing. shotwell 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The charges of sock-puppetry apparently weren't pursued, but are being repeated. Is there a reason there hasn't been an RfCU to settle the matter?  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 10:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFCU was declined. All of the accounts had rather long edit histories when I requested it, perhaps this is the reason.  There is, at the very least, a very clear pattern that emerges from their edit histories. The similarities are especially striking in their earliest edits. An alternative explanation is that they have all learned mediawiki markup by watching each other edit and recreated each other's mistakes. Even if this is the case, they have shown a willingness to engage in what amounts to meat-puppetry. shotwell 10:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As described below, you were aware of the facts but continue to raise issues that have already been settled in the past.  The sockpuppetry issue was resolved as unfounded.  The Sockpuppetry issue as raised and found to be 'UNFOUNDED' [].  RalphLendertalk 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: We see a very clear pattern of edit histories among User:Shotwell, User:StokerAce, User:FatherTree, User:Fainites, User:Sarner, among others, either being single purpose accounts or accounts of very recent creation with one primary focus.  MarkWood 14:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and User:Maypole RalphLendertalk 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Excuse me. I am neither a single purpose account nor of very recent creation with one primary focus.  Feel free to look at my contribs record since I started on 9th December 2006. None of the other pages I have been involved in editing in a substantial way are connected to attachment therapy.Fainites 14:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that you've been around five months and have edited a few other pages...very true.  Also true seems to be the coalition among User:Fainites, User:Shotwell, User:StokerAce, User:FatherTree as evidenced by their planning strategy on each other's talk pages and via e-mails mentioned on talk pages.  RalphLendertalk 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I offered to e-mail everyone my copies of the sources, including you! Fainites 23:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

message: I was completely unaware of the pedophilia disputes and I think it is rather glib to describe this RfC as a "coalition". If DPeterson has prevented proponents of pedophilia from inserting their nonsense, then kudos to him. I limited the dispute statement to his behavior on the attachment therapy articles. shotwell 10:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's slander, no one here "condones pedophilia" and there is no conspiracy of any kind going on. There are however lots of people from various places on this wiki who have noticed DPetersens behavior and found it disruptive. V.☢.B 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What paedophilia disputes? The only thing I've seen is a discussion about whether self-confessed paedophiles should be banned. I think its on Jimbo Wales talkpage. What has that to do with this RfC? This is about attachment therapy and related sites on attachment issues. Fainites 11:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This 'paedophilia coaltion' is just typical of the type of tactics that  DPeterson has been using. FatherTree 12:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid Personal attacks against other editors.  That is not helpful for building agreement or collaboration. RalphLendertalk 16:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Coalition" 

message: This is content dispute and should be managed via Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures: Mediation.  
User:StokerAce, User:Shotwell, and the very recentor new "single-purpose" user accounts that have only edited this article, User:FatherTree for example, among others, all seem to act in concert, raising questions in my mind about their independence.  Regardless, Shotwell has a long standing dispute with these articles.  These were resolved at one point, and now have been reinvoked.  There have been several RfC's and other administrative actions pursued regarding several of these pages that Shotwell initiated or was a party to that raised these very same issues and which were put to rest as resolved or unfounded accusations.  MarkWood 14:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I won't bother responding to all the issues raised by User:Shotwell, but merely point out at least one that the user clearly knows is false and so the RfC is a disingenious attempt by that group.  The Sockpuppetry issue as raised and found to be 'UNFOUNDED' [].  They were and are aware of this.  
There clearly is a group working in concert and in a coordinated manner see [] for just one example.  I won't clutter up this page with a point by point description comment on their issues, unless an admistrator wishes some response.  The material and it's clear agenda lack of cred. speak for themselves. RalphLendertalk 14:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a perfect example of a rhetoric attack, attack any weak link to cast doubt on the whole subject. The technique is over 2000 years old. However, if 1 out of lots of points are weak (which is doubtful), there still remain enough issues with DPetersens behavior for it to be a serious cause for concern. V.☢.B 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusation that DPeterson is a sockpuppet is a major part of this RFC, and those who certified the RFC knew that the accusation was false.  It's not rhetoric to call into question the entire RFC based on only that.--Dcooper 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not aware of the previous checkuser. The one I requested was rejected without comment. At any rate, I left the RfC open to the possibility that they are simply meat puppets. shotwell 21:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I belive you were aware of it.  RalphLendertalk 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disingenious and false statements

message: For those who say this is a content dispute, can you please give some examples?  What are the specifics of the dispute as you see it? StokerAce 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether This is a Content Dispute 

message: Apparently, the group of User:StokerAce et. al. are now extending the dispute here to other articles Advocates for Children in Therapy, and Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy.  RalphLendertalk 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't see it as extending the conflict.  I saw it as engaging in substantive discussion of the issues.  This could be a good test of whether calm discussion can achieve anything here.  I invite all who are interested to join in. StokerAce 18:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a digging up of what the User:Shotwell, StokerAce, etc. group has already raised, discussed, RfC'ed, Mediated, etc.  Same questions, same issues all over again by the same group. RalphLendertalk 19:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is, I've never been able to get a substantive response to the issues I've raised.  I thought I'd try one more time to have a civil discussion about it.  Again, I ask all who are interested to participate. StokerAce 19:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the RfC mentions a variety of articles at the outset. I don't see digging up old RfC's etc is particularly relevent. Also, just because a point wasn't proved once before, doesn't mean it isn't right. Can we discuss the issues?Fainites 20:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this group that has included Sarner, and Shotwell and others, and now has several new editors and one-focus editors, has focused on several articles and raised the same issues despite resolution via RfC's, mediation, and other dispute resolution processes.  The issues have been repeatedly discussed and resolved.  Talk pages and archives have all the substantive responses necessary to respond. Its not worth while rehasing the same ground with the same group.RalphLendertalk 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said above, I've never gotten a substantive response to any of the points I just raised.  I'm making a good faith effort to try one more time. Let's talk!  StokerAce 21:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues have never be resolved. Lets resolve them now.Fainites 23:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they have been, repatedly...just one example: [].  The group of Shotwell, Fainites, Sarner, et. al. raise and re-raise the same issues.  DPetersontalk 00:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There have been debates, but never any resolution.  Let's try to hash this out now and we can be done with it.  There are really only a handful of issues.  I've started the ball rolling with 3.  StokerAce 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see that now the group of users affiliated (described below) are moving the dispute into other articles as they have done in the past. It gets so tiresome. SamDavidson 19:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''The Group is now extending the conflict''''

message: Nobody has actually responded to the content of this RfC. It is fallacious to be dismissive on the basis of having attracted some ostensibly strange people. It is furthermore unreasonable to disregard StokerAce's opinion due to his low edit count. Yes, there is a content dispute. Everyone would seem to agree that the content dispute is legitimate. This RfC, however, is about how DPeterson has completely stalled progress on these content disputes for nearly a year.
I think that some larger context is necessary. The disputes over attachment therapy started back in July. At that time, the leaders of Advocates for Children in Therapy were quite active on wikipedia. ACT is a small advocacy group that dedicates itself to fighting attachment therapy. ACT was founded as a response to the highly abusive techniques (forcefully restraining children and licking them is an example) employed by "attachment therapists". After some key deaths raised public and academic awareness, many of these therapists changed course, sought out less intrusive methods, and set about legitimizing their techniques through traditional scientific methods. To further complicate the matter, many highly respectable researchers have done very good research into attachment theory and attachment-based therapies. In this sense, there are two sorts of "attachment therapy". The situation is not unlike many topics in medicine, say herbal supplements. 
ACT has interacted with Becker-Weidman in the past because the group has unfairly put DDP into the same category of many abusive techniques. Jean Mercer and Becker-Weidman have had a few back-and-forths in letters to editors. This dispute spilled into wikipedia last July. Shortly thereafter, FCYTravis found the attachment-therapy articles in disarray. He has had disputes with this group ever since. I stumbled into the mess after FCYTravis and argued for quite some time, only to drop out of mediation because I'm a graduate student with very little time and mediation is impossible when one of the parties refuses to comply with wikipedia guidelines. We now find ourselves in this present situation -- the attachment therapy articles have changed very little since FCYTravis first tried to fix them and the articles are horrendously bad. This is the direct result of DPeterson et al.
The point of this RfC is that DPeterson has consistently edited here with the intent of promoting DDP. He has done so by abusing sources, badgering editors, and employing a large group of editors that share his exact opinions. There is a strong financial incentive to portray DDP in a positive light and distance it from the controversy generated by abusive techniques. (This is easily verified: google the topic and read the sagepub article linked to in the RfC). The RFCU linked to above shows that they are not all sock-puppets, but they certainly act as one voice. A group of editors that acts uniformly is to be treated as a single voice in content disputes. 
DPeterson has clearly done good work elsewhere, but there is no conflict of interest there. Moreover, any sensible person would resist pro-pedophilia propaganda. It is intellectually lazy to presume that this RfC lacks merit because DPeterson took the only sane position available in one particular dispute.  shotwell 00:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As described below, this is clearly a specious argument. DPetersontalk 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they've done this before.  These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again.  See, for example, [], [], [],  [] JonesRDtalk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this statement. JohnsonRon 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substance? Anyone? 

message: The group is continuing to extend this conflict to other pages as the above comment indicates.DPetersontalk 12:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they've done this before.  These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again.  See, for example, [], [], [],  [] JonesRDtalk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with this statement. JohnsonRon 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Group continues to try to expand the dispute to other articles

message: This is a specious argument.  Linking topics with articles where there is clear relevance, as is the case here, is not "advertising."  Taking this group's argument would mean that the various pages on which Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Aaron Beck are listed must have those materials removed since this "promotes" Dr. Beck: Cognitive Therapy, Cognitive-shifting, etc.  That is just plain silly.  JonesRDtalk 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this statement. JohnsonRon 16:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''''SPECIOUS ARGUMENT''''

message: Can someone tell my why we are doing this at all. Seems like the argument just continued here instead of other pages. Will this lead to something or is it just a beurocratic step that is needed to be taken before taking it to arbCom? V.☢.B 08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also at a loss. Perhaps we should request formal mediation (or find a cabalist with a penchant for tightly organized mediation). shotwell 11:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, the response has consisted of vacuous talking points that lack any rational merits. A good mediator and rigid mediation structure, however, would help to cut through this sort of bullshit. If not, then all I'll have to say is "so long and thanks for all the fish". shotwell 12:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the advanced nature of this dispute, I would suggest you consider formal mediation. Then, if that doesn't work, you could request arbitration. Addhoc 12:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If this goes to arbcom it might be an idea to combine it with the Rfc against Voice of Britain, and that could equally apply to mediation, SqueakBox 16:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will keep out. Good luck everyone. V.☢.B 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: These very same issues were previously raised by this group, some of whom are leaders of ACT and do have a financial stake in their position, resolved previously and then raised again.  See, for example, [], [], [],  [] JonesRDtalk 16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone actually has suggested that. But the reason me and some others ended up here was because DPetersons behavior was happening in other articles aswell (distoring information is so forth). You can never win in arbitration though since he is longtimer here, but good luck anyway. V.☢.B 18:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever a case involving multiple users comes in front of arbcom all the users involved are potentially subject to arbcom bans and/or restrictions. I am not entirely convinced the Voice of Britain and DPetersen issues are unrelated, SqueakBox 18:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I filed the RfC because I felt harrassed and felt there were other difficulties.  I thought the appropriate Wikipedia process would be, as a first step, the RfC.  Yes, I see these as related issues. DPetersontalk 18:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The issues you are raising are the same ones your group has raised in the past:
These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again.  See, for example, [], [], [],  []
DPetersontalk 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You said you wanted mediation. Is this no longer the case? shotwell 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I suggest we keep the mediation separate from the VoB case, SqueakBox 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with SqueakBox; you'll be making life easier for the mediator if you keep the cases separate. Addhoc 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. DPetersontalk 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but you (and now JonesRD above) have made comments here and elsewhere that seem to indicate you do not think mediation is appropriate. At this point I'm really only interested in knowing whether or not you'll agree to mediation, if you'll participate with an open mind, and if there are issues you'd like listed on the request. If you have a complaint about my conduct, think I'm part of a cabal, or anything of this nature, then just update and list the RfC you all wrote and signed about me a few months ago. In the meantime, it would be most effective to determine if you'll even agree to mediation. shotwell 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  So what??? This an article where I have knowledge about the subject and I can see that is is erroneous. Res ipsa loquitor. Is there a rule about single page editing? If I see another article as POV as this one and I have the knowledge I will edit it. FatherTree 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What an amazing waste of time! Have I come first or last? Whats the prize? I presume now from these results you're going to have to stop calling me a single issue editor or part of a group who only edits related pages? If it wasn't such a ridiculously hard struggle to try and get basic factual information from verified and credible sources into these articles against the dominant group I suspect our edit counts would be significantly lower! Fainites 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they would put as much time into researching that facts as this bickering the article would improve. Fain, these 2 sides will never agree. What happens now. In really life  it would go to court where an unbiased judge would make a decision. Can that happen here? FatherTree 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find JonesRD and DPeterson notably absent from the above graph/chart. Lsi john 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JonesRD, I don't know where you got those numbers. At any rate, this is absolutely unrelated to mediation. shotwell 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The numbers are very revealing and do show that a number of editors have no history and that the group is clearly related and communicates with each other....important information. DPetersontalk 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, based on the chart, DPeterson you haven't contributed anything at all. I can only imagine the things that a good psychologist could make of that. At the least, it shows that the chart is defective. Lsi john 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: DPeterson, the table can't be revealing if it has come out of nowhere. I haven't looked at the other editors contribution histories, but I have made 3055 edits, approximately 300 of which are related to attachment therapy. Even if the numbers above made sense, I don't see why it's relevant. Some editors stick to a single set of articles -- it's no big surprise. In fact, some of the people named in this RfC have exclusively edited attachment therapy articles. This doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that they're interested in those topics. shotwell 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to appeal the examiners decision on my measly 15%. I'd have made alot more edits to all the articles if it wasn't for the fact that you revert everything unapproved by you. Can we have one of your lovely tables on the voting in your straw polls? Or how about which 'group' has made the most and quickest reverts to anybody elses edits?Fainites 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to break it to you, but I think your mainspace edits on the attachment therapy articles are much lower than 15%.  Perhaps the research methods used to make this table suffer from some sort of selection bias. shotwell 23:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a headache, the dog ate my homework and I had to go to my grandmothers funeral. have I passed now? Fainites 06:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If mediation worked, there wouldn't be a next stage. shotwell 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Would it help to lay out the terms of adjudication as she is on wikipedia WP:ArbReq and WP:AE so the fall back position is clear? Adjudication is still voluntary (all parties would have to agree that all further disputes will be handled by arbitration) with an independent 'judge' who imposes a solution based on determination of the rights and obligations between the parties involved. Some WP:COI/N, rights and obligations could be pre-determined collaboratively between the parties to mediation at the moment - I read the lack of it in FatherTree's 'is there any authority here' and the pattern of recycling issues.--Ziji  (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am remotely interested and I have done so. Deep democracy subsiding, ArbCom rising--Ziji  (talk email) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the point of the Rfc?

message: Per Addhoc's suggestion above, I'm going to file a formal mediation request. I've written more about this at [[REDIRECT Talk:Attachment Therapy archive 1#Formal_Mediation. Essentially I've asked for a list of the issues to be mediated. shotwell 00:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issues you are raising are the same ones your group has raised in the past:
These very same issues were resolved previously and then raised again.  See, for example, [], [], [],  []
DPetersontalk 01:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You said you wanted mediation. Is this no longer the case? shotwell 01:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I suggest we keep the mediation separate from the VoB case, SqueakBox 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with SqueakBox; you'll be making life easier for the mediator if you keep the cases separate. Addhoc 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. DPetersontalk 19:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but you (and now JonesRD above) have made comments here and elsewhere that seem to indicate you do not think mediation is appropriate. At this point I'm really only interested in knowing whether or not you'll agree to mediation, if you'll participate with an open mind, and if there are issues you'd like listed on the request. If you have a complaint about my conduct, think I'm part of a cabal, or anything of this nature, then just update and list the RfC you all wrote and signed about me a few months ago. In the meantime, it would be most effective to determine if you'll even agree to mediation. shotwell 21:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  So what??? This an article where I have knowledge about the subject and I can see that is is erroneous. Res ipsa loquitor. Is there a rule about single page editing? If I see another article as POV as this one and I have the knowledge I will edit it. FatherTree 15:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What an amazing waste of time! Have I come first or last? Whats the prize? I presume now from these results you're going to have to stop calling me a single issue editor or part of a group who only edits related pages? If it wasn't such a ridiculously hard struggle to try and get basic factual information from verified and credible sources into these articles against the dominant group I suspect our edit counts would be significantly lower! Fainites 16:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If they would put as much time into researching that facts as this bickering the article would improve. Fain, these 2 sides will never agree. What happens now. In really life  it would go to court where an unbiased judge would make a decision. Can that happen here? FatherTree 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find JonesRD and DPeterson notably absent from the above graph/chart. Lsi john 18:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: JonesRD, I don't know where you got those numbers. At any rate, this is absolutely unrelated to mediation. shotwell 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The numbers are very revealing and do show that a number of editors have no history and that the group is clearly related and communicates with each other....important information. DPetersontalk 22:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, based on the chart, DPeterson you haven't contributed anything at all. I can only imagine the things that a good psychologist could make of that. At the least, it shows that the chart is defective. Lsi john 22:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: DPeterson, the table can't be revealing if it has come out of nowhere. I haven't looked at the other editors contribution histories, but I have made 3055 edits, approximately 300 of which are related to attachment therapy. Even if the numbers above made sense, I don't see why it's relevant. Some editors stick to a single set of articles -- it's no big surprise. In fact, some of the people named in this RfC have exclusively edited attachment therapy articles. This doesn't indicate anything other than the fact that they're interested in those topics. shotwell 22:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to appeal the examiners decision on my measly 15%. I'd have made alot more edits to all the articles if it wasn't for the fact that you revert everything unapproved by you. Can we have one of your lovely tables on the voting in your straw polls? Or how about which 'group' has made the most and quickest reverts to anybody elses edits?Fainites 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to break it to you, but I think your mainspace edits on the attachment therapy articles are much lower than 15%.  Perhaps the research methods used to make this table suffer from some sort of selection bias. shotwell 23:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a headache, the dog ate my homework and I had to go to my grandmothers funeral. have I passed now? Fainites 06:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal Mediation

message: Can involved editors please indicate here whether or not they are prepared to go to formal mediation. Fainites 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If mediation worked, there wouldn't be a next stage. shotwell 21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it help to lay out the terms of adjudication as she is on wikipedia WP:ArbReq and WP:AE so the fall back position is clear? Adjudication is still voluntary (all parties would have to agree that all further disputes will be handled by arbitration) with an independent 'judge' who imposes a solution based on determination of the rights and obligations between the parties involved. Some WP:COI/N, rights and obligations could be pre-determined collaboratively between the parties to mediation at the moment - I read the lack of it in FatherTree's 'is there any authority here' and the pattern of recycling issues.--Ziji  (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal Mediation x 2

message: I think this belongs here.  
Clearly Mercer, and now Sarner, have a conflict of interest.  The facts are:
# Mercer and Sarner are leaders of ACT, which promites their books and materials and so
# They have a vested financial intererst in this dispute here and on several other articles.
Their "careers" in this area are built on the advocacy work of ACT, which actively pursues and fans this dispute for it's own purposes.  They benefit from this.  
RalphLendertalk 13:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am remotely interested and I have done so. Deep democracy subsiding, ArbCom rising--Ziji  (talk email) 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflict of Interest