Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Renamed user 8723489273 (talk | contribs) at 07:40, 4 February 2023 (→User:Anne Ammundsen and George Washington/Asgill Affair: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Shortcuts WP:COI/N WP:COIN WP:COIBOARD Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) This Conflict of interest/Noticeboard (COIN) page is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. A conflict of interest may occur when an editor has a close personal or business connection with article topics. Post here if you are concerned that an editor has a COI, and is using Misplaced Pages to promote their own interests at the expense of neutrality. For content disputes, try proposing changes at the article talk page first and otherwise follow the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution procedural policy.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org for review by a functionary. If in doubt, you can contact an individual functionary or the Arbitration Committee privately for advice. The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. Editors who have such a connection can still comply with the COI guideline by discussing proposed article changes first, or by making uncontroversial edits. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. However, paid editing without disclosure is prohibited. Consider using the template series {{Uw-paid1}} through {{Uw-paid4}}. Your report or advice request regarding COI incidents should include diff links and focus on one or more items in the COI guideline. In response, COIN may determine whether a specific editor has a COI for a specific article. There are three possible outcomes to your COIN request: 1. COIN consensus determines that an editor has a COI for a specific article. In response, the relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, the article page may be tagged with {{COI}}, and/or the user may be warned via {{subst:uw-coi|Article}}. 2. COIN consensus determines that an editor does not have a COI for a specific article. In response, editors should refrain from further accusing that editor of having a conflict of interest. Feel free to repost at COIN if additional COI evidence comes to light that was not previously addressed. 3. There is no COIN consensus. Here, Lowercase sigmabot III will automatically archive the thread when it is older than 14 days. Once COIN declares that an editor has a COI for a specific article, COIN (or a variety of other noticeboards) may be used to determine whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest guideline.
Are you in the right place? An editor can be biased without additionally having a COI. Issues involving bias may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Issues involving the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) may be more suited to Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Commercial usernames should be reported to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention. Obvious cases of corporate vanity can be tagged with {{db-spam}}. Articles written about a person, group, club or band by such a person, group, club or band with no assertion of notability can be tagged with {{db-bio}} instead. This page is not for reporting simple vandalism, material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument, or non-conflict of interest breaches of the neutral point of view policy. Notes for volunteers To close a report Add Template:Resolved at the head of the complaint, with the reason for closing and your signature. Old issues are taken away by the archive bot. Other ways to help All editors are encouraged to help resolve reports of COI editing. More problematic articles can be found in Category:Misplaced Pages articles with possible conflicts of interest. Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests. Editors who believe they have a conflict of interest may ask someone else to make edits for them. Please visit this category and respond to one of these requests. Whether you perform it or not, you should edit the parameter of the {{edit COI}} when you are done to remove the article from the category. Leave a Talk comment for the requester to explain your decision.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Andrew Ousley and Andrea Baccarelli

• Andrew Ousley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrea Baccarelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ishimzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Abaccarelli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both were created by a UPE. Need an independent review so they comply with BLP policy.

User:CressidaA

• ZGF Architects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Snøhetta (company) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Brad Cloepfil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• CressidaA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The editing pattern smells strongly of single purpose account that is part of a paid and/or connected contribution possibly working for public relations firm or working through Upwork or the like. Their editing habit is clearly not a new user just starting out. It's not natural to start their edit with adding rosy contents into multiple articles in companies and people category half an hour after creating one's account. Graywalls (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That article's had editing from the firm itself and other COI editing issues for a while. Special:Contributions/38.140.62.138 active just a couple of months ago geolocates to guess who? ☆ Bri (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an incorrect assumption. I am not being directly or indirectly compensated for my edits to any of the firms or individuals listed, nor is there any conflict of interest. No relationship exists between the companies / individuals and myself. I am simply interested in art and architecture, and follow the local awards landscape. CressidaA (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@CressidaA:, @Bri:, CressidaA, there was an appearance that your edits may potentially be COI. You denied on talk page that you do not COI. So, further discussion is brought here for the community to determine if they have further input. As for removal of contents, it is reasonable to remove awards when it reads such and such received Award X where the cited reference is the organization that gave the award. Verifiability of the contents added is mandatory; but this does not mean that anything and everything that you can verify should be included into an article. When there is a disagreement, per the guideline WP:ONUS, editor seeking to include the content has the burden to establish consensus in favor of inclusion. Graywalls (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bri:, and they continue to disregard the policy WP:ONUS and continue to re-add disputed contents. Graywalls (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this board is visited by admins much anymore. You might have better luck at WP:ANI but beware that you are also one edit away from 3RR on ZGF Architects if my counting is right. Look out for WP:BOOMERANG which sometimes is the outcome of the noticeboards, if you are also doing something against the rules. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bri @Graywalls' talk page is full of claims that the user habitually makes unjustified and retaliatory edits across a broad spectrum of subjects. This, in addition to a long history of unfounded COI accusations. Most people seem genuinely confounded by Graywall's conduct and suspect an inappropriate agenda. User is certainly a good candidate at this point for being at the receiving end of a WP: BOOMERANG. I say this because it seems as if Graywalls is becoming an impediment to well-sourced, factual information dissemination, forcing users to retroactively and pointlessly defend their legitimate edits. This is not an efficient way to edit, nor is it in the spirit of Misplaced Pages's objectives. (CressidaA (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC))

Editors who deal with COI and other sorts of promotional editing will have a lot of complaints on their talk page. This doesn't mean there is anything wrong with anti-promotional efforts, it just means promotional editors complain a lot. Graywalls is a valuable editor here. It is natural to be a bit frustrated when you are in conflict with someone, but expressing that frustration through personal attacks as you have here is not acceptable. MrOllie (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls "Further discussion is brought here for the community to determine if they have further input."... It seems as if no one has further input about your allegations of COI, so I am requesting that the erroneous accusations are retracted and the matter is settled. (CressidaA (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC))

If the user maintains that there is no COI, then it seems difficult to assert otherwise. That being said, the edits are indeed that which you would expect from an employee or other connected individual. At the very least, CressidaA, you should keep in mind that the editing pattern you displayed so far does indeed ring alarm bells — most users do not dive right into adding obscure awards etc. to companies' pages, such as in Special:Diff/1132028958. Would you mind explaining what previous experience you have had with Misplaced Pages, if any, and what drew you to focus on specific architecture firms and architects? That may help provide a clearer picture. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@WhinyTheYounger I follow the art and architecture awards landscape closely, and I feel I have something to contribute. The awards I cited may seem "obscure" to those who don't follow architecture, but they are notable and very relevant to those who do. I am relatively new to Misplaced Pages, and this is a way that I felt I could be useful -- I think that adding awards and new notable projects is a good way to round out a firm's history and identity. I was planning to make edits across a wider spectrum of arts organizations and firms, which undoubtedly would have consisted of more than listing awards, but I was immediately flagged by @Graywalls and have not wanted to spend time making edits only to have them immediately reversed. I would like to get to the bottom of this so that I (and @Graywalls) can move on -- I would welcome some guidance on how I can stop these confusing personal attacks. Thanks. (CressidaA (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC))

CressidaA, if the awards are notable, then where is the independent coverage of the award being issued? If no one else is independently discussing the award, then neither should Misplaced Pages. "Obscure" is not an exception to that. So the best way to move forward is to locate secondary sources, otherwise chances are the edits will be reverted again. Slywriter (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Independent coverage cited. Issue should be resolved now. Thanks for your feedback, @Slywriter (CressidaA (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC))

@CressidaA:, I also addressed with you that verifiability is obligatory, but verifiable isn't entitlement to inclusion and when there is dispute, WP:ONUS defers inclusion until consensus is achieved in favor of inclusion and the editor seeking to include it is responsible for getting consensus. This means that it falls on you to start discussions in talk pages, start a WP:3PO, or WP:RFC to achieve consensus. Despite this, you have not been unwilling to go along with this. Graywalls (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you then for desiring to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and I'm sorry you've got caught up in a bit of a snafu. What is notable and worthy of inclusion for a field or industry is not always so for Misplaced Pages. By way of analogy, we tend to avoid listing individuals' honorary degrees, even from prestigious institutions. Whether or not the regional chapter of a certain industry group's awards fall into the "worthy of inclusion" category is up for debate, debate that should take place on the talk page when someone reverts your edits. COI editing is a huge problem here and it degrades the quality of our project while taking huge amounts of effort to combat, so please try to understand why many editors are rather pointed about it, even if it comes off as accusatory. I might gently suggest taking some time to edit other architecture related items (or anything that interests you) to better understand the various norms around editing and help establish bona fides as someone who is interested in building an encyclopedia here. You're more than welcome to continue noting awards, too, but I'd advise being very sure that the awards are notable (a good rule of thumb is if the organization, or even better, the award, has a Misplaced Pages article itself) and cited to independent, secondary sources. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 04:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Phillips Academy

• Phillips Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 198.140.203.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 198.140.203.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP is registered to Phillips Academy. However, these IPs (which are the same) are engaged in an edit war in which they want to blank the section "The Phillips Academy Poll" and replace it with a redlink to "The Alex Shieh Center for Gender Studies" for the sake of "relevance". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There are a bunch more IPs in the 198.140.203.x range editing the article. SVTCobra 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems to just be a case of some kids making a joke about their classmate—albeit with the unusual twist that their classmate has significant RS coverage while still in high school. I would handle as routine vandalism, p-block the /24 if necessary. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 03:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There has been a long-running edit war on the Phillips Academy article around the Phillips Academy Poll content. It is likely to continue until COI issues are addressed.

• Phillips Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Phillips Academy Poll (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• NCD2004 (talk · contribs)
• TheLonelyPather (talk · contribs)

The result of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Phillips Academy Poll was to merge it to Phillips Academy. That lasted about 6 months, until NCD2004, who has an undeclared conflict of interest, figured no one was watching. It may also be useful to see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pallster/Archive. Round and rounder (talk) 04:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I re-redirected the poll to the school, per the AFD. DMacks (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi DMacks, I undid your edit your edit to The Phillips Academy Poll, as the org has received significant, independent media coverage since the merge. As mentioned above, there has been a lot of vandalism recently on the Phillips Academy/The Phillips Academy Poll wiki pages, including the edit war mentioned by @Aaron Liu (see: Talk:Phillips Academy#Alex Shieh Center Controversy), where a Phillips Academy-based IP was blanking the Phillips Academy Poll section of the article and adding unsourced material about the Alex Shieh Center. I noticed that @Round and rounder’s account was created yesterday (possibly to evade the semi-protection), and has been engaging in similar behavior by trying to delete Phillips Academy Poll related content, as Alex Shieh has been verified to be one of the poll's founders and leaders. All of @Round and rounder's contributions pertain to this one specific topic, suggesting it is a single-purpose account. Nicholas D. (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@NCD2004 Hi, Nicholas. I have never edited either article and I have no conflict of interest with either subject. You and TheLonelyPather, on the other hand, have not declared your conflicts of interest. Would you care to do that now? Round and rounder (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• My take is that the pages should be protected and disruptive accounts blocked... However looking at The Phillips Academy Poll it does appear to have received significant coverage since the last AfD and thus a new AfD or merge discussion would be required. Also looks like it might pass WP:GNG this time around. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I can confirm that many students at Phillips Academy use its IPs to edit Misplaced Pages and it is not uncommon for inside jokes to spread here. 198.140.203.135 (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Horse Eye's Back for the reasons he listed. Perhaps a merge discussion should be started on the talk page. 198.140.203.141 (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Rounder and rounder,

I have declared a COI on my user page, using the {{UserboxCOI}} template. I think my issue is addressed. TheLonelyPather (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheLonelyPather Thank you. I appreciate your honesty and I hope NCD2004 will do the same. Round and rounder (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi. No, the proper course of action, as per normal processes is for the article to be created in AfC after such a recent AfD, and go through the AfC process. Especially in light of the COI issue. Onel5969 15:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi Onel5969,

  I do not intend to create any articles related to the Phillips Academy Poll at this point. Thanks for mentioning this for other folks who may want to create such article. TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@DMacks: It might be worth considering a range block of Phillips Academy IPs (User:198.140.203.0/24). It doesn't look like there are any productive edits coming out of that range. Round and rounder (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's too early for that. You can't block an entire school just because some of its students are doing disruptive stuff. And there are clearly useful contribs from this range. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to second the opinion of Aaron Liu. It seems that the faculty of Phillips Academy uses Misplaced Pages to teach and host activities. Please see this page: Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Phillips Academy 2021. TheLonelyPather (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Prewrath Rapture

• Prewrath rapture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• SanJuanCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persists in adding a book they wrote despite warnings. Says because he donates the revenue he has no COI. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does the article even exist? It cites nothing but primary source evangelical Christian material, and appears to be WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

As with basically anything to do with Christian eschatology there is volumes of academic work on it... I just don't see it being notable independent of rapture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ouch. Sometimes I can’t see the wood for the trees. Of course. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug, to be clear, I have never received and will never receive compensation for my edits. However, I appear to have a COI in that I want to list under "Further Reading" a book that I published in 2003 (and again in 2014) - a book that explains and supports the Prewrath Rapture interpretation. I am working to understand the COI disclosure steps I should take in order to list that book. SanJuanCat (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

On what grounds do you believe your book merits inclusion in 'further reading'? From a quick Google, I can't see anything resembling a review anywhere significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's been reviewed on Amazon (4.1 rating), Goodreads (4.1 rating) and other places, including as shown in Book Reviews | PreWrathProphecy. Over 5000 copies have been downloaded on Kindle. And it's one of the oldest books on the prewrath interpretation, originally published in 2003. SanJuanCat (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@SanJuanCat And now you’ve added a diagram from your website. Clearly promotional and self-published. And Amazon etc reviews are never reliable sources and the more a book is fringe the more no one reads it accept believers so the worst books often get 5 stars. Doug Weller talk 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug, be that as it may (regarding "worst books"), I'm just interested in making information available to people who might want to see it. Regarding the diagram from my website, you told me earlier that I needed to cite a reliable source ...so I added the diagram and cited the source. I'm just trying to understand the rules of wikipedia and add some info to this page ...definitely not looking for any confrontation regarding people's beliefs. Thanks SanJuanCat (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviews on websites selling the book are no evidence of significance.

The article needs deleting. I can't see anything in it that merits merging with the Rapture article - nothing approaching scholarly analysis, just primary sourced/unsourced content, with nothing to indicate it is even representative of the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and redirected the article to Rapture. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

"Prewrath Rapture" is a term given to a particular end-time interpretation that involves much more than just the rapture. It is unique from other end-time interpretations not only from its timing of the rapture but also because of a number of other material differences, including 1) it limits the Day of the Lord to a certain time period within the 2nd half of the "70th week" (of Daniel 9:27), 2) it equates the timing of the return of Christ with that of the rapture, 3) it differentiates the persecution of Antichrist with the wrath of God, 4) it interprets the seal judgments as being the persecution of Antichrist, and 5) it has the great tribulation starting in the midst of the 70th week as opposed to the beginning. To claim the prewrath rapture interpretation should be included in a general rapture article makes very little sense. Yes, it is referred to as the prewrath rapture interpretation, but it is actually a unique and comprehensive interpretation of all the events of the end times. That's great to be WP:BOLD but not at the expense of the value and virtue of the encyclopedia. SanJuanCat (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

We have strong rules here against original research and synthesis. We have not been provided any evidence that this new concept is notable in any way, even within the evangelical community. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've got the original research issue. Regarding your other point, what makes a concept notable and what evidence is required to deem it so? SanJuanCat (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It has to have been discussed in reliable sources, either popular (Christianity Today) or scholarly (The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society). We don't care about blogs, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, or comments on sites like Goodreads or Amazon. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Eddieguillen23

• 2023 Chicago aldermanic election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eddieguillen23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User appears to be of candidate in upcoming election. Their edits also confirm this. (see here).. - GA Melbourne (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that this user appears to be the candidate mentioned as it is a new account and has only made two edits to the 2023 Chicago aldermanic election Grahaml35 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Honaker High School

• Honaker High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 24.149.86.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Continually adding non-neutral minutia with zero sources suggests the editor has some level of personal involvement with the subject.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a high school kid editing local schools without knowing any better? Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Guy Bloch

• Guy Bloch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sagiv Shifman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nissim Benvenisty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eran Meshorer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Liran Carmel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Eran Meshorer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Biochen123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Came across this editor during NPP. SPA editor who focuses on subjects dealing with the Silberman Institute. There are clear indications that they are affiliated in some way with the institute, or the researchers. Onel5969 13:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear editor @Onel5969

I have been working in the Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences for over 35 years. All these articles and others I may write in the future concerning noteworthy institute members have been written in my free time, as a present to the institute before I retire in two years time. As far as I intend this is not a paid contribution.

Please advise me how to proceed.

Thanks 132.64.65.146 (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You need to declare your COI on your userpage. And any articles you create need to be submitted through AfC. Once in mainspace, you should not edit the article directly, but ask for any changes you wish made on the article's talk page. You can also read WP:COI. And, btw, enjoy your retirement. Onel5969 10:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User: Oscarcopper123

• Del E. Webb Construction Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Robert E. McKee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Oscarcopper123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There appears to be possible connection between the user and the Del E. Webb Construction Company and possibly other organizations, companies and people in architectural and construction field. Overwhelming majority of their edits for years consist of inserting architectural firm and construction names into articles about buildings that were worked on by the names being inserted; and especially intense working of Del E. Webb Construction Company and the website delwebbsuncitiesmuseum.org as a source into different pages. For example,Welton Becket, Bally's Lake Tahoe, Edward Hotel & Convention Center,HRL Laboratories. On articles that include delwebbsuncitiesmuseum.org as a source, almost all of the insertion have been made by this user. Editing related to Del E. Webb goes back to 2017 and continues to date. Also, Inserting McKee Special:Diff/1127716029 Graywalls (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Anne Ammundsen and George Washington/Asgill Affair

This user came to my attention today via a close request for At Talk:George_Washington#Requested revised edit. Ammundsen has been acting tendentiously to push their fringe viewpoint on the "Asgill Affair" (an article which they basically wrote entirely) being a major facet of George Washington's biography, to the point that it should get hundreds of words in the main article as well as the 50KB article and various spinouts. This has been going on for years is clearly their main goal on Misplaced Pages, as judged by their own user page, User:Anne Ammundsen, which smacks of an editor here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS. When confronted by the fact that this is UNDUE, she has repeatedly doubled down and refused to entertain alternate opinions. The result is trying to bludgeon the discussions, and continually trying to insert her POV into articles, including making legal threats: see Talk:Asgill Affair, and the repeated attempts to insert this information: Given that this editor has a conflict of interest with the subject (and indeed, almost all their editing appears to be to issues they have a personal connection to), I think they need to be formally restricted from the topic, especially since they have the potential to distort Misplaced Pages's coverage of the subject through a very selective and biased lens. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Considered whether this or WP:NPOV/N was a more suitable venue, but feels like this should be where it goes because the issue is more with the contributor over multiple articles than a single locus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 19:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

When a person discovers that history has been misrecorded, and therefore misrepresented and skewed, it stands to reason that they want to do something to correct bias which has existed for 2.5 centuries. Misplaced Pages seemed the natural outlet. However, as time has passed, I no longer feel this way and have no problem being banned, and no problem should all my work here be deleted, especially since it is some time since I last edited. Outside of Misplaced Pages, my work is considered of value, and my findings have been published several times. The fact that those findings don't appeal to some editors is not my problem. Lexington Books, a prestigious American academic publisher, will be publishing my book, covering everything, and they are really excited about this. It goes without saying that I am too, so I will not allow Misplaced Pages to bring my sprits down. All this has helped shape my outlook, and I now know that the real world is of greater value to me. The fact that the George Washington page cannot be sullied with the truth tells me all I need to know. Anne (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as Asgill Affair goes, I believe this is a case of WP:SELFCITE at worst, and to be fair to Anne, she has asked me to check the article thoroughly for compliance with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines several times (which I keep putting off because of other demands on my time). With George Washington, I agree that the amount of material that Anne wants added is disproportionate to its coverage in sources, but she has been proposing these changes on the talk page of late rather than adding it directly to the article, which is precisely what our conflict of interest guidelines suggest. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Bringing it up multiple times over the years and hitting people with something like 18 substantial comments (and 37 edits in total) on a talk page over just five days is absolutely tendentious though. That she hasn't edited that article isn't much the point, especially when there's other COI issues (like creating articles on relatives and the self-citing.) Virtually her entire editing history is devoted to propping up a fringe POV about her great-however-many-times grandfather (citing herself, of course) and the supposed earth-shattering injustice visited upon him. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Point taken about the talk page comments, but I'm still not sure a topic ban is necessary. It doesn't sound like Anne has much appetite for making further substantive contributions to these articles, but since she appears to have a book forthcoming with a major press, having her in the conversation about future improvements to the articles seems valuable on balance (particularly if she's willing to concede the argument about additions to the Washington article). Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry - yes, it is three years now since I asked you to check the articles and ensure they were Misplaced Pages-compliant. As for self-citing, never, ever, have I done so on an article on Misplaced Pages. I have always asked other editors - often Cordless Larry (an Administrator) to do so for me. Had he ever been unhappy to do this, I am sure he would have said. If I have referred to my work on talk pages, then that would only have been to make a point, but frankly, it was to ensure editors on the GW talk page realised that I know what I am talking about, that prompted me to mention a forthcoming book deal. I am being attacked by an editor who does not like my "message" and the irony is that it was the Lancaster Historical Society who turned up the evidence about missing letters - not me. Their work seemed worth promulgating. It is a matter of historical fact that Washington violated a solemn treaty and condemned an innocent man to gallows. Is there anyone on earth, who happened to be related to him, who would be happy about that? It is also a historical fact that the French saved his life. I only have one concern, and that is that Washington covered up the truth, 2.5 centuries ago. A small mention of that ought, in my view, to be on his WP article. I appreciate that my first draft was too long. I voluntarily tried to shorten it, and if someone with better précis skills can do so further, that would be fine too. It is the total ban of anything negative on that page which bothers me, but as I say, I care less and less with the passing minutes and have publisher deadlines to meet, which interest me far more. Anne (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Frankly your citations are poor. Local historical journals are not good, high-quality reliable sources, and I intend to prune out the excessive reliance on primary sources and questionable additions, whether or not they were added by a proxy or not. Your biographies are massive inflated and predicated on weak sourcing. If you actually get a book published by a reliable press, that will be a far sight better than the output you have put out. That others recognize that and aren't rushing to include it in an already-stuffed biography about Washington is evidence of good judgement on their part. I'd believe you actually care less and less if you didn't respond militantly to every discussion on the subject and it wasn't your entire reason for editing Misplaced Pages in the first place. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to push back on the suggestion here that I've been proxy editing. Here is the sum total of my contributions to the George Washington article. I've made more edits to the Asgill Affair article, but many of them have been formatting fixes. My main role has been answering Anne's questions and adviser her on policy - stressing the need to use secondary sources wherever possible, follow WP:BRD, etc. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I wish I knew what you are talking about - you have never proxy edited for me - however, you (and others) have often helped me with inserting references since that is my bête noir, and, quite literally, terrifies me. You so often misunderstand me and misinterpret me, so considerably add to my stress levels as a result. Anne (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

My comments above weren't in reply to you, Anne. Cordless Larry (talk)

Cordless Larry, this is a terrible slur on the Historical Society in Lancaster. Having been there, I cannot begin to tell you how impressive it is; it is a huge and awe-inspiring organisation, on a very large site, even having its own museum. The staff are amazing, and really dedicated researchers. You have the Journal yourself, so you know the quality of their work. Anne (talk) 08:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That may well all be the case but as far as I know, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, which means it's not regarded as highly by Misplaced Pages's policies as journals that are subject to such review. Cordless Larry (talk)

Cordless Larry, I see where you are coming from. Lexington Books feels the same way about Misplaced Pages, and so it has been necessary for me to remove the fulsome praise I gave to some editors in the acknowledgements section - which, as you know, I wrote before then going on to write the book! It's a dog eat dog world out there! Anne (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly worth bearing in mind what Misplaced Pages:Researching with Misplaced Pages has to say on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne isn't being bullied as she claimed at WP:CR diff. Frankly, that accusation is deeply upsetting. Nor is she being attacked as mentioned in her post above, which is even more upsetting.The issue is that she refuses to understand that Misplaced Pages isn't a platform to host her work and she refuses to adhere to basic policies such as consensus. Furthermore she seems to believe that there is an editor class system so if one person explains patiently she calls an "respected admin" or "long-time editor" for help, diff.She spams with tl;dr edit requests lacking any kind of formatted sources diff, and when weight and page size explanations are made, follows with additional tl;dr edit requests, example diff. The sourcing is usually not up to standard. Her comments are sprinkled throughout with out-of-context information (a closer who apparently told her it's okay to add one's own material directly as an external links diff) and appeals to emotion.These are only a small selection of comments and do not make for a collaborative and collegial environment.Anne must understand that there are reasons such as consensus, page size, weight, sourcing, etc., that must be considered when editing Misplaced Pages.In the end she seems to want only an edit that includes her name, though the sourcing is not great, it's not well-written, and is undue. She's been here long enough to have learned but she habitually leans on others to do her work and in my view abuses the privilege to edit. If she's willing to collaborate and learn, then she'd be an asset. Victoria (tk) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's do a re-set Victoria. Back in May 2022 I was under the very very clear understanding (after a lengthy discussion) that a Closer had given me permission to go ahead. I was not the only editor who believed that to be the case. Another editor realised, as I did, that I really could not do this myself. That editor gave me an undertaking, on 20.5.22, that they would do this for me. Months went by - promises were renewed - and, in a conversation on 21.12.22 I was told that it would be done by "the end of the year". I am afraid my patience snapped, after 8 months of waiting. I did not have a backup editor to do this for me, so I could see no alternative but to go ahead myself, on the GW Talk Page. You know the rest. Yes, I have a mental block that it is disallowed to point out GW's failings on his page. It has also transpired that it is disallowed to give Moses Hazen the praise offered to him by all the British officers on 27.5.1782 - he was extremely unhappy about the orders he had been given by GW, and he showed remarkable compassion. I also find WP policy mysterious, and I apologise to you and other editors for not understanding what was being said. If I may repeat myself, I was acting, as I believed, on the authority of a Closer and I could not really see beyond that. It may not be comprehensible to you, or others, how nerve-wracking it is to come to a place which is inevitably going to be hostile towards my aims - as a lone-voice, with no backup support. I did not say I was being bullied - I said it felt like I was being bullied. I never wanted to repeat an earlier experience some years ago. That may have clouded my thinking too. That, coupled with my appalling IT 'skills', which always puts me in a cold-sweat every time I go anywhere near WP. Never mind, you guys have had your revenge. My work is being deleted and challenged all over the place. I really am done now and seriously have no interest in whether or not I am banned, or anything else now. It is not worth it for what it is doing to my mental health. I am happy to retire and do the things which interest me, and see no reason on earth to perpetuate my experiences here, or elsewhere on WP. It was nice, and very refreshing to come across you, though. You see, as you know, I remembered you immediately (you were the only editor to show kindness to me). Anne (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne, I think the best thing all round would be for you to focus on your forthcoming book for the time being. Once that's published, then we can look into how to use it as a secondary source for Misplaced Pages, which will hopefully make discussion about the interview redundant and also help address the over-reliance on primary archive sources that we have at present. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, we'll have so see about that! I have reached burnout and the process involved in publishing is the hardest gig I have ever encountered. I expect I will throw the towel in when the book is on the shelves! But, tell me, can other people, or Misplaced Pages, remove an article from my watch list? I have not been receiving notifications about posts here. The 'star' had reverted to white. Now reapplied it. Anne (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry in my view comments like the one you've made above might be be misconstrued as a guarantee that something will happen, i.e that Anne's book will be widely used to source the relevant suite of articles, which creates another weight issue. We should wait until the book is published, read and evaluated.

Anne your comment above about the watchlist is the type of thing that I find frustrating. It's best to learn how to use Misplaced Pages rather than continually asking for help. I'm considering an offer of mentorship to teach you how the site works and how we edit articles. I took a quick look at the Asgill Affair and Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet. Both articles are overly long and need extensive pruning throughout. I'd undertake that challenge with you looking over my shoulder and having me explain each if needed. Along the way I'd teach how to use WP:DIFFs, how to format per Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, how to evaluate sourcing per Misplaced Pages:No original research etc., etc. For example, the section called "Court cases" on the Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet diff is original research. In the video you explain having learned researching techniques from an ancestry site, which emphasize primary sources. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source and so two degrees removed from that type of research. Beyond learning and understanding the fundamentals of using this site, learning and understanding our sourcing expectations is needed. Would you be interested in such an arrangement? Take your time to mull it over before replying - I'm just in from a medical appointment and won't be immediately back online. Victoria (tk) 19:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have written "then we can look into whether and how we can use it as a secondary source for Misplaced Pages" (although I find it inconceivable that a book on the Asgill Affair published by Lexington wouldn't be judged usable as a source for at least the Asgill Affair article). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What I was trying to say is that a single book shouldn't become the single source for an entire suite of articles. That's why I mentioned weight. And, regardless, the COI still exists. Victoria (tk) 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, thank you for your offer, but I never was, and never will be, cut out for Misplaced Pages. I have never enjoyed myself here, and my temperament is entirely wrong for this terse environment. I'm a "hugger" by nature! Why make myself more miserable than I need? I have been criticised for having some personal involvement with the articles I have created - I couldn't have created them without the personal knowledge which has gone with it - is that a chicken and egg scenario? I really don't think there is more I would even want to do, and don't want further involvement, if at all possible. However, were you prepared to sort out the AA and CA articles, I would welcome that as help. I think I can trust you to do this honestly, bearing in mind that CA comes from his own perspective, not Washington's - the article is also in British English! All I ask is that you give a good edit summary, so I can see quickly and easily what you have done (some editors have really confused me in this regard). If I seriously object, I will let you know! Nothing from me either means I am happy, or I am terribly tied up with deadlines (of which there are many). One thing though - if you want to take on this task, that is fine and dandy, but please don't place the onus on me to fix something. Messages, such as "citation needed", will be ignored by me. I am past that stage, and the only really important thing now, in my life, is seeing through my commitments to Lexington. P.S. Please don't be too hard on Cordless Larry - I think that was a personal message to me - (he tipped me over the brink, having told him I really couldn't write a book, and his persistence did the trick)! He's a bloody good Admin who would never flout the rules. I am far more often at the end of his ruler slaps, than not! Anne (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify: this is the Conflict of Interest noticeboard and the proposition on the table is a topic ban. Were you interested in learning how things work, even something as simple as being able to click the history tab at the top of an article, then click the radio buttons on the left to compare diffs so as to look at edits instead of asking for detailed edit summaries, I believe you might find engaging in Misplaced Pages more rewarding. Sitting on the sidelines, mentioning BrEng as though one has never encountered it is rather patronizing, and then saying "If I seriously object, I will let you know!". That's not how to learn how to use the site, how to edit Misplaced Pages, how to become involved.In my view there is a strong argument for stubbing down a number of the articles you've worked on; I'd hoped you might be interested in becoming engaged enough to learn our processes to understand why and when text is deleted and to help salvage what can be salvaged, based on a thorough understanding of Misplaced Pages policies. Regardless, deadlines are deadlines and of course must be seen through. In the meantime I leave it to the other editors to reach a decision here. Often in cases like this mentorship will stave off other actions. Victoria (tk) 21:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Victoria, have you not noticed that I don't want to be involved here? Have you not noticed that WP has brought nothing but misery into my life? If I don't want to be here, then that is a sort of self-banning isn't it? You said you wanted me to stand over your shoulder, and I seriously misconstrued that as meaning you would value my insight vis a vis Asgill, and that we would sort-of do the job together, but clearly you were only talking about "instructing me". The other factor is the time difference. For the past week, I have been unable to get to bed before 2am. Perhaps someone as invested as you cannot see another point of view? Ban away if that is what you and others think I deserve. Anne (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstood. No I'm not invested. I simply thought you might like an alternative path to a topic ban that others might accept. Apologies for having bothered you. I'm unwatching this page now. Victoria (tk) 23:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Anne, you've headed into territory that makes me doubt your basic fitness for editing Misplaced Pages at all. You keep saying Misplaced Pages has brought nothing but misery and saying you're going to disengage, then you do not disengage and keep editing. You said earlier in this thread you would stop bringing up the issue on the George Washington page and you've edited it a further nine times since 23:05 yesterday. If this is causing you pain an actual block seems warranted since you are incapable of actually stopping yourself here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 00:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

By editing WP I thought creating or editing articles was the issue here? This I have not done for some time and have no future plans to do so. That was what I thought you wanted me banned from doing. Setting aside the GW Talk Page, for which I have given detailed explanations for why I went there (having been badly let down) I have had to return when serious errors have been introduced to articles - for instance, incorrectly changing Asgill's wife's name and his place of death. Am I supposed to leave errors of that nature in situ? I do not want to do the former, but would prefer to be able to address situations where errors are introduced. Some people love WP and spend their entire lives here. That's fine, but there may also be a place, as outlined by Cordless Larry, for people who know about particular subjects. I was unaware that one could be banned for not enjoying the Misplaced Pages experience. I must have missed a trick somewhere, but aren't you the only person wishing me to be banned? It "feels like" you have a vendetta against me and have made it your personal crusade to kick me out. Yes, it would be relief on the one hand, but then I would have to email Cordless Larry every time I saw a glaring mistake being introduced. You sound rather desperate - like a sinking man who sees no hope of being saved. Anne (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

After looking closely at the work produced, having spent some time in the past few days rewriting Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, my edits are here, I'm much less sanguine about this situation and expect an unpleasant reaction. My suspicion is that there's quite a lot of clean up to be done. The issue isn't so much that no secondary sources exist for the material, but that extensive passages of text has been quoted again and again. I'm not convinced that won't happen regardless of the type of source and it certaily shouldn't happen if self-cited. Victoria (tk) 04:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Victoriaearle All this talk of "self citing" is really jarring with me. All referencing on all articles (even ones which can be traced to work published by me in History Today and the Lancaster Journal) were authorised by Cordless Larry, who has a copy of the Journal, and all links were done by him or Dormskirk, because I am pathetic enough, (not being brought up in the computer age) to have been unable to do the referencing myself. Please also note that I am only a co-author. Martha Able was the head archivist at LancasterHistory and the work in the Journal is almost exclusively hers. The only thing of mine was a reprint of my History Today article - HT being a prestigious British monthly history magazine, which you may well not have come across before. There is so much hatred being directed at me for daring to have had work published, and for people like Cordless Larry to have substantially assisted me in getting links on to Misplaced Pages. The Journal has been quoted extensively, because there is so much in it which has changed the tired old story whih has been repeated ad nauseam for 2.5 centuries, but it is not the same passages over and over again. You two really cannot forgive me for having done the work I have done. You must be loving the demolition of that work which has taken place now. Anne (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain before, Anne, no editor on Misplaced Pages can "authorise" additions in the sense that their approval carries any more weight than other editors. Decisions about article content are determined by consensus amongst editors. I believe that I also explained that extensive quotation from primary sources (any sources, really) is discouraged. When you asked me to review the articles for compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies, such a review was always likely to identify some of the problems that Victoria is now highlighting. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, you have been heavily involved in what has gone up on that page. Look at all the discussions which took place over the addition of the image of Timothy Day's Tavern, and even more so over the map of its location. Can you think of one good reason for both to be deleted, when you were there from start to finish when they both went up? I am sure revenge is sweet in the American camp, but does this sort of behaviour tally with unbiased, neutral and honest? I hope you are going to understand my words, and not have one of our frequent disconnects now? My work is being deleted by Americans on every page I have ever edited. All to put Washington's visage slanting in his favour. Anne (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussions about article content belong on article talk pages, not on the COI noticeboard. Nothing is lost on Misplaced Pages - it can always be restored later if there is consensus to do so. However, as I've said before, I think it would be best for you to focus on your book for now. Also, please don't make accusations of bias based on other editors' backgrounds unless you have very strong evidence that they are acting improperly - that sort of unfounded accusation will get you blocked (and is counterproductive because it can be turned around to suggest that you're biased too). Cordless Larry (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, is there anything more biased than deleting the image of Timothy Day's Tavern and the map of its location? - both of which you yourself guided me through the process of getting them on the article? Seriously, I not only have to fight my corner on my own, as always, but you, who have guided me through the processes, on this and other issues, now turn on me. I am replying to posts above, whether they should be on this thread or not. Anne (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You're assuming a motive without evidence. The Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet article had too many images in it, so I can see a perfectly reasonable motive for removing them. The images concerned are still in the more detailed Asgill Affair article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, the worst possible two have been selected. Totally crucial to what happened to him. What about the 11th foot soldier or Georgiana Cavendish? Both very much part of Asgill's life, but not in the way Timothy Day's Tavern was - are you blinded to that? Your approach is extraordinary.Anne (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As I've said, this discussion should be taking place on the article's talk page, Anne. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, I was responding to this post "Victoria (tk) 04:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)". Anne (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC) Anne (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Support topic ban. Posting before this closes. I started trimming Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet, on Jan. 26th when it looked like this and was 6300+ words, to this version at 1786 words. Entire sections that included huge blockquotes were removed, example, example, sections that were self-cited removed, example, example. The page is still too long, still filled with primary sources, at least one Ammundsen source, and in my view needs additional culling. Talk page discussion is here. It's not sustainable to edit with disruption and the material isn't worth the level of discussion I allowed myself to engage in. The article Asgill Affair comes in at 9600+ words, most either self-cited or cited to primary sources from what I can tell. Whether it's trimmed down to the size it should be in a single big edit (the best solution), the disruption will continue in my view. Someone else will have to take on the Asgill Affair - health issues have kept me from editing actively on & off for quite some time & this has been - stressful. That's why I'm posting here now, too. There are other articles strewn about that have been trimmed back, i.e here. I believe Drdpw trimmed some of the smaller articles. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Anything and everything I ever did on WP is now being attacked, and or deleted. Even my contributions to Solomon Islands articles! If this does not smack of a vendetta, I don't know what does.

Given the help Cordless Larry, Dormskirk and Nthep (amongst others) have given me over the years, I do not see that I have been self-citing. When the Journal was published, Cordless Larry was majorly supportive of work from it being included. I didn't do the referencing, because it is a technological task beyond my capabilities.

So far as my interview is concerned - the Closer, Discuss-Dubious, summarised that consensus had been reached, on that subject, and that at the very minimum - it could be included on the Asgill Affair, Charles Asgill and his father Charles Asgill, 1st Baronet pages. How can one person be a consensus against the Closer's findings, and it be wiped?

The only real evidence that George Washington tampered with the official records of the Asgill Affair has been deleted from the Charles Asgill article. Could it possibly be because the author, Judge Jones, was a Loyalist? I thought that Misplaced Pages was supposed to be neutral, unbiased and honest? This has not been my experience, particularly of late. Anne (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple people, on multiple pages, have explained how Misplaced Pages uses sources (PSTS), what self-citing is (SELFCITE), and what constitutes due weight (WEIGHT). At some point it's your responsibility to figure out why this is an issue and why multiple editors have had to undertake this cleanup. Maybe the fact that no one except Cordless Larry has responded to your constant pings might clue you in to the fact that you've exhausted any goodwill available to you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages disallow new evidence being provided to this site by anyone providing new evidence, in any sphere, whether it be the humanities or science? I hope you will read my book, when it is published; it will be a revelation to you. It is being published by a reputable American publishing house, not self-published. You are so biased in favour of GW that you are blinded to the fact that, wow, it really was not his finest hour. Your violent anger directed at me is palpable. Consensus for my interview being on at least 3 pages has been established. Spiteful revenge is being directed at me, quite deliberately. How my actions on the Solomon Islands page can be construed as self-citing is beyond me. No, it is simply a deliberate wish to hurt me as much as possible. I have not created new content for a long time, and do not intend to partake anywhere on WP, once this nightmare is over. My book will be my legacy and will be correcting false and biased history. But to be blocked is overkill. Topic banning is the same thing. Where will I be permitted to edit - articles on knitting perhaps?Anne (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"Does Misplaced Pages disallow new evidence being provided to this site by anyone providing new evidence, in any sphere, whether it be the humanities or science?"

Generally, YES! Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. It summarizes what secondary sources (like news publications, scholarly works, etc. etc.) say. Once that new information has been covered and disseminated in those secondary sources, then it can be integrated into Misplaced Pages. As an example, if I found irrefutable evidence that Nelson survived Trafalgar and lived out his life as a cobbler in Leeds, it wouldn't be appropriate to add it to Nelson's Misplaced Pages article. If I wrote a book about the evidence, and it was published by Oxford University Press, received rave reviews from the academic community, and generated articles in The Economist and The Times, then it would certainly be appropriate to incorporate it in Nelson's article, since the article would then be summarizing the overall state of understanding of the topic. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, about your illustration regarding Nelson! However, the new information I speak of WAS published here: The Journal of Lancaster County’s Historical Society VOL. 120, NO. 3 WINTER 2019. Please see earlier commentary about how Cordless Larry was very supportive of its use (having a personal copy of the publication) and did the referencing involved. Please don't lets go over this old ground again.Anne (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

BubbaJoe123456, the reason I was pleased to see the journal article published was because I'd been telling Anne that her additions to Misplaced Pages was far too reliant on primary sources. As you've done here, we often tell editors who add original research to Misplaced Pages articles that they should instead publish that research in reputable outlets, and then we can potentially cite those secondary sources. The problem is that now Anne has done that, she's being told that the secondary sources can't be cited because this constitutes self-citation (though I note that WP:SELFCITE doesn't actually prohibit that outright). It does feel a bit like a catch-22. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As someone following this discussion but not involved in editing these articles, I would suggest Anne appears to be genuine in intention, but has not understood what wikipedia is about, and in particular that it is a tertiary source and not the place for original research, and has taken valid critiques of her editing as personal attacks when they are not. Suggestions of other editors having a "vendetta" appear misguided at best. Anne Ammundsen you mention your editing on the Solomon Islands article: the last time you edited this was in March 2022, and a completely different editor to those involved in this discussion reverted that in April 2022 asking what the purpose of the image you added was (which I would agree is a fair question - it was in no way integrated into the article or explained). That is a simple example of how wikipedia works, not evidence of a vendetta against you personally. Using terms like "spiteful revenge", "violent anger" and a "deliberate wish to hurt" you about other editors who to me as an uninvolved editor have been quite patient in explaining how wikipedia works to you is a failure on your part to demonstrate good faith and refrain from personal attacks and is not ok here, not matter how you personally feel. It suggests you are not able to see this situation clearly and I would agree with those who have suggested you should step back from editing, particularly from Asgill related topics as you have a clear conflict of interest. If you are unwilling to do so, it may be that the suggested topic ban is the only way forward, as this continued lengthy discussion does really not seem to be getting anyone anywhere. Melcous (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

For instance - a whole (separate) thread was devoted to my interview being on 3 articles in particular. Consensus was reached, and it was applied as per closer. When one editor comes along and deletes it everywhere, contrary to consensus, that certainly feels like a vendetta. The purpose of that editor seems to be to remove anything positive from CA's article, about CA, and remove anything negative about GW there too. This has been the entire tenor of the editing done. To remove the Judge Jones quote seems absolutely scandalous to me. All evidence of GW's "tampering with the evidence" has gone. This is CA's page, for God's sake. On the other hand, I included a passage where the Patriots were denigrating Judge Jones, for balance, you understand. Listen, I have said all this. Why am I having to say it all again? I have given full details of the edits and my view of the purpose of those edits. If you choose not to read all this, then I just cannot go on and on and on saying that there was nothing "good faith" about the editing done. Anne (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Btw, has anyone, just anyone here at all, taken into account that I asked Cordless Larry, 3 years ago, to do the editing I was aware was needed. He agreed, as he states at the beginning of this discussion. OK, so he has been too busy. Rather like another editor who broke promise after promise after promise made to me. Now look where I am as a consequence. Given a prestigious academic publisher, in the USA, is so excited about publishing my work, stop and ponder that one too. Ask yourselves, who knows more about the subject of this article. Or does expertise count for nothing on WP? Anne (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Expertise in editing per policy, researching, summarizing content, and writing content counts for a lot. Subject matter not so much because, as a tertiary source, Misplaced Pages only reiterites what's found in secondary sources. Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources is quite clear as which sources are acceptable and which not. As for the "scandalous" removal, it's in this diff. For the record, it was trimmed out only because it was cited to an 1879 book - because here Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources#Age matters. If a current secondary source mentions that point, it can be reinstated, but it shouldn't be reinstated by anyone associated with the writing of the source, which is citing oneself. This has been explained again & again, and frankly blaming someone for not doing your editing in itself goes against policy. We are responsible for the edits we make and shouldn't ask others to edit for us. Victoria (tk) 17:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not even when they volunteer? Should WP introduce an Ageist Policy, where people (some people at least) struggle with the technology involved, however simple that technology may be to others, even those of my generation? Should such people be prevented from editing from the outset? I can't do it and, if WP wants the benefit of what I happen to know, as factual, then I come with a bundle of inadequacies. There is no way I would have been able to do what needs/needed to be done, so some kind people (thought WP was a collaborative organisation) have helped me out. I doubt I am entirely alone on WP in that regard. I have said before, we all have talents, just not the same talents. How boring the world would be if we were all good at exactly the same things. I have no intention whatsoever to create more content. Once I am released from this nightmare, I have no intention of further interaction. Nevertheless, I cannot abide knitting, and don't want to be reduced to that level of input. Anne (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Vis-a-vis the conflict of interest policy, no it's not collaborative to ask others make edits which infringe on that policy. In this request to have an interview hosted on Misplaced Pages you write, "Naturally, I cannot create this link myself," which shows a understanding of COI, but an intent to have others circumvent it. When requesting the video be included in the George Washington in this edit you write ("It is not possible for me to upload this edit myself, since there would be a COI given I am heavily involved in this"). Nothing else is relevant to this discussion. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

What is relevant is that you have deliberately gone against another thread's conclusion, that my interview could be placed on, at the very least, 3 pages, but you decided that the other editors, who brought the closer to that conclusion, could be ridden roughshod over, so you have removed it from everywhere. I have no idea what gives you that authority, other than not liking the evidence presented. As for making the link, I can't remember who put it on first, but I did what I always do, copy and pasted it on to other pages (for which authority was given). Of course I understand the concept of COI, but it has turned into a "this woman must be banned at all costs" issue. As has already been noted, as per the rules, I have confined myself to the Talk Pages - not editing articles. I'm busy - my working day started at 4am in order to do what had to be done. I resent this constant need to keep on responding. Anne (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Anne, there is absolutely no need for you to keep responding. You have said multiple times here that you you have no intention of continuing to edit here, and then you have kept on editing (and yes, I am including talk pages, even this one, when I say "editing"). Can I gently suggest you take a deep breath, log out of your account, and simply stop looking at wikipedia for a while? It seems like that might be the best thing for you at the moment. Melcous (talk) 21:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

If people keep addressing me, how am I supposed to ignore what is being said, especially since nobody is listening to what I have to say, much less respond to the clear evidence that others have ridden roughshod? I would love this to draw to a close, but not by slinking away as though I am the guilty party. Anne (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Anne, people have been listening and responding. I just read this COI section, including the given links. It is clear that you are upset by others editing ('ridden roughshod'), but other people are allowed to disagree, they are allowed to make their own edits, and they are allowed to remove things. I know it is sometimes difficult to walk away and let someone else have the last word, but that is the only way that some arguments can end. MrOllie (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that people are allowed to override decisions made on previous threads - and unilaterally decide that those decisions can be ignored? There is no way I will stand by, meekly, and accept this kind of abuse of a system in place regarding Closures. What did I go through all that for then, for it to be totally meaningless? Anne (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am saying. This concept is built into Misplaced Pages: WP:CCC. Nothing here is necessarily permanent. MrOllie (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Whether a topic ban or a p-block is better for this case, one or the other should be done here. Just trying to read through walls-of-obfuscation here makes it easy to see how hard it must be to deal with this on article talk pages. Why is there no COI declaration on this user's page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

As an FYI all edits made to clean up Sir Charles Asgill, 2nd Baronet have been reverted . Victoria (tk) 14:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Frustration, your own, is not a good reason to revert all your (150 perhaps) recent edits to the CA article. Drdpw (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are you one minute restoring and rewording the interview in External Links, and the next removing it again, Drdpw? Anne (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I saw that I had, and, before reading your above comment, restored it. Drdpw (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Drdpw, in my view, it's best the clean isn't unilateral. Hence the revert. Everything's still in history. Also a couple of posts above are concerning. Victoria (tk) 17:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone has missed this post, Cordless Larry (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC), which is hidden away far above, I would like to draw your attention to it. Anne (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A thought provoking post. Given the way Cordless Larry describes the problem, it does appear that Anne has become trapped by poorly articulated or understood rules and procedures. Even so, the question remains however, What is the best pathway (action) to get out of the Catch-22? Drdpw (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

My own suggestion is that Anne volunteers to step away from Misplaced Pages for a period and to resist the temptation to comment on each individual edit to the articles about Asgill, giving a group of other interested editors the opportunity to make progress with ensuring the articles are more compliant with Misplaced Pages's rules. Once we have stable, revised versions of the articles, Anne can comment on the relevant talk pages and make reasonable suggestions for further edits (as per WP:COIREQ). If her book is out by then, all the better, and we can consider how to incorporate material from it at that point. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like an excellent plan. Bottom line, it sounds very appropriate to me that Anne's book could be a source for the article, but that should be a call for editors other than Anne to make. Also, the articles shouldn't be essentially summaries (and not brief ones at that) of the book. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, from the peanut gallery: I just read the Asgill Affair article (in this version before some cuts were implemented) to be utterly fascinating! The fact of random draw selecting which British officer is to be executed, and the fact of this being documented and fairly negative-about-the-great-George-Washington, are things I had never heard of. And I think it is great that Misplaced Pages can introduce these types of things to general readers such as myself. It is very random that I found my way to this COI noticeboard discussion (following another editors' contributions), which I read with interest. Seems like a complicated situation, and that you folks here who may be regulars at the noticeboard, and User:Anne Ammundsen, are all very well-meaning and intelligent people. Offhand to me it seems a break would be good, then I do hope the book mentioned gets published and that editors reconvene to make suitable edits. I dunno, maybe the "AA" article should be cut down somewhat, and I gather that it is going to be cut down, but the whole topic and so much of the detail is really interesting, including to the level, say, of explaining about Asgill having barely missing a boat and then getting assistance to chase it down 12 miles out to sea. Which maybe some think too detailed, but I think it's poignant and relevant and okay to include. I do think it should be said that while Misplaced Pages is supposedly supposed to be tertiary, that in many many areas of Misplaced Pages primary and very-nearly-primary materials are used, and are in fact demanded, by the editing processes as they happen to work out. Note that entirely original research is in fact allowed in Misplaced Pages, in the case of photographs.... I happen to sometimes take new photos of historic places and I am fully allowed to use them to state fairly-obvious-from-the-photo observations in text. Anyhow, y'all seem to be good people! Good luck with your endeavors. I won't watchlist here, am going now, ta-ta. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

In reply to Doncram - well, thank you. It is because this story is so fascinating that I have invested so much of my time, and $35,000 researching it. For the record, it is James Gordon I fell in love with. To offer to go to the gallows in place of Asgill is special. So much of his role in this story has been culled - especially "Only One Hero". I found George Washington to have been duplicitous, and that is the real problem here. People cannot handle the truth. So far as Cordless Larry's comment is concerned, I would love to get my life back, and have said many times that I want to disengage here. I will never, ever, create more content for Misplaced Pages. My book will be my legacy, not Misplaced Pages. I really couldn't care less, any more, if Misplaced Pages wants to be biased and inaccurate by removing so much of value from this "suite of articles" as it has been called. I will never spend my life rebuilding the articles. In 2019, when I was incredibly busy getting the Journal published, the CA article was demolished - at the most crucial time. I made the mistake of trying to fight that decision; dropped the ball and missed things when I proofread before publication. For instance, they have Asgill in the wrong regiment. They have him in the Scots Guards - so does Peter Henriques, too. A lack of understanding, mainly on the part of Americans, of the subtleties of the British army is the reason. Exactly the same thing has happened to me again. The day before yesterday, I had to work a straight 23-hours-on-the-trot to deal with my current publishing commitments.

The only thing which has brought me back here is when I see the truth being demolished. But the way I have been treated leaves me not caring. There are some here whose hatred of me is seriously palpable, and that is their driving force for wanting me to be banned, and as one suggested - totally blocked from WP. I will give an undertaking to "step away", but most want to see my hands tied so that I only have articles of no interest to me whatsoever permitted. I gave knitting as an example. If some respect could be afforded to me, and my undertaking accepted, then it can be over. To Drdpw, if you have "seen the light", well thank you to you too. Anne (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

StrawberryFrog

• StrawberryFrog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scott Goodson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Scottgoodson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scott Robert Goodson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FrogVera (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StrawberryFrogWKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ERIKPONK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A series of SPAs have been editing these two articles and it stands to reason this is UPE. Past warnings to these editors hasn't resulted in better behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I did some significant cleanup. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I sent Scott Goodson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Afd. Its one giant advert. These are classic UPE's. scope_creep 00:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Mark Isaacs

• Mark Isaacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Maisaacs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See edit history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:F4F6:A73A:AAAA:3F62 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked as WP:IMPERSONATE. User claims to be Mark Isaacs and has stated that he will be providing verification of his identity. If he is confirmed to be who he claims, then some education about WP:COI and WP:OWN will be needed. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, I'll request a subject specific block. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

An update: user has been granted a name change, and is now Walton22 (talk · contribs). Their talk page is protected because of unrelated vandalism (!), but Mr. Isaacs is lobbying RickinBaltimore to be unblocked. The only interest appears to be a return to WP:OWNERSHIP of the biography, at least to remove maintenance templates that are still relevant. A mere name change does not exempt the user from COI and all the fun stuff that goes with it. If unblocked, I'm requesting a topic ban for Mark Isaacs. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk page response, Walton22. This is an admittedly ungainly way to communicate, but per , if uninvolved editors feel the COI issue has been resolved, they're welcome to remove that template; there's still much that is inadequately sourced. As for coming to a better understanding of how Misplaced Pages works, the best way to evidence newfound respect is to walk away from the article. Even your most recent comments make it clear that your interests here are for one purpose only. At any rate, this is rather academic. A misstep after an unblock would prompt another block, anyway. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:4C4B (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User: Doodyalley User: Burenia

• Edwin Mellen Press (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Herbert Richardson (publisher) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Doodyalley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Burenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These users have focused exclusively on these two issues. Their editing style is highly concerned with rephrasing criticism of these two subjects as factually incorrect (wikivoice capitalised "Professor", wikivoice "incorrectly called a vanity press", " in honour of his grandfather" instead of "for his grandfather", verbatim quoting apology letters that came about as parts of settlements to litigation, etc.). Doodyalley is otherwise only really focused on linking to the publishing house in tons of citations elsewhere and growing various lists of people in some form or another associated with the publishing house, seemingly for promotional purposes with not much encyclopaedic value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bari' bin Farangi (talk • contribs)

Did some cleanup at both Edwin Mellen Press and Herbert Richardson (publisher). Will keep an eye on these.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Forever Living Products

• Forever Living Products (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Erondigital (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Several months ago Erondigital made some edits on the Forever Living Products page which has seen questionable edits in the past. Their edits , seemed fine, but their user name raised some alarm bells and a search linked that to companies where COI/PAID issues were possible. I left them a warning about that. Today, they replied . I think there's a pretty clear COI and I'm not convinced by their explantion that no PAID relationship exists. I'm raising this here for additional comments. There's concerns on the username that I've also raised with them. Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I filed UPE evidence with paid-en-wp. DMacks (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Zach Andrews

• Zach Andrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tjjewell23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed this account editing the above page with suspicious edit summaries such as "reference same name used in all social media/web content to ensure consistent image and branding". After reverting an edit, I noticed that this account had been warned earlier today. @Discospinster: has also flagged an image uploaded by this account as a potential copyvio - that image was reintroduced to the above article three times (which happens to be a 3RR vio). Toadspike (talk) 17:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

User contributions show that this is likely a new SPA. Toadspike (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing suspicious regarding the edits. I am working with Zach Andrews as a member of his marketing team. I am trying to update his head shot so that it is the same photo on all branded materials while maintaining a consistent branded image online. Please advise on how I need to move forward. Tjjewell23 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Tjjewell23 as a member of his marketing team, you are required by wikipedia's terms of use to disclose your status as a paid editor and you should not edit the article directly, but can instead suggest changes on the talk page (and provide reliable, independent secondary sources when you do so). Melcous (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Samral

• Draft:Elkhan Ganiyev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Narmin Knyaz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Samral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of paid editing disclosures at the Azerbaijan wiki:

• Elkhan Ganiyev disclosure
• Narmin Knyaz disclosure

This user has disclosed, on multiple occasions, that they're a paid editor on the Azerbaijan wiki where they also happen to be a former admin. They've failed to disclose this when creating those same articles on the English wiki. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution
• Misplaced Pages conflict of interest editing