Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Welcome to Conflict of interest Noticeboard (COIN)
Sections older than 14 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline.
To begin a new discussion, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Search the COI noticeboard archives

Help answer requested edits

Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests is where COI editors have placed the {{edit COI}} template: Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests Talk:260 Collins Talk:Bashir Al-Hashimi 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:Charles Martin Castleman Talk:Casualty Actuarial Society Talk:Cofra Holding Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Chris Daniels (musician) Talk:Dell Technologies Talk:Michael Dell Talk:Etraveli Group Talk:Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (novel) Talk:Steven Grinspoon Talk:Grizzly Creek Fire Talk:Group-IB Talk:Henley & Partners Talk:Insight Meditation Society Talk:International Motors Talk:Daymond John Talk:Norma Kamali Talk:Dafna Lemish Talk:Gigi Levy-Weiss Talk:Los Angeles Jewish Health Talk:Alexa Meade Talk:Metro AG Talk:Alberto Musalem Talk:NAPA Auto Parts Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Matthew Parish Talk:Barbara Parker (California politician) Talk:QuinStreet Talk:Sharp HealthCare Talk:Shuntarō Tanikawa Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:University of Toronto Faculty of Arts and Science Talk:Uppsala Monitoring Centre Talk:Zions Bancorporation

Peter B. Gustavson School of Business

• Peter B. Gustavson School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gustavson School of Business Distinguished Entrepreneur of the Year Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Uvicwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Uvicwiki has been editing extensively about this school, which is a department of the University of Victoria, and sprinkling redirects like confetti. I have deleted per WP:CSD#A7 a long promotional article about a student society (and eight redirects to it). I am not sure about the business school; the article is not too promotional, but the precedent per WP:OUTCOMES#Education is that "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field... or produced a number of notable graduates", and the references are all but one to its website or the University's. Maybe some independent ones could be found to establish notability, though the first couple of pages of a Google search are pretty well all press-release based. I greatly doubt whether the Distinguished Entrepreneur Award is notable enough for its own article, but I invite other views. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Neither article is sufficiently notable. I would nominate them both for deletion. It's clear that Uvicwiki is promoting the department. The list of "notable" alumni from the school is really silly. To the extent that Wikipedia is a measure of notability, only three of the long list are not redlinked and they point to the wrong people (I'll fix that).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure whether the school is actually notable or not and I'm usually more inclined to let those things go (though someone else is welcome to investigate and nominate for deletion of appropriate), but I just took the award article to AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gustavson School of Business Distinguished Entrepreneur of the Year Award as I can't find any real claim to notability and it was obviously created for promotional purposes. Zachlipton (talk) 03:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I had a search for sources for the school, but everything I found seemed press-releasey and to do with the renaming. I have removed the "Notable alumni" section, as those are intended for bluelinks to alumni notable enough in Wikipedia's sense to have their own articles, and none of them were. The article is tagged "notability" and "primarysources"; I am inclined to leave it and see whether sources get improved, though I also would not object if someone took it to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

On tree shaping article an COI editor is trying censor content

• Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI as an artist in this field. The pro Arborsculpture camp have stated I in fact am the one with a COI. Multiple editors have stated I don't have one, and can edit the main page. Example SilkTork's diff

Slowart has linked this account with Reames who has self outed as Richard Reames the creator of the word Arborsculpture. He has a potential COI as an artist in this field. He has also stated in the past that he has a COI in regards to the word Arborsculpture.

Slowart is censoring the page to suit his marketing of his method of shaping trees and the word Arborsculpture. His minor COI started when he replaced the alternative names in the lead diff. Please note, I didn't originally remove the alternative names Sydney Bluegum's diff, but I did state I agree with the editor who removed them as it follows WP:LEAD and stated why on the talk page. I've repeatably asked him to talk on the discussion page in my edit summaries. Which he is yet to do. I have filed for mediation which in the past he agree to, but hasn't yet replied on the listing. The edit that brought me to listing him (Slowart) here was this diff where he has removed cited content about his methods of Arborsculpture. I have also listed at the edit warring noticeboard and they have locked the page for 72 hours.He is not talking on the article page talk and has asked me not to talk on his page, What happens now? Blackash have a chat 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

hmm. That's certainly an interesting dispute there. Mediation certainly seems appropriate, but it can only work if both parties are willing to participate in good faith, and it seems like Slowart is unwilling to do so? Perhaps a neutral editor can persuade him to work with the mediation process. It seems the mediation committee also rejected the request because of your comment that you were "going to relist Arborsculpture for Arbitration." It seems clear to me from the context that you meant "mediation" instead, as the dispute previously went to mediation so now you would be re-listing it for further mediation. As such, I imagine the mediation committee might accept the case if Slowart agreed to participate in good faith.

Obviously, this is something that should be handled with tactics below the level of arbitration. It seems to me that WP:CIVIL and WP:EDIT imply a requirement that editors either cooperate with reasonable dispute resolution measures or disengage from the topic. If he won't agree to some kind of good faith discussion or mediation, then he's edit warring. I really think the best approach to resolving this would be if he would agree to cooperate in the mediation process in good faith, and I imagine MedCom might well be willing to reconsider if that happens.

Also, can you tell us how the first mediation went? Did you reach agreement on any issues? If so, administrator enforcement of that consensus might be justified if parties are editing contrary to the prior agreement without good reason. Perhaps other editors have ideas? Zachlipton (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I meant Mediation. On the tree shaping talk page mediation, formal mediation and Arbitration where all throw around and I mixed up my words. I will let the mediator know. Thanks this is helping already.

As far as I can tell Slowart is not talking to anyone.

The first mediation I filed was about the title of the tree shaping article and how the alternative names of the art-form should be used in the article and related articles. Both Slowart and I agreed to mediation. When the time came up for mediation I missed it (I was checking the listing page and not the talk page). By the time I realized my mistake the article had settled down, so rather than kick the bee hive I stated I would leave it unless the Arborsculpture issue come up again.Blackash have a chat 05:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just left a message on Slowart's talk page to sound out his feelings on whether he is amenable to participating in mediation in good faith. If he is, and if you (Blackash) and any other relevant parties are also in agreement and can also commit to regular participation in the discussion, we can ask MedCom to consider accepting the case. I think that's probably the best shot at dispute resolution right now. Note that arbitration is not only a drastic step, it is also not as helpful to actually resolving a dispute, as ArbCom only rules on editors' actions and Wikipedia policies, not on the underlying content dispute. Let's see how Slowart responds (or if he responds) and we can figure out where to go from there. In the meantime, I'd encourage all parties to avoid edit-warring on the issue, even if others are acting in bad faith. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am an editor with no commercial interest in the subject who has taken an interest in the article. There are clearly two editors with a potential conflict of interest here, Blackash and Slowart. I strongly believe that both these editors should withdraw from editing and commercially sensitive issues in the article and allow editors with no commercial interest in the subject to deal with these matters. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin you may be an editor with no commercial interest but you aren't neutral. To quote from the NPOV Noticeboard about the issues of Arborsculpture. Blue Rasberry Quote " Thanks for an explanation of the issue, Martin. I would not call you neutral anymore because in some instances you have made shows of support in the article talkspace without contributing additional points or arguments. I see hostility on this board against user:Blackash. There are good arguments in place by Blackash and others, and perhaps the counterarguments are good also, but they too frequently contain rude language. I posted something; it could use other uninvolved editors' viewpoints also. Blue Rasberry 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)"

Please note on the talk page Martin believes I have a higher COI than Slowart. Martin Quote "Blackash, as someone with no direct interest in the subject but a regular observer of the article, the greatest conflict of interest seems to relate to yourself. I think this case should be referred to the COI noticeboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)" Talk page I rebut his allegation of COI in the talk page. Martin seems to use the claim of COI as a way of not answering my points in discussion. Blackash have a chat 10:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick opinion. It seems both these editors are experts, which we need. Where does the commercialism enter into it, other than the fact that perhaps they both get paid for engaging in this art? You know, many an expert gets paid for his or her expertise. Maybe a good "beer summit" would help? Hoping they can work it out to everybody's profit, I am, yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackash runs the 2nd and 3rd highest ranked websites in a google search for "tree shaping" (the highest ranked site is the wikipedia page). Slowart coined the term "arborsculpture", runs equivalently high-search-ranked sites for that term, and has written books with arborsculpture in the title. Whichever term wins out, whoever runs the site associated with that name will have a huge advantage in terms of media coverage, book sales, interviews, contract work, website hits, etc.

There are also some less-commercial aspects/motivations in this. Slowart truly believes that arbosculpture is a better term, and has been actively promoting the term since long before wikipedia existed. Blackash and some other artists don't like this - they see slowart's actions as "pushing" his unwanted term onto their art. Similarly, slowart harbors some resentment over the first move when he was a relatively new wikipedian. From his perspective an outsider (me) came in and changed the title to his article without even discussing with him, and after the move he felt like he had no recourse. AfD hero (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about whether you are using Wikipedia to promote yourself or some end other than a good encyclopedia. The fact that you're connected to the subject or have some personal opinions about it doesn't count as a COI.

As an example: Surgeons are invited to write articles about surgery. Computer programmers are invited to write articles about computers. Artists are invited to write articles about art.

The problems appear only if you write these articles so that they benefit you: If the surgeon declares himself (or herself) the best surgeon in the world, the computer programmer removes sourced complaints about his software, the artist spams links to his website to drive up sales, etc.

That said, none of the few diffs I looked at seemed egregious. For example, it's pretty normal for articles to provide all the significant names for a subject in the first sentence, even if some of them are related to specific businesses. See, for example, Ibuprofen, which provides four brand names. Providing multiple names helps readers figure out whether they're on the right page, especially if they arrived at it by clicking on a WP:REDIRECT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If course we need experts. No one is suggesting that these editors should not be allowed to edit this article, just that should not get involved with commercially sensitive issues such as naming of the art. The point is that an editor with a commercial interest in the subject should not be making decisions on the use of specific names for the art. For example the manufacturers of a specific brand if ibuprofen should not be adding or removing brand names from the article, they should leave it up to others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think wp:consensus here might be that there is nothing that can be done on this page but that the aggrieved people should just keep trying to work out the problems or go to wp:mediation or some other forum. A look at the article's talk page indicates lively to-and-fro, which is just as it should be. The parties, maybe, should not expect everything to be decided quickly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@ WhatamIdoing did you look at this diff? This is cited content about Slowart, his methods and word. This is the edit that really brought me here. Are you saying it is correct for Slowart to remove this cited content?

As to the alternative names:

• There are 8 cite-able names for the art form.
• The had been a consensus to create an a name section and remove the names from the lead.

The removal of the names out of the lead follows WP:LEAD. To see in more detail why I support this edit please go to talk page

@GeorgeLouis, the problem is the Slowart is not talking only editing stuff about himself. Have a closer look at the to and fro, Martin and Johnuniq haven't addressed one of my points. Blackash have a chat 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the Tree shaping issue at a noticeboard in June 2010 and have been half-heartedly watching developments since then. On the article talk page, I have pointed out that there has been a protracted campaign to minimize use of "arborscultpure" in the article. The vigor with which some editors are pursuing that line shows that some strong principles are involved, yet examining the contributions of the editors shows that they generally are not concerned with any other topics where Wikipedia's principles might be contravened. Accordingly, it seems reasonable to conclude that the desire to minimize use of "arborscultpure" is due to some off-wiki reason. It is true that a "pro arborscultpure" editor with a COI has unwisely edit warred over the issue, but it takes more than one editor to edit war. It is time for all those with a commercial interest in the field to step back and let independent editors assess arguments for how "arborscultpure" should be used in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq,

1. We were going down the road to edit warring and this is why I listed on the edit warring noticeboard and here.
2. As to the minimizing Arborsculpture I when to NPOV notice board about the amount of weight given to arborsculpture in the article. I then did a compromise between how many times Arborsculpture appeared on the page at that time and the suggestions at the NPOV (which was to basically change all instances of arborsculpture to tree shaping) [1].
3. As to not being part of discussion and editing.
   1. Early on when discussing how content should be changed, I stated that Slowart and I don't count as part of consensus. I was told that we do too, quote "As to the question of consensus, the two of you definitely do count as part of generating consensus. HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:18, 11 May 2009" (UTC) Link. Multiple editors have stated it fine for me to be part of the discussions and for me to edit the article.
   2. Without discussion/editing with people from the field how are you going to know which content is in multiple sources and therefore should be on the page to something that was written in 1 source and not really relevant?

Please I still have discussion points on the talk page and I would be happy to talk about content there if you like. Blackash accusation 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From my prespective the invention of instant tree shaping in regards to my work is like calling it sloppy.Blackash is simply using wikipeda to bring down the competition, reduce redefine and eliminate the word arborsculpture and build up Pooktre.com and Blackash other web site www.treeshapers.net so you can see the COI, what do think ? Protracted arguments have work out well for some, but not for me. Without some page protection, this is like pissing in the wind and a waist of time. Slowart (talk | contribs)02:37, 27 February 2011

Slowart, if the name of the instant tree shaping section is a problem lets change it. Do you have any suggestions of a different heading? As to bringing you Reames down, please give diffs.

I would love for other editors to go to www.treeshapers.net as I believe this site is an excellent example of my ability to edit neutrally. I contacted everyone and most replied, a few wanted some changes which I did. Slowart and others commented in emails that I had done some good work with this site. Please feel free to start with Slowart/Richard Reames's page Blackash have a chat 22:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, the section removed by Slowart says, "Richard Reames is the biggest name in America for Arborsculpture". Now I don't know anything about this form of art—it might be the WP:TRUTH for alll I know—but that sounds pretty WP:PEACOCKy to me. Do you think that was a good sentence to have in the article? Does it sound like something you'd find in Encyclopedia Brittanica? And on the point of this particular noticeboard, do actually you think that Reames' removal of that sort of puffery about himself is somehow an effort to unfairly promote himself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and Johnuniq I'd like to point out some important points. Blackash starts a page titled Pooktre, at the AFD and without any notice anywhere AfD hero changes the Arborsculpture page to Tree shaping.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre [blackash spams the world with this]The article was created with the name arborsculpture and is the most accepted name for this art as found in a preponderance of reliable verifiable sources, IMHO The Home Orchard Purde university horticulture department *University of California Cooperative Extension*Horticultural Reviews *Grad Thesis *University of California pressThe best of the crop is see pdf page 6 text book page 442 section 4.

Basically what you have here is a page title that should be reverted to Arbosculpture as it was incorrectly changed and then it should have some semi protection from those who are just way too close to the subject to be unbiased.Slowart (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if everyone agreed with you, WP:Semiprotection would be useless, as it prevents only unregistered users and the very newest accounts from changing the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have just followed the links for Blackash spams the world and believe that the sites I looked at do NOT put down anyone, different tree trainers have links to their sites I think it is pretty fair. Go look for your self, don't take one person opinion. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing. I would be interested in reading your suggestion how to make "Richard Reames is the biggest name in America for Arborsculpture" more encyclopedic. Slowart removed a header, 5 cited pieces of information and an image then comes here and states he didn't like the header. Somehow I don't think he was worried by the WP:PEACOCK of the only non cite part of that paragraft. If that was all that was bothering him he could have add . Blackash have a chat 11:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't. The closest you could come is saying "Alice Smith calls Richard Reames 'the biggest name in America for arborsculpture'," with an WP:Inline citation to the source of this direct quotation.

Here's why this matters: 'Being an artist' is not a conflict of interest as far as Wikipedia is concerned. 'Being an artist who is trying to turn Wikipedia into an advertisement for yourself' is. There are all sorts of ways to do this, including adding puffery about yourself and removing favorable information about your competitors. But removing favorable information about yourself doesn't actually fall into the category of 'abusing a conflict of interest'—which means that while you have a dispute, you don't apparently have a dispute about someone abusing a conflict of interest, which is the point of this particular noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok about the biggest I don't and didn't have an issue about that sentence being removed, I'll just remove it.

Now as to the rest of Slowart's removal 5 cited pieces of info and an image, this content is about Slowart's method of shaping trees. diff I think you have missed a key piece of information. Slowart/Reames is not just an Artist he is also an Author of two books. (If he had be willing to talk about removing the content it would have only been a potential COI.) An author who removes cited information from wikipedia because it doesn't match their branding is editing in COI. Blackash have a chat 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Slowart this discussion is not about the title but...

I'll do my best keep it brief, mainly summing up and giving links to help other edits get an overview. There has been disagreements about arborsculpture since 2007 quotes from editors who disagree about arborsculpture. Google arborsculpture and see where it goes.

I start where Slowart did and go till now. Anyone interest in knowing more can ask at the tree shaping talk page and I'm sure you'll get answers.

• Article page before the move, [2] Please note the amount of content and how frequently Arborsculpture is used in the article.
• Page created for the references of the different names of the art-form. Quotes and sources
• Discussion about moving Arborsculpture to Tree shaping AFD 4 editors out of 6 editors discuss using a less secret topic or a neutral name:- Mgm suggests merging Pooktre into a less secret topics like Tree shaping or Tree trimming diff AfD hero suggests moving Arborsculpture to neutral name diff Rror agreed diff as did I Blackash diff
• AfD hero moved the article and created section on the talk page.
• Reames/Slowart disagreed with the move diff
• 11 editors where part of the discussion about the name after the move. The article stayed at Tree shaping.
• During informal mediation the title come up again and after a lot of writing SilkTork the mediator stated "...Tree shaping is the most neutral and appropriate and helpful name, and I would need a lot of convincing to change the name at this stage. SilkTork *YES! 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)" link
• The title issue was raised again here and then a day later a Requested move was created. Which resulted in no move.
• There was a request for references for tree shaping and talk about having a different title to tree shaping or arborsculpture which lead to me creating a group tables quotes and sources. Slowart added most of the sources for arborsculpture. Please note most of the sources for arborsculpture are based on interviews/book reviews of two self published books written by a non expert.
• There are 3 archives of talk about moving the title to arborsculpture or to holding or temporary title. diff
• I repeatedly suggested talking about a real alternative to Arborsculpture and Tree shaping, if it was found that tree shaping doesn't meet wikipedia policies/guidelines. I suggested Tree training, as had other editors and Slowart agreed diff to it as a title and it meets Wikipedia guidelines/policies. The pro arborsculpture editors didn't like that title but didn't rebut my points link. So that ended with no consensus.
• As to leaving comments around web, when arborsculpture appeared on our photos we left comments to correct misinformation. Also please read Blue Rasberry's quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone. What do you see in her postings that you find contrary to Wikipedia policy or behavior standards?" Blue Rasberry 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC) diff of full quote.
• I've twice filed for formal mediation to do with the word Arborsculpture. As Slowart still feels the title was unfairly moved he should take it up the dispute ladder.

I've left a heap of the arguments from both sides out, if anyone is interested in reading further go to the history of the tree shaping talk page or asked questions there. As this discussion really should be on the Tree shaping talk page I'm going to copy my reply plus Slowart's comment so editors interested in tree shaping can reply. Blackash have a chat 11:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, I'm not surprised, is there any level of protection that is suitable for unrelenting COI editing from those who are way to close to the subject and their meat puppets?Slowart (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The closest we come is WP:TOPICBAN, which (unlike WP:Page protection) is not a technological solution. A topic ban is a promise from a sysop that if you edit articles about a given subject, s/he'll WP:BLOCK you so that you can't edit any articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, how about myself and blackash and sydney bluegum accept WP:TOPICBAN.Look @ the length of talk archive alone, and realize its all about the same sh_t, frankly it borders on insanity.Slowart (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Now it's meat-puppetry?? I'd say that COI charge cuts both ways here- & it was laid to rest in the first responses, plus most since. Someone here doesnt appear to be paying attention to the discussion. I think that was somewhere in the original complaint?

Given both parties could have potential benefit, this falls more as a WP:NPOV issue for me. Yet there has apparently been a tendency towards agreement that another change of article title would be the most NPOV solution. Any resistance to such a solution I would have to term as strictly partisan.

Arborists techniques were in use long before either of these warring terms came into being. So the article in question ought to be subsumed into the currently too short-but more historically precedent article "Pleaching". Any distinctions made by warring partisans is artificial, and i do wonder at the article's purpose. Both the disputed terms seem Recentist-oriented rather than actually encyclopedic. Only the application of the art has evolved. Pleaching as a concept-altering appearance of vegetation by stressors- is recognizable across millenia in both artists' works.

In further favor of this resolution: the present inciting article actually informs us that Pleaching is an historical synonym for both commercial terms. Has anyone disputed that? Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 11:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hilarleo

A couple of points Afd hero left out

• I didn't originally suggest the move form Arborsculpture or to change the title to Tree shaping.
• When the article was moved to Tree shaping, it didn't lead to any one artist but Arborsculpture did and still does.
• Tree shaping meets multiple Wikipedia polices for the title.
• I've created this table so editors could read the quotes for the references of the different Alternative names.
• When the issue of the title has come up I have stated (and still do) I don't care what the name of the article is, as long as not linked to a method and that doesn't lead to one artist. I have made suggestions for different title names. The last being Tree training, which previously Slowart had agreed too. Tree training meets the WP:NAME, WP:NEUTRAL and WP:TRUTH policies. Tree training? Read the last 5 or 6 comments for my discussion on why it meets the different policies.
• As to Pleaching it weaving of living branches/trees to form fences or baskets. Neither I or Dr Chris Cattle shape trees that way, though Richard Reames does. To quote Colincbn "So if someone was to, for example, braid three already formed branches like one braids hair this would be arborsculpture but not pooktre. However you could achieve a similar result by training the branches to grow into a braid naturally using the pooktre method. Colincbn (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC). Tree shaping is actually closer to Espalier than Pleaching
  • Actually Richard Reames (Slowart) did disputed the use the word Pleaching as synonym in his books.
• I have a concern if the page is moved to a different title, the pro arborsculpture group will state the article is not stable and needs to go back to the title arborsculpture.
• I suggest you do a search on the different names and see what you think. By the way the name for our art is Pooktre. Blackash have a chat 14:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlottetown Rural High School

• Charlottetown Rural High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Westisle Composite High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Montague Regional High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Souris Regional High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Pei high schools (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user listed, Pei high schools is clearly 99.9% editing articles relating to his username. The UAA for the user has been denied as it's not blatantly promotional, but the username suggests an obvious conflict of interest somewhere - PEI for Prince Edward Island, and most of the stuff edited is purely to do with Prince Edward Island's High schools. Can this please be looked into for any clear-cut COI? Thanks BarkingFish 04:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't actually care if someone with a connection to a subject edits it. For example, students are allowed to write articles about the schools they're attending.

What we care about is someone abusing Wikipedia to unfairly promote themselves or their school/business/product/etc. If the work being done meets Wikipedia's policies, then there's no problem here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Gravitis

• Gravitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Unotretre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user admits to running the company Gravitis here that article has been deleted and is making edits to the article like this one here article deleted. The IPs 93.42.227.113, 93.42.224.31, 93.42.228.143, and 93.42.221.14 make similar edits (like diff article deleted) all geolocating to Italy (where the company is based) and have similarly not-quite perfect English (I suspect they are all Unotretre or at least work at Gravitis). Additionally Unotretre is making edits to the freeboard article like this which is unsourced (in spite of me requesting one) which seems to just be promoting his company. I left a COI warning on his page here which he hasn't responded to nor has he stopped his editing. All the pages Gravitis, freeboard, and Freebord, have COI and promotional issues that I'm trying to sort out but it's difficult going with Unotretre and the IPs actively engaged in pushing the Gravitis name. Eventually some of this stuff is probably going to be merged/deleted/moved but before that happens I would like to make a good faith effort to at least get these articles somewhere close to Wikipedia standards. Additionally I have made several attempts to communicate with Unotretre and the IPs but am getting little response. One more point, Unotretre created the original Gravitis article. SQGibbon (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Question from a neophyte on this subject matter: why are Freeboard (skateboard), and Freebord separate articles? If they are are about the same or very similar subject matter they should be merged. – ukexpat (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

At one time they were together but it looks like an editor separated them out as one article is about the brand name Freebord and the other one is a generic usage (apparently there are several companies that make boards similar to Freebord's now). As to whether they should stay separate or be merged, I'm not sure as I don't really understand the subject all that well. All the articles have problems so I was hoping that once they're all cleaned up then it might make it easier to delete/merge/move them as needed. SQGibbon (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

May I have created the page, but you have actively acted to ask the deletion of that page only, while the related companies who did significative things for the sport are correctly left there: so I ask ANY administrator or to undelete it "as was" without red boxes, in order to have the time to complete it as wanted, but also I have canceled here the name because as being it a registered trademark we do not want to litigate with UNKNOWN users, or the new administrator The Bushranger who deleted it without reading what I mentioned you: in defect I will ask this Administration to consider the patent infringement, as we do not want from a search task this still results. User:Unotretre

Erm. I'm afraid I have no idea what you're saying exactly here? Especially with your "we do not want to litigate" comment?- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this just keeps getting better and better. In my inbox:

"You would rather put Gravitis article up before monday, unblock User Unotretre, cancel the conflict of interest reference naming Gravitis, or we open formally legal actions against The Bushranger and SQGibbon because GRAVITIS is a registered name in Italy, I denied consensus to appear in an unfair discussion, and when you google Gravitis it still compares a red cancelation, damaging the worldwide name of Gravitis and ALL Distributors. In defect on monday morning I will present formal denunce because wikipedia is visible in Italy and the patent allowed us to advice you for a patent infringement."

I've redirected Gravitis to Freeboard (skateboard), but as for the rest...well. - The Bushranger posting as Aerobird from a public computer ^Talk 17:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Posted about this at AN/I. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

When I look at the history of Gravitis, I see nothing but the creation of a redirect; I'd have to search the AfD archives to see that it had been deleted no wait, that doesn't work either.[3] Eventually I found the log [4] "Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". But the same policy A7 says "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works." Viewing [5], Gravitas is a magazine, not eligible for A7, and also a skateboard (File:MapSeries 2.jpg) with artistic flourishes. So this shouldn't have been speedy deleted this way - though admittedly it is unlikely to have passed AfD due to Wikipedia's unreasonably harsh standards for corporate notability. In any case, I see no reason why the former edit history of Gravitis shouldn't be undeleted and made viewable by other editors, though, due to abuse, the case can be made to protect the redirect. If the editor had not resorted to legal threats, I see no reason why he could not have contested the deletion, or restarted an article and made out a clearer case for significance. I see very few edits for User:Unotretre, and from the size of the article, I doubt the deleted edits amount to much - basically, I think that an incautious Wikipedia process has trammeled down and permanently alienated a newbie editor. I understand that COI and legal threats are serious, but there was a time when this situation could have been defused. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The history of Gravitis isn't clear but from what I gathered it started off as a CD magazine but now sells specialty skateboards and parts. At their website I see no evidence that they produce a magazine anymore. As for Unotretre he's not exactly a new editor. Since Gravitis was deleted all his edits to that page (and that he created it in the first place) no longer show up in his contribution history. That said he's also made use of many different IPs along the way. Multiple attempts were made to discuss these issues with him on his talk page as well as the talk pages of the various articles he edited but nothing came of it. As for defusing the situation before it blew up I'm not sure how that could have happened. His edits were clearly a conflict of interest (running Gravitis, creating and editing that page, inserting Gravitis links in related articles) and he refused to acknowledge this or alter his behavior. Reporting him to this board needed to happen and that it appears this action is what helped the situation reach its current unpleasant form is not a reason for not reporting him in the fist place. It's still possible for someone to recreate the article with good sources but it's pretty clear that Unotretre will not be able to overcome the conflict of interest and be part of that process. SQGibbon (talk) 20:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Gravitas is a magazine? The article said plainly "Gravitis is a manufacturer of professional freeboards, skateboards, board bungees and other sporting goods." It's a company and thus eligible for deletion per CSD A7. 86.159.91.236 (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The magazine bit was added later by the COI editor. That said, I have looked through the diffs and there is a diff that could possibly make a reasonable (admittedly unreferenced) stub. I've restored the article to that status. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

John Goodsall

• John Goodsall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Goodsallj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article is being heavily edited by a user who claims to be the subject and who has objected to some of the content in the article. Kansan (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed this: "JOHN GOODSALL HERE. The info below is correct. If anyone wishes to add to OR DELETE FROM this page please contact me for approval at http://www.facebook.com/johngoodsall." A clear attempt to WP:OWN the article - it appears the JG has already been informed that he can't stop others editing - see bio talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

He is also editing as Infospaz (talk · contribs) and misusing the minor edits tick box. Dougweller (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle

I've noticed that Doric Loon (talk · contribs), having created Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, is inserting it en masse as a reference in articles where it has not been used. I'm concerned because the book is only just published and not clearly of encyclopedic note. I do not see strong evidence that the user works for Brill, but the user shares Brill's publishing interests, evidences a connection with Holland, and has created enough interwikis to trigger concern in any reasonable person that more than topic enthusiasm is involved; but I will post a notice on his page and request comment on the matter. I wish to keep it a public matter, because once this is clarified either way there may be other encyclopedic concerns (such as notability and citation concerns). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

ADD: The editor appears to be the author.[6]. For the moment I've removed many of the insertions by rollback, but that doesn't take care of them all and it appears there'll be a wait before 'what links here' will be updated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha - looks to be about as clear an instance of self-promotion as is possible - even self-outed! Why advertise your new book, when you can add zillions of refs to it in WP?! But, as you say, it's early days yet for notability etc., regarding which it would be useful to be able to see the list of contributors to the book, apparently on p. 1728; but this isn't included in the sample pages, and I ain't about to go and buy myself a copy any time soon. Anyway, well spotted. Nortonius (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this - I had been wondering if and where to discuss this. I do have a potential conflict of interest as I am one of the scholars who worked on this encyclopedia. I don't think it is a real conflict, though, because the edits I have made have been restricted to what is neutral and uncontroversial, but I am trusting other Wikipedia editors to reverse what I write if I step over any mark. I have read the guidelines on COI; these clearly state that I am allowed to edit here, and I am doing my best to stay within the limits. The point is that this encyclopedia is the first reference work in English ever to cover these chronicles, and for that reason most Wikipedia articles on chronicles were lacking any bibliography. What I have done is simply to add EMC references where Wikipedia has unreferenced articles, so that others can access the information. I will be very happy to receive guidance on this, but as you will see, I am a very well established Wikipedia user, and I think my record will stand as one who has the interests of Wikipedia very much at heart and is not pursuing a personal agenda. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Woops - edits crossed - I only saw the first comment. Yes of course self-outed, I'm being perfectly frank about who I am and what the issues are here. I have a Wikipedia reputation to keep, so I'm ceratinly not doing anything on the sly. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - one would have to be a bit of a loon to be that unsubtle! But it doesn't look good, at first sight. Any chance of seeing that list of contributors? Nortonius (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Loon" is good! :-) --Doric Loon (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the request for the contributors. The editorial team are listed here: [7]. I could get you a PDF of the complete contributors list, though I'm not sure how to get it to you. Is it going to make a difference? --Doric Loon (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Really, I asked out of curiosity: I have uncomfortable memories of dealing with editors adding their own self-published work to WP, which is rather beyond the pale as "original research". But, this is old news now, as it seems perfectly clear that this is far from being the case here, so never mind! Thanks anyway. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are inserting it in hundreds of articles as a reference where it was never used as one. As you are editor of the work, you will benefit financially from increased sales that will result from such visibility. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, if you know anything about academic publishing, you will know I don't make money from this. But that's not the issue. I am going to hold back on any more edits where this is concerned, at least for the moment. I would be grateful, though, if you would not reverse my edits so far unless you think they are wrong. The above issues don't invalidate good work. I'll be happy to discuss the details of my edits. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As it happens I do know something about academic publishing, and it is not true that such a matter is either certain or likely. But neither I nor Wikipedia know the details of your contract, and we're not going to rely on your word on the matter here (the CoI problem is still there whether your claim is true or false anyway, because an author benefits from the promotion of his own work whether or not promotion leads to direct financial bonus). What we do know is that you were inserting your own book into hundreds of articles--referenced and unreferenced despite your protestation above. I am not as experienced in CoI matters as some other editors here, so the course of this matter won't be determined by me. With that said, it seems clear that references to this book, where they were not used to construct an article, should be removed from articles; you'll maybe have noticed I have not removed the reference where it obviously was used in genuine article building. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The trouble is, it looks exactly like a spam effort. Unfortunately, whether those edits are "wrong" or not is, in that sense, rather irrelevant. Use in everyday article building is, as Deacon of Pndapetzim suggests, another matter. Nortonius (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, I see that your rollback has undone all my recent Wikipedia edits, not all of which were anything to do with chronicles or emc. This does not seem helpful, especially since in the process you have taken bits out of conversations on talk pages etc. I am going to ask you to undo that. You can see I am being very up-front here. So let's try for a good-faith assumption. If we can for the moment leave my edits as they were, I will agree to do no more on this without some kind of consensus, and we can discuss my edits and undo any which the community doesn't want. But we ought to have others contributing here before that is decided.

As far as the question of what has been used is concerned: in many cases I added information from the EMC and cited it as the source. Sometimes I had added the info earlier, before the EMC appeared, and was only able to add the sources now that it is out. In other cases I have simply listed it as bibliography. That is all in accordance with guidelines. --Doric Loon (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of it isn't in accordance with wikipedia policy, which is the point. And, yes, sorry ... I did get a few of your innocent edits by accident; reverted myself in these cases (I think), unfortunate side effect of having to perform so many removals. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. However, you will have to be more specific when you say most of it is against policy. Are you still talking about COI, or are you now talking about the edits themselves. It sounds like the latter, but I have made 7000 Wikipedia edits over the last 7 years, and I am very confident that any one of these chronicle-related edits would have been accepted as fine if anybody else had made them. And my reading of the COI rules, is that under those circumstances, I can make them too. I could be wrong about COI, but I'm not wrong about those being standard and useful edits. As for the sheer number of edits (dozens, not hundreds, but still!) I see now that that might look like spam, but I am just sitting on such a mine of relevant information, and my enthusiasm for the subject and for Wikipedia makes me want to put it in - my only motive.--Doric Loon (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is, it's about COI - I'm no expert on that either, I have read the rules but not for a while, and I don't have time tonight. But, I do have a gut feeling that there is a clear COI here - for example, while only you can know if your "enthusiasm" is your "only motive" in making those edits - loon or not - how likely is it really that you do not stand to gain from them, if not financially in the short term, then financially or indirectly in the long term? Note that I'm not accusing you of being disingenuous, I'm merely pointing out what seems to me to be a core problem, on which the community has to decide. In the meantime, I'll try to keep an eye on this one, see which way it goes. As you say, if "anyone else" had made these edits - by which I mean several or more independent individuals, over weeks, months or longer - it might well be that they "would have been accepted as fine"; the point is, they weren't, and prima facie they aren't. Regards. Nortonius (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@Doric. Having spent some time removing your 'citations' manually, I have found that the vast majority are either tagged on to articles as fake references,[8][9][10][11][12][13] as 'further reading',[14] or as a 'citation' of a frivolously obvious statement already in the lead of the article (often already cited!).[15][16] The fake/pointless references I find particularly unimpressive. I've left articles you've created with the reference. You created just under 25 of these, and I note that all of them are one liner 'stubs'. Given what I've seen elsewhere and how little effort went into the content of the articles, I'm tempted to think you created these articles solely as an excuse to promote the reference involved. In all cases I can see, instead of using the book in good faith to expand an article, you've been interested merely in referencing the book providing minimal content. If that is so then the vast majority of your edits in this topic area in recent times have been edits solely to promote your book, uncomfortably close to the behaviour of single purpose promotion accounts. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Note' User has also created an article, the Medieval Chronicle Society, for an organization of non-obvious notability that he himself leads(/presumably founded). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see both sides here. The typical quality of referencing in these articles is very low - the first few I looked at used exclusively pre-WWI sources. But little if anything is being added to the articles. Where a source has not actually been used, it should normally go in Further reading, although I can see a case for updating the ref to basic facts from say 1866 to 2010! At the same time I'm sure the book is a valid addition, as further reading, to a great many of these. But equally in many cases there will be more recent editions of the chronicle or other works & articles that would actually be a better addition. In some cases the text is so poor, or EB 1911, that citing the new book as a source does not reflect well on it! I hope Doric Loon will go over these again, actually adding materials, & other sources from the bibliographies to FR. Btw on the new articles the categorization is lazy; Category:Chronicles has many sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm an expert on chronicles as well as a longstanding enthusiastic Wikipedian who has worked here on many things. WIkipedia needs experts, so I hope nobody will say I shouldn't work on articles in my field, but what else am I going to cite than the latest, largest reference work in the field, which I happen to know inside out? I have taken the point about giving the impression of spamming and I will be much more careful about that in future. But look at the actual edits. They involved much more work than Deacon suggests. A couple of examples:

• Here [17] the article had two items muddled. I sorted it out, and gave the EMC as a reference.
• Here [18] the article had missed the fact that there are two chroniclers of the same name who are constantly muddled. I pointed it out and gave references to two EMC articles which clarify.
• Here [19] the article gave dates which seem to me to be wrong. I corrected and gave the EMC as a source.

I don't think it is right that these edits should be reverted because I have an involvement with the EMC. (And note, I didn't actually write those EMC articles, so it is the work of colleagues, not my own, that I am citing here.) What I have been doing is going through Wikipedia's articles on chronicles and checking the basic data. When the data was wrong, I corrected on the basis of the EMC. When it was correct, I left it, but if the correct information was unreferenced I added the EMC as a reference which could have been used - let's face it, that's all we can do when we are fixing an unsourced article, because we can't know what sources other Wikipedians actually did use; that is not "fake referencing". When there was no article for what seemed to me to be an important chronicle, I created a stub, like Academic Chronicle, which as you see has already been taken up by other people and is growing nicely. This is solid, standard Wikipedia work. And I have put a lot of time into this.

Obviously I need more advice on how to do deal with the COI issue in future. But unless the community really wants me to stay out of my area of expertise, many of these reverted edits will have to be restored.--Doric Loon (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact the "two people muddled" one, Thomas of Otterbourne, already distinguished between them, with a modern reference, text which your addition ignores. I wasn't impressed with the edits of either of you here, & have rewritten, using only the existing content. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry JohnBod, you appear to be in error, as I didn't edit the article except to remove the advertising. Did you check the reference out before you reinserted it? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That was the edit I didn't think much of, given the state of the article. No, I did not check the reference, which given that the main point is that there are two different articles, I still do not think necessary. If you are going to use my username, try to get it right, although I know from experience you find this difficult. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that edit, and frankly it's a little undignified and disruptive to bring your long-term grudge against me into this forum. You should probably check the reference out too, as its original insertion into the article did nothing but advertise. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So these are the one liners I was talking about (and note the concentration towards the beginning of the alphabet):

1. Albert von Bonstetten (content: Albrecht von Bonstetten was a Swiss historian of the later 15th century.)
2. Chronica XXIV Generalium (your content: The Chronica XXIV Generalium is a Franciscan chronicle written in 14th century France.)
3. Jüngere Hochmeisterchronik(content: The Jüngere Hochmeisterchronik or Cronike van der Duytscher Oirden is an important and much discussed chronicle of the Teutonic Order. It was written in Holland in the late 15th century, and rewritten in a later Prussian version.)
4. Anna von Munzingen(content: Anna von Munzingen was a German mystic of the 14th century. She wrote a "chronicle" of the experiences of her nuns.)
5. Auchinleck chronicle(content: The Auchinleck Chronicle is a national chronicle in Middle Scots, written in Scotland in the mid-15th century. It is an important source for late medieval Scottish history.)
6. Al-Azraqi (content: Al-Azraqi was a medieval Islamic commentator and historian.)
7. B. de Canals (content: B. de Canals was a 14th-century Spanish author of a Latin chronicle. The initial B. may possibly stand for Bernat.)
8. Al-Balawī (content: al-Balawī was an Egyptian historian of the 10th century AD (4th century AH))
9. Johann Bämler (content: Johann(es) Bämler (1430-1503) was a printer and bookseller from Augsburg.)
10. Niccolò Barbaro (content: Niccolò Barbaro was a Venetian physician, and author of an eyewitness account of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453.)
11. Filippo Barbieri (content: Filippo Barbieri or Philippus de Barberiis (1426-87) was a Dominican inquisitor and historian from Syracuse. He composed two, or possibly three chronicles in Latin prose)
12. Barhadbshabba Arbaya (content: Barhadbshabba Arbaya was a sixth-century Syrian historian, whose History is important for the arian controversy and the dispute between Cyril and Nestorios)
13. Barlings Chronicle (content: The Barlings Chronicle is an important late 13th or early 14th century Latin chronicle from the Premonstratensian Barlings Abbey in Lincolnshire, England.[1] It is closely related to the Hagneby Chronicle.)
14. Hagneby Chronicle (content: The Hagneby Chronicle is an important late 13th or early 14th century Latin chronicle from the Premonstratensian Hagneby Abbey in Lincolnshire.[1]. It is closely related to the Barlings Chronicle.)
15. Bartholomaeus of Drahonice (content: Bartholomaeus of Drahonice (ca 1390-1443) was a Bohemian soldier, and author of a chronicle of the Hussite revolution)
16. Bartholomaeus of Neocastro (content: Bartholomaeus of Neocastro (ca 1240 - post-1293) was a Sicilian jurist, and author of a chronicle called the Historia Sicula.)
17. Bartholomäus van der Lake (content: Bartholomäus van der Lake (d. 1468) was a German clergyman and author of a chronicle of the city of Soest)
18. Bartolf of Nangis (content: Bartolf of Nangis or Bartolfus peregrinus was a French historian who died shortly before 1109. He wrote the crusade chronicle Gesta Francorum Iherusalem expugnatium.)
19. Bartolomeo della Pugliola (content: Bartolomeo della Pugliola (ca 1358-1422/5) was an Italian Franciscan who wrote a history of Bologna.)
20. Bartolomeo di ser Gorello (content: Bartolomeo di ser Gorello (1322/6 - ca 1390) was an Italian notary who wrote a town chronicle of Arezzo.)
21. Schwabenkriegschronik (acceptable stub)
22. Marco Battagli (content: Marco Battagli or Marcus de Battaglis (d. 1370/76) was a historian from Rimini in North Eastern Italy.[1] he wrote a universal chronicle in Latin.)
23. Baudouin of Ninove (content: Baudouin of Ninove was a Flemish historian active around 1294.[1] His Chronicon runs from the birth of Christ to that year.)
24. Rahewin of Freising (content: Rahewin of Freising was an important German chronicler at the abbey of Freising in Bavaria.[1] He continued the chronicle of his master, Otto von Freising. He died between 1170 and 1177.)

In most of these cases your reference has more characters than the body of the article itself. Your contention that you have been adding substantial content in good faith with this work I find to be false (though it is true that you have contributed to Wikipedia in other ways); in a few cases you might be able to argue utility in isolation, but the greater picture is more persuasive. Both Medieval Chronicle Society and Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle will probably be nominated for deletion, and you are not permitted to restore your 'references'. Now, that is not to say we don't welcome informed and well-referenced contributions to Wikipedia; I myself am very interested in promoting the presence of medieval historical writing articles on Wikipedia and would be delighted to see this happen. I will be happy to look at individual examples and indeed I have already restored the reference in Academic Chronicle. Your book looks to be a large and very reliable source for often obscure topics, and would be a great resource for a Wikipedian expanding coverage in the area. I encourage you to contribute, but if you are using your own work make sure you are contributing to promote expansion of topic rather than your own book. Make sure that you are seen to be doing so too, as you should not expect your edits to be given the benefit of the doubt or be subject to the assumption of good faith. You haven't really been doing that at all. Ignoring the hundreds of fake references, with one possible exception none of the articles you created really informed about the topic. As a gesture of good faith towards the community I suggest you use your book (which is a series of contributions by people who're often among the main experts on the source in question) and any other reliable sources to expand the articles above, but refrain from adding it to articles without substantial use of it being made. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

OK Deacon, it is now time for you to pull back a bit. I've been very courteous to you so far, but you have overstepped a lot of marks. For one thing, as the person who brought this matter as a complaint, it is not for you to pronounce as judge and jury - you said yourself at the beginning that it had to be decided by others, but the others who have written here have not given you a resounding endorsement and you are barging on anyway. I am also troubled that you went on deleting edits after this discussion had begun, as there is a principle of not tinkering while a conflict is being resolved - probably you would have got to delete them anyway, but that's not the point. Your consistently aggressive tone is particularly unfortunate, given that I was trying very hard to do the right thing - when somebody asks for help and advice you don't just keep hitting them with the same big stick. What's most hurtful is the repeated attribution to me of motives which you cannot possibly judge, and your candid admission that you don't accept the good faith principle, which is simply not worthy of this forum.

I am not going to contribute here again. I am not going to take part in the discussions about the deletions you have just requested. And I am not going to edit any more articles on chronicles. But it is also time for you to stop browbeating people and let any remaining decisions be made by other users, preferably admins.

Just as a point of information, I did not found the society, and had no office in it at the time I wrote the article on it. Since it has been a major academic society for two decades now, I think that both COI and notability issues are rather different with that article than with the other things we have talked about. What I have seen of your style, however, does not inspire me with confidence that you are able to think about that fairly. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I think you've misunderstood a few things. Firstly, I have encouraged you to participate, and I do encourage you to take up the suggestion of the last post; both Wikipedia and yourself would benefit from the expansion of these articles to a useful level, which should be trivially easy with the source at your disposal. Secondly, WP:AGF states clearly that the guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Promoting your own work like this is contrary evidence, and I am merely saying that further apparent promotion will likely be received negatively, and indeed should be. Thirdly, how this matter is settled will depend on who gets involved and I would prefer other more CoI-experienced admins to get involved; however I should be clear that I see my role here as administrative, and will take any action necessary to prevent further policy violations. Lastly, I've so far only drawn logical conclusions from the evidence in front of me, which includes both the edit history I've reviewed and your own comments here. Wider participation is welcome. What problems do you have with the solution I've offered, which still allows you to use the work for genuine article building? All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no problem with the one-line stubs Doric created based on the EMC, with the correction of material with accompanying inline citations from the EMC, or with the addition of EMC to unsourced articles if the content of the article (or at least all sentences sourced to the EMC) were indeed verified by Doric through the EMC. These three activities help build the encyclopedia and I cannot see how they are problematic, even if they are self-promoting. Stubs are acceptable if reliably sourced. If a user creates a series of stubs all cited from his own book (which is not quite what happened here), that's fine. It's fine by me even if his reason for doing so is self-promotion. The legitimacy of an edit (e.g., the creaion of a stub) is not determined by guessing an editor's motive, but by analysing the change to see if it was constructive.

I do not think it should be added en masse to bibliographies in articles where it was not used, nor should it be added as an inline citation to the lead sentence of an article in which it was not otherwise used. Both these latter activites look like spamming and self-promotion. They are not constructive because the trustworthiness of the encyclopedia, as well as its verifiability, requires that sources cited actually be used, not merely encountered. "Spam"-type editing is hard to undo and generally results in discussions of the appropriateness of the added material. After all, Wikipedia is built (in part) by consensus. For instance, I think this discussion shows that we are unclear about "Further reading". —Srnec (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a fine line being trod here - from certain angles, and in particular instances, it looks ok, but from others, less so. But I have to say, I do think this kind of issue could be avoided if an editor who thinks s/he is sitting on "such a mine of relevant information" did the usual thing, which is to actually use it to create and expand articles - otherwise, it tends to look like spam. I haven't taken the firmest line in this discussion, but nor have I entirely sat on the fence - mainly because spam is tiresome, and I would think an experienced editor would know that, and have a "feel" for whether or not what they were doing was appropriate. In view of which, and as far as I can see, Deacon of Pndapetzim has been firm but not unreasonable, and the more protestations of innocence I read, the less convincingly they come across - sorry, but that's the way I see it. Srnec makes good points too, IMHO.

BTW Srnec, can you clarify what you mean when you say that you "cannot see how [some edits] are problematic, even if they are self-promoting", and that "[it's] fine by me even if his reason for doing so is self-promotion", but then follow it by saying that "[certain activities] look like spamming and self-promotion… [which] are not constructive"? Genuine question, I'd like to know! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure. "I cannot see how they are problematic, even if they are self-promoting" can be taken absolutely. That an edit is self-promoting does not make it ipso facto problematic. To show that an editor's edit is self-promoting does not make the edit unconstructive or unencyclopedic, and therefore, not a problem that needs to be dealt with. Thus, "[i]t's fine by me even if his reason for doing so is self-promotion." When I said that "[t]hey are not constructive" I was referring to those activities and not to "spamming and self-promotion", although, spamming—and I didn't make this clear—is inherently unproductive in a way that self-promotion is not, just because of the collaborative nature of this project. Basically for the same reason incivility is. If I wrote a "reliable" book and used it a source for a slew of new articles, this would be, in a sense, clear self-promotion, but it is hardly a problem.What I find problematic with Doric's actions you able summed up when you said, "I would think an experienced editor would know" what spam looks like and that his colleagues won't like it. Since "trust but verify" seems to me to be an essential aspect of the editing side of this project, we should take care to maintain our trustworthiness by making all our editing "above board". When a series of edits looks spam-ish, red flags go up, since spam is almost always about pushing an agenda. Even in this case, Doric's enthusiasm for medieval chronicles was his agenda, and he was definitely pushing it. Fortunately, that agenda is consistent with Wikipedia's goals, but Doric, as an experienced editor, should have tempered his enthusiasm in order to "use [his resource] to create and expand articles", as you say. I think we're in agreement as to what went wrong and what Doric should have done. Srnec (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it - yup, I think we're pretty much on the same page with that, and, thanks for taking the trouble to explain what you had in mind. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To the extent that Doric Loon's goals align with Wikipedia's goals, then there is no conflict of interest.

On the one hand, Doric Loon wants to write a stub and add a (particular) high-quality reliable source to it. On the other hand, Wikipedia wants to have that article written, and to have some (any) high-quality reliable source named in it.

Where's the conflict? Don't we all want basically the same thing?

By contrast, merely adding WP:General references or WP:FURTHERREADINGs to a well-developed article would not seem to advance Wikipedia's goals (because, while general references are permitted, we have a goal of increasing our proportion of WP:Inline citations, and Further reading additions fall under the same WP:PROMO standards as WP:External links). Of course, if the article is actually {{unreferenced}}, then this behavior would again become desirable, and the situation is entirely different for inline citations added to material that is (or should be) tagged as {{Refimprove}} or {{Citation needed}}.

I think it's important to remember that this isn't a civil court. People cannot have absolute statutory conflicts of interest. If what you want to add is compatible with what we want to have added, then there is no violation of our actual, written COI policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Should not any article relying only on sources from say 1866 qualify for a "refimprove" tag? None of the sample I looked at could remotely be called "well-developed". I said above that "I can see a case for updating the ref to basic facts from say 1866 to 2010", assuming good faith that the facts have actually been checked, which I am happy to do, as although in one case (above) the existing very short text did not seem to have been carefully read, in others the basic facts had been corrected. The research done recently on how students actually use WP has led me for one to increase the use I make of FR, & COI apart, I would not agree that the articles I looked would not have been better for this book being added to FR. But I agree there is an issue here; some expansion of fewer articles would have been a much better approach. I hope doric Loon continues to work on this area in this way. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@Srnec and WhatamIdoing, I agree roughly with all this. Wikipedia would benefit by co-operating with the user in question. It is good that we all agree that he should be encouraged to do so. I am not sure I share your view, Srnec, that the 24 articles in question are of any benefit to the 'Pedia as it still stands. The user created these articles using his own work as the source, but he was not utilizing the source. He was merely stating obvious things about the topic in question: e.g. Albrecht von Bonstetten was a Swiss historian of the later 15th century. and appending the source. The agenda, though theoretically consistent, hasn't practically been so as every time he has abandoned each article for another before contributing anything of substance. As many users are put off from building articles unless they get the credit for creation, this is possibly not even a marginal net gain. As Nortonius hinted near the beginning (and as everyone has agreed since), the user could easily promote his work as a side-effect of building content; it's precisely because he has avoided doing so that we have a problem. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Although I'm not sure what we do about this, I share Deacon's concerns here. Loon's edits do indeed look by and large promotional, and these articles are troublesome. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Harveys (handbag design and manufacturer)

• Harveys (handbag design and manufacturer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SJayQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am the original creator of the Harveys article. I do not feel the COI on the article is fairly placed going by the guidelines of Wikipedia and would like for it to be reviewed. A previous editor is using deleted references against the current article and makes it very easy for readers to find of my real life identity on the article talk page. She also quoted the owners of the company as referring to me as " the lovely..." and those words were not used at all. The blog post she saw it in was taken down and she was going by memory. She also places a advertisement warning on the piece, and incorrectly changed the name of the article. The article follows all guidelines for that as well. I am trying to follow every rule and guideline Wikipedia sets forth and I am having trouble with certain editors who do not seem to be following those same guidelines. Thank you for taking time to review this article. SJayQ (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this message. I'll invite Nancy (talk · contribs) to join us and explain the alleged problems. I am concerned from the talk page comments that Nancy may have thought, among other things, that publicly disclosing COIs was somehow required by policy ("you are very much making it one by not being transparent about your associations"). All of the talk page comments seem directed towards asserting that you are a bad person for being connected to the subject, rather than any objection to the actual sentences and sources used in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If anything I posted implied that SJayQ was a "bad person" (whatever a "bad person" is) then I unequivocally apologise that it could have been interpreted as such; it was certainly not my intention. To the substance: I really don't give a fig about whether SJayQ has interviewed the Harveys or not, what I was questioning was her later active denial when she had already posted the evidence on-wiki. I am unlikely to be online again today - it is a beautiful English Spring day and I'm out out to remember what sunshine is like :) - and anyway, I really don't have anything more to say so please feel free to take whatever remedial action you wish. Best, nancy 09:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC) `

I never meant to say I didn't write the previous deleted reference interviews. I was just stating that I had no associations with the Harveys that would prevent me from writing a Wikipedia entry for the bags. I never met them, I was not paid, or asked by them to do it. I did it on my own, and wanted to publish the information for others that would read it with the best of intentions. I just felt like you were digging a little too deep to uncover sources that were not even part of the current piece. With that said what are others thoughts on the COI on this article? Also is there anything wrong with the title being "Harveys Original SeatbeltBag"? As this is the more common name most people would associate with the entry. SJayQ (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I interpret Nancy's comment as an agreement to remove the COI-alleging tag from the article. I have done so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to all involved in resolving this matter SJayQ (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Vector Marketing

• Vector Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your fine attention to detail, particularly in regards to capitalization and spelling, I award you this Copyeditor's Barnstar. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This user has been on Wikipedia for 13 years, 11 months and 8 days.

I like to report a conflict of interest that was announced only after questioning by me on Chicago2011's Talk Page [20]. He has announced that he is here on Wikipedia to edit articles on behalf of a marketing firm that represents Vector Marketing. Ryulong and I are currently in discussion with him regarding this, but if you'll look back at the link, you'll see that he tried to delete Ryulong's input. Plus, this user seems to be using another editor's COI article that was reverted earlier (see below for backstory), which makes me feel uncomfortable to deal with this editor, and I question whether or not that this editor is here to build a NPOV encyclopedia.

I'd like to note that this article and its sister articles have been targeted in the past by Vector/Cutco employees attempting to puff up the article and/or erase the controversy section in the article. They also liked to argue in long text format about their POV, and attack other editors.

One such Pro-Vector editor, AkankshaG Did exactly the above [21], and was dragged to a separate ANI and then a COIN when I found out she was promoting an unrelated article Ciplex outside of the wiki. All the while, she had socked [22], and accused me of Stalking over and over [23].

Now, the reason I bring up AkankshaG is because if you look between the article revisions by Chicago2011 and AkankshaG, you will see that they are nearly identical. Including the original Pictures posted from Mywikibiz. The only way that Chicago2011 would know about these pictures and the article by AkankshaG is one of two ways:

• AkankshaG was indeed paid by Vector to place the article, and now have delegated the task to a professional PR firm (Chicago2011).
• AkankshaG is Chicago11 (SPI will be conducted because of the similarities of the article, per WP:DUCK). SPI

I also like to point out that there are articles created by Chicago that are currently under AfD scrutiny that are arguably promotional in nature. I will not go into detail as these are most likely to be voted delete.

TL:DR, Chicago2011 is PR editing on behalf of subject's article, Chicago11 not acting transparently, Article has history of POV problems, Chicago11 edits too similar to another POV editor AkankshaG, other articles attribute to promotional style, For the community's review, hope for the best, Phearson (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• It Appears that this editor has decided to blank his talk page and create another account to avoid scrutiny hereUser Talk:Chicago2011 Phearson (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Phearson, I wonder if you have recently read the WP:COI policy. In particular, I'd like to call this sentence to your attention: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests..." (emphasis added). So your claim about "not acting transparently" is not actually a violation of the policy, even if it were true, which it isn't, because the editor directly told you that he was working for a PR company to improve (as his client saw it) this article.

Similarly, there are no rules that prohibit a user from abandoning one account and starting another (except when the one account is blocked or the person is banned, neither of which apply here). As the (declined) SPI request indicates, users change accounts all the time, sometimes for trivial reasons like losing a password.

Also, WP:PAID failed. There is no policy against being paid to improve an article.

So the only possibly valid allegation you make is that this editor is unfairly suppressing negative information about the company.

You and Ryulong, on the other hand, seem to think that an encyclopedia article on a company should be 75% about whether their sales staff is treated fairly, and 0% about the company's corporate history. I understand why you want to have as much information as possible about the controversy, but can you tell me why adding sourced, apparently neutral information like "Vector Marketing expanded into Canada in 1990" is bad for Wikipedia? Are you removing positive contributions solely because you don't think that this person should be permitted to make any changes of any type? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• I cannot answer for Ryulong, but for me, not at all. When Ryulong stopped reverting Chicago2011's revisions, I began to review the article and added edits here and there and reviewed sources the new sources that were introduced, then questioned the factual accuracy of two items in the summery box. I at that time accepted the article with some revisions until Tedder came about and reverted back to what it was before the changes by Chicago2011, due to the fact that it was the same style that AkankshaG had introduced, and was troubling to the regular editors there, given the severity of last time we had a dispute. For me not to accept Any positive things of Vector Marketing (including those of cited historical significance) would make me a very bad Wikipedian.
• I am aware that WP:Paid failed. I am aware that it failed in fact, twice. And I had explicitly pointed that out when I created the essay WP:PEW (which, will need revamped obviously). I was mentioning that Chicago2011 was acting non-transparently when she first began to edit articles in a promotional way without announcing that he had a COI, nor discussing with the other editors about his proposed changes.
• If I could speculate, I think that all the regular editors at Vector Marketing (including myself) are particularly paranoid about major changes made to that article, given the history of disputes that have occurred there, with the last one, a breaking point with AkankshaG, which was extremely nasty and left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
• I suppose, that we all need to take sometime to re-review the applicable policies. And It appears that Chicago2011 has returned with a pleasant gesture of working together on the article. I will do so, and I encourage the the editors to assist.
• And lastly, if the case was that the user forgot his password, I'm sure there is a policy I read somewhere that had to indicate that the new account was a legitimate second account. Even when small things such as SPI and COIN are pressed, abandoning the account just to avoid these things makes it all the more reason that the editor may have something to hide. I quote the saying "Would a innocent person run?".

The rules about alternate accounts apply to accounts that are operating at the same time. You are permitted to create a new account every single hour of every single day, if that's what you want to do, so long as you stop using the previous account when you create the new one. The concern is only if you're using multiple accounts at the same time (and the primary concern is the risk of votestacking). Even when you have multiple accounts in simultaneous use, you're not required to make public announcements about the accounts. If you want, for example, to edit with your real name on most topics, but under a pseudonym for a controversial subject, then you are not required to tell the world that User:SecretIdentity is the same person as User:JohnQPublic.

I understand why you might be paranoid. Permitting whitewashing isn't in Wikipedia's best interests. But in this case, I think you'll be better served by focusing on the content, rather than focusing on the contributor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Phearson (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Optimering

• Optimering (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Luus–Jaakola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Optimering is an editor who edits exclusively about the works of a young researcher named Pedersen who so far as I can tell has been published twice. As another editor put it 'The Table of Contents of the Pedersen thesis (which Optimering has inserted in several articles) has striking similarities to the articles Optimering has written'. Optimering is adding references to Pedersen's thesis and links to his website, hvass-labs.org, to multiple articles. The one linked above, Luus-Jaakola, was created in response to notability tagging on Local unimodal sampling, which is Pedersen's variant of Luus-Jaakola. Optimering is edit warring to keep in a reference to the thesis and a paragraph about Pedersen's parameter modification of Luus-Jaakola.

I would really like some more eyes on this situation, because Optimering has just stated that he will not discuss this any further and will simply revert all edits to his preferred version. - MrOllie (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

There's also a note about this situation at Talk:Algorithm. I'll leave a note at WT:WPMATH to ask for more help in resolving this edit war.

I think it reasonable to assume that WP:SELFCITE applies, regardless of whether the editor chooses to say so publicly. (That is, even if the editor didn't write that thesis, the community is likely to apply those rules.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Optimering has left several personal attacks against MrOllie on several talk pages. I ( Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 17:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)) quote from the latest at the LS article:

"If you have no deep knowledge of [[metaheuristics|metaheuristics]] in general, no experience and expertise with LJ specifically, and if you haven't even read the original paper on LJ, then why are you even editing this article? You and MrOllie have managed to destroy this article and waste my time. I'm not a psychologist so I honestly don't know why, but I have come to the end of what I will tolerate. Wikipedia is not a message board nor is it a school where you can 'Ask The Professor.' If you have no competence on a given subject you should not edit the article."

• I have notified Optimering of this discussion, and invited him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like the discussion on this issue is mostly at Talk:Luus–Jaakola. --John Nagle (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

International School Bangkok

• International School Bangkok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Internationalschoolbangkok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

New user account has the same name as the school the article it edited is about. XinJeisan (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

COI is about content. I dont see a COI, just a fine article, from a reasonably informed POV- and one editor now lost to WP. There is no "rule" about similarity of User-name to Article-names; the relevant prohibition covers commercial promotions and those which tend to "give the impression that your account has permissions which it does not have". Did you have another? But...Seeing as how the user is less than 24 hours old....Don't you think this novice actually deserves your WP support? May they RIP (Return In Policy).

Meanwhile.... I noticed this on someone's related user-page while looking for understanding. Did we read it? I apologize in advance, but - yours is today's example of How NOT To Treat New Editors.

Who wants to see a stack of warnings and policy references resulting within minutes from their first contribution! How would you like that? I'd rather someone just told me to get lost, b/c that's something I could fight. I'm sorry, but new articles are not any place to hone your WP:Policy blitz. Take on an editor your own age if you want to police. Better yet, if you mean it, if you have what it takes- try taking on one or more of the thousands of sloppy fan articles, those with a rabid, foaming community. They will learn you to edit with heart. Please dont take any of this personally. There's a lot of nasty interests at war online as western society implodes. And there's more support needed over at WP:Username_policy#Dealing. But the policy is to build articles and editors, not eliminate them. That's military work.

Not sure what you are talking about. There isn't a stack of warnings. There is a welcome template and a template suggesting the editor be wary if they have a conflict of interest. Which seems pefectly reasonable given the name of the user and the types of edits done. I also didn't delete most of the edits User:Internationalschoolbangkok made but instead put them back into the original article. Also the editor had already made another edit before you commented, as well.

However after a quick google search I see the user just cut and paste page into the article, which would be a copyright violation and probably should be removed as well.XinJeisan (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Sacred hoop

• Sacred hoop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Thehoopworldwide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Directed here from WP:UAA. An admin believed the username isn't blatant enough for attention there. I disagree, but in any case, here it is. elektrikSHOOS 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem that you're alleging. Is your complaint that the editor might be interested enough in the subject to (1) write an article about it and (2) use something like that as his or her username?

This is not a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia cares when people harm Wikipedia to promote their own goals. If their goals and our goals are compatible, then there is no violation of the COI policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The deleted article in question was overly promotional in tone, and the username is very, very similar to the article in question. In any case, this report can safely be closed, as the user in question was blocked by Orangemike (talk · contribs) for being a promotional account. elektrikSHOOS 19:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Yes, that sounds like a clear problem. I'm glad to hear that it has been handled already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dunk Island

• Dunk Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bedarra Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Banfield1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

At Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, user wrote: "I am the marketing manager of Dunk and Bedarra Island"; he/she is trying to turn these articles into tourist brochures, with an endless gallery of pictures of the luxury accomodations. Orange Mike | Talk 20:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are nice places to have a holiday on...just have to watch for copyvios etc.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

TekTrak

• TekTrak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cgangita (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Though there are sources, this article reads like an advertisement. I'm not sure if its the way its written and honestly, I'm not even sure it's notable enough to have its own article. Just looking for opinions before I mark it AFD based on WP:SPAM or WP:CONFLICT. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 01:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this yesterday and again today and I think it is just about ok. It's received plenty of independent coverage and is written reasonably neutrally and I think it is just as likely that Cgangita is a newbie who uses the app rather than someone with a COI. SmartSE (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

GNUSTEP live CD

• GNUstep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Linux distributions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Gürkan Sengün (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The GNUstep project is a free software implementation of Cocoa (formerly NeXT's OpenStep) Objective-C libraries (called frameworks), widget toolkit, and application development tools not only for Unix-like operating systems, but also for Microsoft Windows. It is part of the GNU Project.

The user in question is apparently the creator of a Linux distribution of the same name, as evidenced by the copyright notice at the bottom of the external link inserted ([24]). As far as I can tell, this OS is not an official part of the GNUstep project. It also does not appear to yet be notable, I've not been able to find any third-party reviews on Linux sites that qualify as reliable sources.

User has been adding a section to the GNUstep article about the OS and then repeatedly adding a link to GNUstep to List of Linux distributions, which is not appropriate as GNUstep is not a Linux distribution, it's an implementation of Cocoa. I've informed the user about our conflict of interest policy - that he should not be writing about or linking to his own project, but he's ignored the warning. Yworo (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Gary Maloney

• Gary Maloney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chris LaCivita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• GaryWMaloney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor User:GaryWMaloney has been creating new pages for and adding promotional material to articles of Republican political figures. For example, his substantial additions of uncited material to Chris LaCivita have resulted in an "article" that now reads more like an ad for LaCivita's consulting services. I note we also have an article Gary Maloney for a Republican political consultant. This suggests a problem with WP:COI but not one I am sophisticated enough to know how to handle. 207.228.237.110 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seb az86556

• Article name (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Seb az86556 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Replace this with a brief explanation of the situation. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC) Yes This UserName Is Real Weird . And THis Boy Is Real Rude Here. He Deletes Peoples Comments. Can He Get Any Weirder Or Ruder. 173.178.93.250 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)__