Misplaced Pages

:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martin Hogbin (talk | contribs) at 08:41, 3 April 2011 (→Rebut Martin's claim). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:41, 3 April 2011 by Martin Hogbin (talk | contribs) (→Rebut Martin's claim)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
    ShortcutsSections 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.
    You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. 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-wp@wikipedia.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?
    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
    To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

    Search the COI noticeboard archives
    Help answer requested edits
    Category:Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Misplaced Pages conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers Talk:Pamela Anderson Talk:AvePoint Talk:Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) Talk:BEE Japan Talk:Edi Birsan Talk:Adam Boehler Talk:Edouard Bugnion Talk:Bunq Talk:Captions (app) Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Commvault Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:DEGIRO Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Khalili Foundation Talk:David Lalloo Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Mitre Corporation Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:PetSmart Charities Talk:Power Without Glory (2015 book) Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Sharp Memorial Hospital Talk:Louise Showe Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

    Nick Halkes

    Hi all, I came across this article, which I found to be poorly written (not encyclopaedic in nature). Words like 'cuts' is slang and doesn't feel appropriate. It sounds like a press release with as many superlatives and fancy facts as possible.

    examples of this: -Nick Halkes is a U.K. based music industry executive known for signing and breaking multi-million selling dance act The Prodigy. -Nick's most recent, major A&R success with the band has been their 1.3 million selling "Invaders Must Die" on which he has a co-write on the title track, a cut which enjoyed a list rotation on BBC Radio 1. -The Prodigy were the most played act on Radio 1 in 2009 scoring four A-list singles in a row. -Nick also runs a successful music publishing business (with cuts from writers ranging from A-Trak, Mujava and Princess Nyah through to cuts recorded by The Prodigy, Sash! and Joey Negro) and both DJs and gets in the studio as part of Kicks Like A Mule (with whom he enjoyed Top 10 UK chart success as an artist and renewed profile following the Klaxons cover of ‘The Bouncer.’)


    I also felt that it contained much promotion on the subject, including far too many details that would only be known by someone close to the subject, or possibly the subject themselves. The manner in which they are presented seems to indicate that they are written to maximise the positive light in which the subject is perceived - for example it talks about the works of some collaborators below (kelly price & rob davis) but does not mention the particular pieces that the subject worked on with those people. The final paragraph is more like a CV, as it contains details on the minutiae of his career - many items in detail which are possibly too insignificant to be considered suitable for biographies of this nature.

    examples of this

    -He is also a part time lecturer on the music industry to BA and MA students at University of Westminster in London

    -Recent Kicks Like A Mule studio activity has included remixes on Kid Sister and Major Lazer with a single also released on U.S. indie Fool's Gold under the revised artist name K.L.A.M. An occasional song writer, Nick recently co-wrote a track on the Kenneth Bager album that is now gold in Scandinavia plus also co-wrote a song which was recently cut by Japanese artist Maki Goto. He has also co-written with Rob Davis (co-writer of Kylie Minogue's global smash "Can't Get You Out Of My Head") and Kelly Price who co-wrote U.S. number one 'Déjà Vu' for Beyonce.

    -More recently Nick has used the Horx moniker for collaborative studio activity with both Jonny L on a cut called ‘18 years’ and with Adam F and Redman on a cut called ‘Shut The Lights Off’ which was released on Breakbeat Kaos, the latter scoring a Zane Lowe ‘Hottest Record In The World’ accolade. As Horx, Nick provided support DJ services on both the Prodigy U.K. Invaders Arena tour(including 2 dates at Wembley) and multiple dates on the European leg of the bands world tour. As K.L.A.M. the date sheet has included Bestival, Ministry of Sound and Fabric plus support dates on the Zane Lowe DJ Hero 2 Tour. Most recently Nick co-produced and co-wrote the single "Electric Boogaloo" for UK grime godfather and chart star Wiley. Nick was a keynote speaker at the 2010 'In The City' music conference in Manchester and recently delivered 'masterclass' presentations at the Academy of Contemporary Music in Guildford, the Bristol Institute of Modern Music and the Brighton Institute of Modern Music. Nick has also contributed writing to the book Catch The Beat, which documents late '80s/early '90s underground club culture.


    Why COI?

    I edited this article to tidy it up and remove what I considered to be excessive. There were some problems with grammar, format etc in addition to the content issues described above. You can see my edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nick_Halkes&diff=413577680&oldid=411788397

    within less than 48 hours my edit was reverted back to the messy original article by IP 83.217.115.101 To give you an idea of user IP 83.217.115.101's contributions, here is there log http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/83.217.115.101

    Of this user's 48 edits, 35 have been on this article, 5 have been on the band that subject of the article is a member of, 2 on the record label he was involved with and the remainder on related articles. Similarly, 35 out of the last 49 edits of this article have been made by that same IP.


    I didn't want to get caught up in a editing/reverting war so was seeking advice here instead on how to proceed. Thanks User:HallucigeniaUK 15:12 (UHT) 20 March 2011

    Mdvanii


    The two major contributors to this article may have personal and/or professional relationships with the subject matter's creators. Please refer to the article's Discussion Page for further information. Thank you. Alan Poole 8 (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

    Please list them here, that is why we have this noticeboard, for ease of remedying the situation. CTJF83 21:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, I'd like to know whom you feel is such, my case was long settled last year ( I made a mistake in my name and it was corrected) and I am one amongst many people working on this article. I also would like to know what is in the article which seems COI...its totally encyclepedic now with all dry facts about the very complex artwork and artists. I feel this COI has a personal agenda of some sort because I do not in a any way see the COI at all. The article is pure dryfacts about the work of art in question. AND how or why would you think there is professional or personal contact with the subject just because people are passionate and knowledgebale about it...it is a phenomenon in the art work in Europe and there are those who really support it.Blanderàmort (talk) 01:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    I don't see how the article appears COI. Its pretty clear and the tag should be removed in my opinion. Its a work of art and its very multi-layered. It has a had a great deal of research clearly and everything checks out exactly as stated. Tag should be removed. ALphaWord (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


    Hello. Simply put, the Mdvanii article was started by a person who works for the dollmakers and runs a Facebook group where she offers Mdvanii items, for sale it would seem. That's the person who started the article; the majority of the article is written by another person who has a personal relationship with the dollmakers. The dollmakers even claim he is their son. He is also reported to sell Mdvanii items on eBay. So both parties have a financial interest in this article, and the major contributor has what appears to be some sort of personal relationship, as well. If you look at Alec jiri's Talk Page, you'll see, near the top:

    "I have started, with Cheong Kwon, to UN-Peacock the article, if we understand the meaning of fluff means... Thanks, Alec Jiri"

    He wrote that on 23 December 2010 before the COI claim occurred. Kwon is the article's originator, and Jiri is the article's major contributor. Once the COI happened, Jiri initially didn't initially deny any of the claims of being "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*"... it took him three days to change his story to:

    "I should mention I am not THE Alec Jiri associated with the artists. I know him however. He supplied me with many of documents to do this article for which I may re-state, am neither paid or rewarded in any way. I get the documents from the artists directly."

    This is found on the Mdvanii Discussion Page. Now, even here he admits having a relationship to the dollmakers, even though he now denies he is "Alec Jiri-Lestrade-Boy*" And eventually, on 5 January 2011 he changes his name from Alec jiri to Blanderàmort, and again this information can be found in Alec jiri's Talk Page.

    I and many others, including obviously the person who started this claim here, feel that the above information I have provided - and which can be checked by going to either Alec jiri's Talk Page or the Mdvanii article's Discussion Page - is grounds for a Conflict of Interest claim on the Mdvanii article.Legalpower (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    Note that I've blocked both User:Blanderàmort and User:ALphaWord for abusing multiple accounts to feign consensus. --jpgordon 21:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

    Tahseen Jabbary

    This user is an SPA. He created the article Tahseen Jabbary using content pulled from the subject's agency's profile, plus additional unsourced content, which conspicuously fails verification. The article survived AfD because somebody was able to see a little real, verifiable notability under the blather and create a decent, referenced, stub. There is very little in RS about the subject and the stub covers pretty much all that there is. Tasen55 continues to repeatedly wipe out this referenced stub with his preferred version of the article. His version has evolved a bit from the start but is still referenced only to improper primary sources (including Linkedin) and contains unverifiable claims. This is unacceptable in a BLP yet he makes no attempt to discuss or justify his edits. I have tried warning him and explaining things to him. He has been blocked before and not mended his ways. Nothing works. I originally tried sending this to ARV as a vandalism/spamming issue but it was rejected as not blatant enough. Given the single purpose nature of the account, the instance on using primary sources and the similarity of the name Tasen with Tahseen, I think we have a clear COI here. Although it is not totally clear whether this is actual autobiographical writing, the fact that he insists on adding an unreferenced alleged birth date and location for the subject (which I can not see published anywhere else) does raise this suspicion. DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

    Update: Tasen55 got blocked for a fortnight and things quietened down for a while but today IP 82.168.91.215, which is pretty obviously his, replaced the article with the COI/spam version again. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Giridharilal Kedia

    User:Odisha1, is of our Odia Misplaced Pages Original name Srikant Kedia, grand son of Giridharilal Kedia. May be Giridharilal Kedia is a notable person but, Image Institute of Technology & Management is a authorized Learning Center of Punjab Technical University (PTU). Is it notable insitute? Please check.Giridharilal Kedia in Odia wiki- Jayanta Nath 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

    Long Range Acoustic Device

    A new user with an obvious corporate affiliation has been taking out some of the cited text in these two articles, especially that text which shows the humble and bumpy beginnings of the corporation as founded by Woody Norris. Other text removed is a former vice president, Carl Gruenler, who is quoted in The Economist describing unflattering specifics. Binksternet (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

     Done The problem was taken care of by Alexf who blocked Lradcorporation's username. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

    Nick Perri

    User has an acknowledged COI. Many edits are promotional in nature, but do not qualify as outright spam. He's removed notability and COI tags from the entries, although not always without comment. This seems to me to be an SPA account, but not an outright spammer. May require attention from other editors. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    Reuven kuvent

    User:Kuvent created the Reuven kuvent article and has repeatedly removed the speedy deletion template. Username makes believe this is either an autobiographical article or the user is writing about a close relative. Swimnteach (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

    Susan B. Anthony List

    NYyankees51 was investigated for sockpuppeting and was found to have edited from an IP address owned and operated by the Susan B. Anthony List organization. NYyankees51 signed SBA List IP entries here and here on August 27, 2009.

    Subsequently, NYyankees51 was the most frequent article editor in 2009, without declaring his affiliation to SBA List. He was blocked in December, indefinitely. In 2010, NYyankees51 began the year with a sockpuppet, User:ArchConservative93, editing the SBA List article. When this sock was blocked, NYyankees51 started up User:BS24, again not declaring an affiliation with SBA List but editing it nonetheless. BS24 was blocked as a sock in November 2010. Before that, NYyankees51 edited the SBA List article using Special:Contributions/68.50.210.194, Special:Contributions/70.21.119.84 and Special:Contributions/71.178.26.97. All this is to demonstrate that NYyankees51 has shown a very strong desire to edit the SBA List article, even to the point of getting blocked.

    After NYyankees51 was blocked in December 2009 and BS24 was blocked in November 2010, the editor waited for two months and then appealed his block. He was unblocked on January 11, 2011 by HJMitchell upon the promise of no more sockpuppeting. So far it looks like this promise has been kept.

    However, the question of NYyankees51 having a conflict of interest remains. Here is a record of edits made by NYyankees51 and his sockpuppets, ones in which an overly promotional addition was reverted or ones in which unflattering information was removed or altered:

    • 2009-05-30: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
    • 2009-09-02: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
    • 2009-09-15: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
    • 2009-09-29: Made Susan B. Anthony have pro-life views. Removed as anachronistic.
    • 2009-10-02: Added an external link to Team Sarah. Removed as promotional spam.
    • 2009-10-09: Added the "Susan B. Anthony connection" section, including "Guilty" quote with no scholarly rebuttal. Added the Team Sarah URL again.
    • 2009-11-24: Removed unflattering, cited information about SBA being secular in contrast to SBA List which is more religious. Edit summary: "Contains frivolous and uncited information"
    • 2010-01-11: Removed unflattering information about poor abortion conditions seen by SBA in the 19th century.
    • 2010-04-02: Added "non-partisan" regarding SBA List. Removed unflattering, cited information about SBA being secular in contrast to SBA List which is more religious.
    • 2010-04-05: Added a long list of endorsements. Added a blog link to suzyb.org.
    • 2010-04-07: Piling on far too much negative press about Bart Stupak.
    • 2010-04-02: Removed any doubt SBA held anti-abortion views. Asserted SBA wrote the "Guilty" quote, with no scholarly rebuttal.
    • 2010-06-18: Removed unflattering information about scholarly doubt regarding SBA and "Guilty" quote.
    • 2010-07-26: Greatly expanded list of candidate endorsements including non-notable politicians.
    • 2010-07-28: Removed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV neutral wording about SBA's anti-abortion views. Removed sentence about dispute regarding SBA and such views.
    • 2010-07-30: Removed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV neutral wording about SBA's anti-abortion views. Added back the "Guilty" quote, saying "pro-choicers" deny it.
    • 2010-07-30: Changes wording regarding anti-abortion law to soften original intent. Deleted contradictory but accurate information about The Revolution and patent medicines advertisments.
    • 2010-07-30: Deleted the "essay" and substituted "editorial" regarding "Guilty" quote. Restored "pro-choicers" regarding Anthony scholars. Removed patent medicine info. Removed unflattering Schiff quote.
    • 2010-08-01: Restored "pro-choicers" regarding Anthony scholars. Removed patent medicine info.
    • 2010-08-02: Restored "pro-choicers" regarding Anthony scholars.
    • 2010-08-02: Changed correct "pro-life politicians" back to "pro-life women in politics"
    • 2010-08-02: Changed correct "pro-life politicians" to "pro-life women"
    • 2010-08-02: Removed an unflattering reference to Allison Stevens article. Changed correct "pro-life politicians" to "pro-life politicians, primarily women" in the absence of the reference. Introduced misleading statement implying SBA signed the "Guilty" quote. Introduced SBA quote talking about prostitution and alcohol abuse, implying that it was about abortion.
    • 2010-08-04: Changed SBA List name belief from SBA being "pro-life" to she "opposed abortion", unlike Dannenfelser who said SBA was "passionately pro-life".
    • 2010-08-06: Removed ATTRIBUTEPOV accuracy and unflattering quote in place of subdued wording. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
    • 2010-08-06: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference.
    • 2010-08-09: Introduced the "Sweeter even" quote without scholarly rebuttal. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
    • 2010-08-10: Changed to misleading wording regarding 14,000 documents. Introduced off-topic FFL argument. Misrepresented Lynn Sherr quote. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
    • 2010-08-16: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference. Introduced Mattie Brinkerhoff quote as being from SBA. Reduced intended tone from Sherr.
    • 2010-08-19: Removed cited 1989 start date. Restored Mattie Brinkerhoff quote as being from SBA. Reduced intended tone from Sherr.
    • 2010-08-23: Removed cited 1989 start date. Reduced intended tone from Sherr.
    • 2010-08-27: Removed cited 1989 start date. Reduced intended tone from Sherr. Introduced misleading "122 references" quote from Crossed.
    • 2010-09-10: Removed unflattering Ann D. Gordon quote.
    • 2010-09-13: Removed cited 1989 start date. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
    • 2010-09-14: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference. Removed all scholarly rebuttals to SBA signing the "Guilty" quote. Removed unflattering Lynn Sherr article reference.
    • 2010-11-01: Removed "Anthony scholars" from those who argue against SBA List. Removing unflattering Gordon quote.
    • 2011-03-09: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference. Removed all scholarly rebuttals to SBA signing the "Guilty" quote. Removed unflattering Lynn Sherr article reference. Removing unflattering Gordon quote. Removed cited information about abortion being more dangerous in the 19th century.
    • 2011-03-11: Removed unflattering Allison Stevens article reference.
    • 2011-03-28: Removed unflattering Gordon quotes from lead section and article body. Removed unflattering Schiff quotes from article body.
    • 2011-03-31: Changed wording to weaken Anthony's historic absence from anti-abortion causes. Removed "historians" from those who argue against SBA List. Removed unflattering Gordon and Schiff quotes from article body. Removed scholar Laury Oaks conclusion that SBA List quotes perpetuate a misinterpretation.

    NYyankees said in his edit summary on March 29, 2011, that he was "no longer associated with SBA List". After reviewing the lengthy evidence showing that he has been working at the very least as a de facto volunteer for SBA List, promoting their cause by edit warring against WP:NPOV, I have to assume that the conflict of interest still exists. SBA List is a non-profit organizaton operated largely by volunteers, and NYyankees51 is clearly demonstrating by his actions that he has volunteered to help promote them. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

    First, it should be noted that Binksternet and I have been engaged in content disputes for nine months now at the article.
    I was an intern at SBA List during the summer of 2009. The association ended after that.
    I have extensively edited the articles of several organizations and their leaders: Values Voter Summit (which I created), Brian S. Brown (which I created), Republican Party of Virginia, March for Life, Frank Pavone, Conservative Political Action Conference, Live Action (organization), and Lila Rose. My editing at the SBA List article is no different than my editing at those articles, and I certainly do not have a COI at any of those articles, nor have any existed. Binksternet says "SBA List is a non-profit organizaton operated largely by volunteers", and I would like to off what information he bases that claim. As per my list of organizations' articles above, if my editing at SBA List means I am an official volunteer for SBA List, I must be an official volunteer for Values Voter Summit, National Organization for Marriage, Republican Party of Virginia, March for Life, Priests for Life, Conservative Political Action Conference, and Live Action. It seems clear to me that this COI filing is nothing more than an attempt by Binksternet to discredit me and to give him a license to take over the SBA List article. It's sad for Misplaced Pages when users make allegations such as this to try to win a content dispute. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Tree shaping

    This is a continuation of and earlier COI complaint in which Blackash was banned from editing the article but not from the talk page. Blackash describes themself as a Tree shaper and Co-founder of Pooktre.

    Unfortunately rather than withdrawing from issues with commercial and personal significance, for example the name of the art and the various techniques used by various editors, Blackash continues to attempt to influence other editors on these matters as can be seen in the section .

    Please note that I am making no claim that any of the statements made my any editor in this section are true or false but an editor who has already been banned from editing for having a COI should not be attempting to influence other editors on matters with a COI. I am suggesting that Blackash is completely topic banned until commercially sensitive issues have been resolved by editors with no commercial interest in the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Martin you are lying I was not banned for a COI. Rather you have continually made these claims all over different notice boards, without support of diffs. I was topic banned from main space of tree shaping because I tie up other editors' time to much. Give me half hour and I'll get the ANI link and rebut your claim. Blackash have a chat 23:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
    To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in the field of Tree shaping. I have also been Topic ban form editing the main space of tree shaping (though allowed on the talk pages). Not because I've been uncivil, rude or even for editing the main article badly. Hilarleo Sums it up well "Blackash's fault here has been to seek fair treatment when the system is against her. IMO she has consistently tried to do right by the process. Apparently editors are now objecting more to the volume of her documentation than her arguments." diff Blackash have a chat 23:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    Link to ANI

    Link to my listing of Slowart for a COI (which I'm guess is the earlier COI complaint that Martin is talking about)

    Martin is not a neutral editor ( Blue Rasberry pointed this out on the WP:NPOVN diff ) when it comes to the word Arborsculpture or edits done by the creator of the word Arborsculpture (self outed Slowart). When Slowart puts his own word Arborsculpture into the lead Martin didn't comment to him about his COI. He has now twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page section, the other time he made a conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content diff Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The". Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. Blackash have a chat 01:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Martin keeps saying there are commercially sensitive issues or spam but will not come out and say what they are. When I've asked about details, he harps on about COI instead of answering the content question. Even when asked by other editors about the spam he won't give details. Blackash have a chat 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Rebut Martin's claim

    Martin's link. What I was discussing was basically that Arborsculpture is also defined as a technique in published media and that wikipedia does use the names of individual techniques in articles. Having this definition as part of the article meets WP:NPOV as this is able to be verified. Admittedly in long winded fashion as it was the actual discussion that clarified it for me.

    • WP:COI Quote "COI editing involves contributing to Misplaced Pages in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I can give diffs to multiple instances where I've put wikipedia polices first/above pooktre. Here are a few:
    • My request to speedy delete the pooktre article.
    • Where I listed pooktre article for deletion
    • Where I added citation needed to Pooktre in the Alternative names on Tree shaping.

    Over time I've put the word arborsculpture twice into the summary.

    • Into the lead diff
    • Further down diff.
      • SilkTork's comment on COI is an interesting view on COI diff

    My editing about the name of the art form is not a COI because I am not pushing/promoting to have my word Pooktre as the overall Title.

    The closest I have come to COI would be when I added Pooktre to the lead after discussion on the talk page about which words should be in the lead.discussion my reasoning diff after 10 days with no comment on the talk page I put in the compromise diff I believe there should be no alternative names in the lead as this gives to much weight to these words in an art form that only has 4 books in English published and 3 of them write about there is no established name. From my POV ideally all alternative names would be removed from the lead, this meet wikipedia style guide lines about alternative names. On the other hand I do think Afd Hero has some valid points as to why the names should be in the lead. diff Which is why I offered the comprise and then 10 days later put it up. Blackash have a chat 00:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Two points:
    • About the topic ban: The community discussion that imposed the topic ban gave no particular reason. Multiple reasons were given in the discussion, including COI and disruption. I suggest that no one bother trying to say that the topic ban is "because of" anything in particular; all that really matters is that it exists and must be abided by.
    • In the previous discussion, the community did not agree to a talk-page ban. This means that Blackash is free to attempt to influence other editors on the article's talk page. Martin, if you think a talk-page ban is truly necessary, then you will have to go back to AN or ANI and make your case for extending it to talk pages, or to all namespaces. In the meantime, you are permitted to treat Blackash's comments on the article talk page just like any other editor's, which is to say that you may ignore them completely if you find them unhelpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    This would seem to me to be the appropriate forum to discuss a COI issue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Decima gallery

    Username implies this is an interested party. Longterm account; many edits may be valid, but the appearance of conflict of interest and potential for promotional abuse is apparent. 99.0.81.41 (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

    So what?
    Misplaced Pages does not prohibit people from editing subjects that they have a connection to. We only care if they harm Misplaced Pages to promote themselves. If the edits are valid, then there's no problem and no need to mention them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    Silly of me, thinking that WP:COI might be a concern. Must have misread the guideline. Let's everyone write about our businesses. 99.0.81.41 (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    Kiss

    There is some edit warring and alleged disruptive editing going on in the article, with discussion at Talk:Kiss#Kissing image placement. In trying to avoid 3rr and further edit warring, and because a COI issue may be relevant, I'm posting here. If there is a better place, please advise. Note that User:Ctjf83 has even filed an RfD for File:Breznev-Honecker 1979.jpg, which could also imply a COI, if not a clear attempt at gaming the system. -- Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

    First, thanks for notifying me of this discussion, second the FfD is for an unrelated picture, that I wouldn't have even noticed, had you not moved the same-sex picture down there...are you saying because I'm gay I can't comment on a same-sex picture? CTJF83 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
    Categories: