User talk:Pgillman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pgillman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Full rebuttal is listed at the bottom of this talk page My rebuttal

Decline reason:

Since creation in 2005, this account has consistently inserted links to companies with which user is affiliated. Yes, there have been some legitimate edits, so it's not a pure SPA; but most of the accounts edits have been inserting links to user's company/companies, creating articles about user's company services, and defending these links and/or articles. User has been pretty open about the COI, but seems to feel that we are being unfair in upholding these COI standards, arguing that the links and articles are useful. I disagree. — Orange Mike | Talk 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Archived previous entries in history

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Faith in action.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Faith in action.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Call-reassurance.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Call-reassurance.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Talk 15:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Care (Call Reassurance)[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Care (Call Reassurance), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Care (Call Reassurance) is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Care (Call Reassurance), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Spam-tracking data[edit]

Linking data:

Deleted articles, redirects and images:

  1. 911 Broadcast
  2. 911broadcast
  3. Are U OK
  4. Are you ok
  5. Automatic voice response
  6. Call Reassurance
  7. Calling care
  8. Care (Call Reassurance)
  9. Customer service representative
  10. Database Systems Corp
  11. EasyIVR
  12. Easyivr
  13. Emergency notification system
  14. Faith In Action
  15. Image:Call-reassurance.jpg
  16. Image:Dsclogo120x55.jpg
  17. Image:EasyIVR-system.jpg
  18. Image:Faith in action.jpg
  19. Image:Pacer-phone-system.jpg
  20. Message broadcast
  21. Message broadcasting
  22. Outbound IVR
  23. Phone reassurance
  24. RUOK
  25. Telemarketing service representative
  26. Telephone reassurance
  27. Telephone service representative
  28. Voice response unit

Spam warnings:

--A. B. (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Related domain:
IP range 66.235.225.128 to 66.235.225.191 is registered to Database Systems Corp.
--A. B. (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gillman is listed as owner, Advertising Director and President of Database Systems Corp.:

And maintains a blog for it:

-- Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My rebuttal[edit]

User:A. B. I just attempted to add the following to your talk page using my IP address because I do not believe I can edit it with my user name:

My user ID User:Pgillman and edits are the object of an administrator notice initiated by user User:Cumulus Clouds in early December. Pgillman and spamming for Call_Reassurance

Since my user id was blocked and I was off Wikipedia for some time, I had no opportunity to respond to either the accusations or to the speedy delete placed on Care (Call Reassurance).

Here are the facts surrounding this entire episode:

Since 2005, I have been editing on WP on hundreds of articles, some of which I have had an affiliation, others I have not. These include the creation of 30 or more articles, most of which I had no affiliation. I also created articles in 2006 associated with my organization (4) and I placed a statement to that effect in the articles' talk pages. The guidelines at WP were far different then than they are now and what I did then seemed to follow a pattern of what I had noticed from other organizations listed on WP.

In May 2007, an anonymous (IP) user questioned the interlinking I had done among these articles. In the middle of the discussion, he changed his ID to another user ID. The discussion took place on my talk page, his talk page, and an article's talk page. He made recommendations on how articles should be linked and I questioned those recommendations, but asked for the guideline he was referring to. The gist of this dispute was that the articles I had written contained definitions for terms that this user wanted to move to an article he was editing, and thus move certain redirect articles for these terms to his article. I asked repeatedly for him to show me the guideline that stated what I was doing was not correct. I have never been presented with such a guideline. Toward the end of this discussion, a SPAM patrol user User:Requestion entered the discussion by tagging all 4 of my articles for speedy delete and placing ONE warning on my talk page for all four. He was misled, thinking that multiple users were making this accusation (because of the multiple IDs used in the discussion) and even carried on multiple chats with the 2 different IDs. The anonymous user never disclosed to Requestion that he had been using these multiple IDs.

I did not contest any of the speedy deletes because I was quite frankly pissed off at the process. All of these articles had been on WP for at least a year with no spam warnings or discussions. They fit the pattern of the RUOK article (see later discussion) that had survived the earlier AFD and I felt there was no violation of WP guidelines when I wrote them. 3 of the articles were removed through this speedy delete process (again, I didn't put a hangon objection on them). One of the Speedy Deletes was declined by an WP admin Database Systems Corp. because of its notability. The 3 articles that were removed were the ONLY articles removed from wikipedia because of alleged spamming and only because I chose NOT to contest it.

When they were removed, I NOMINATED the 4th article to be removed as CREATOR of the article, and it subsequently was removed.

After this incident, I nominated all of the other articles I had created on WP to be also removed, not at spam, but as the CREATOR of these articles. Other redirect and miscellaneous articles I also had removed if they pointed to non-existant articles.

So now, in May 2007, I have no articles remaining on Wikipedia and no links to any other articles.

I continued to do minor edits and cleanup since.

One of these articles I felt should be included in WP I recreated in October or November Care (Call Reassurance). It was NOT promotional and contained solid, verifiable sources establishing notability. It had multiple contributors, which I encouraged and warned not to be promotional or unbiased, following WP guidelines. User Cumulous Clouds (CC) however contested the creation of this article because of my prior edits and posted some false information to support this claim and recommended that it be removed. Here is a summary of his false claims:

  • Pgillman is an WP:SPA. A quick look at my edit history disproves this immediately. Since 2005, I have edited 100's of articles, many of which I have no affiliations whatsoever. CC simply makes a general statement that is not supported by my edit history.
  • Pgillman has multiple spam warnings in his history. The citation he uses is from 2006 dispute between myself and user:Mrtea. What CC fails to point out is that this dispute resulted in an WP:AFD for article RUOK (which I had created). The result of the AFD was a overwhelming keep [7] including the links that Mrtea claimed were spam. (I DELETED THIS ARTICLE after the May 2007 dispute) Again false evidence presented by CC. The spam warnings posted on my talk page associated with this dispute (March 2006) were effectively overturned by Admin and the AFD process and should have been removed. In May 2007, User:Requestion doesn't bother to check the result of the overturn and posts a THIRD spam warning on my talk page in the same section as this older dispute. He simultaneously posts the Speedy Delete warnings on my talk page. His rationale was that my edits were link highjacks, which I looked up on Wikipedia and the term does not exist. Rather than provide a link to the guideline that he thought I was violating, he simply made this statement. If I had violated a written guideline, I would have corrected the problem myself.
  • 28 articles/images I created were removed as spam. Totally false! Only 3 uncontested Speedy deletes occurred and simply because I chose not to defend them through an AFD. The majority of these articles, including RUOK I had removed using speedy delete as the CREATOR of the article. Others (redirects) were removed because they no longer pointed to an existing article.
  • Pgillman was given multiple warnings for writing SPAM articles. Again FALSE. The citation CC used was my talk page where User:Requestion placed 4 speedy delete warnings on my talk page ALL AT ONCE, not 4 individual and separate warnings. Those articles were removed either through speedy delete or by myself. There was only ONE warning issued and CC's claim that there were multiple is blatantly false! 3 of those 4 articles and their links to their websites were never recreated after that.

I sincerely believe the 4th article Care (Call Reassurance) stands on its own merits and deserves the opportunity to at least be reviewed. If subject to an WP:AFD, I contend it will pass, but if not, I will not submit it again. What I do understand is that it is legitimate to recreate an article removed through AFD or speedy delete, if it satisfies WP criteria and guidelines. Putting a speedy delete (based on false accusations) and simultaneously blocking my user ID so that I cannot contest it violates the letter and the spirit of WP guidelines.

So now, here is a brief summary. I have received only ONE warning (Requestion) that is questionable at best because it could have been resolved by pointing out the appropriate WP guideline during the course of a legitimate discussion. I subsequently have removed all WP articles myself (with exception of 3 removed as a result of Requestion action). When I recreated one of these articles (which again, from my knowledge of WP guidelines, I am able to do) I was blocked from WP (including temporary IP address blocks), the article was submitted for Speedy Delete, and I could not contest it.

I do not think this situation was handled properly and according to the design of WP. If Requestion believed I was in violation of a WP guideline, then he should have presented that first and allowed me to fix the problem. He simply chose to have my articles removed. Likewise, if an article can NEVER be recreated, then the guidelines need to be clear about the conditions under which this should occur. I have seen articles submitted up to 3 or 4 times, each time rewritten in hopes that they meet WP guidelines. I have never seen a user blocked for attempting this once and the website blacklisted in this manner with just ONE questionable warning. The websites that I am affiliated with DO NOT DESERVE to be blacklisted on WP. The Administrative action taken against my account, this article, and websites is based upon false accusations and should be overturned.

Further Note On May 15, REQUESTION posted the following back to back warnings on my talk page:
Pgillman talk page history
which is referenced by users here as my Spam Warning. First, he says I am EXTERNAL link spamming, but there is no example of that (all external links are to the official websites of the 4 articles being marked for SD and as such fall within WP guidelines for external links). I don't know of any example of other external links he could be referring to. Second, and to the point of the entire discussion that was going on regarding INTERNAL links and redirected articles, note that only 2 of the articles he references are NOT REDLINKS and one of those simply goes to a disambiguous article. Therefore, his argument that these links were highjacked has NO MERIT. They originally pointed to paragraphs in one of my 4 articles EasyIVR that gave definitions and examples of these terms. The fact that they didn't exist before I created these redirected articles and the fact that no one has seen fit in 8 MONTHS to create them or redirect them to an appropriate article says that these terms can hardly be claimed to be highjacked. Therefore the whole discussion with the anonymous user was a waste of time because he obviously didn't take the time (or REQUESTION for that matter) to followup on his interest in redirecting these terms to his article. pgillman (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your consideration to this matter. I await your reply on the User:Pgillman talk page. pgillman (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a catch-22. Unable to edit anything other than my user page using my ID and unable to use an IP address to send a message to Admin to contest this process. I guess all I get to do is talk to myself here. pgillman (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave a note for the blocking admin, Orangemike, about this situation. I notice he edits intermittently, so it may be a few days before he responds. --A. B. (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The spammiest thing about Care (Call Reassurance) is the fact that it starts with an inline link to the subject matter, and continues with such links, rather than with links to reliable, third-party sources. There are no references, other than to press-release material saying that the So-and-So Police Dept. now uses CARE. If there is no significant press coverage, and the article is written by a person with a COI, then it has a very duckish aura to it. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went the first few entries on the article list above and this is what I found:
  1. 911 Broadcast
    Redirectto 911 broadcast
  2. 911broadcast
    Redirect to 911 broadcast
  3. 911Broadcast
    Deleted as spam by David Fuchs
  4. Are U OK
    Redirect to RUOK
    Deleted at Pgillman's request after RUOK was deleted
  5. Are you ok
    Redirect to RUOK
    Deleted at Pgillman's request after RUOK was deleted
  6. Automatic voice response
    Redirect to EasyIVR
    Deleted at Pgillman's request after another editor changed the redirect from Pgillman's promotional article to an article on generic technology
  7. Call Reassurance
    Deleted as spam by Majorly
  8. Calling care
    Redirect to Call Reassurance
    Deleted at Pgillman's request after Call Reassurance was deleted
  9. Care (Call Reassurance)
    Deleted as spam by Od Mishehu
--A. B. (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pgillman&oldid=1141439400"