Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wareh (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 15 March 2011 (→Orlando Figes: perhaps resolved). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Misplaced Pages cares about whether you are using Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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) .
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/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pooktre 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 Misplaced Pages is concerned. 'Being an artist who is trying to turn Misplaced Pages 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, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Misplaced Pages much). Misplaced Pages needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

1

SO what I see happening is no body cares really that Blackash edits about her professional rival. She finds references out of context that are in line with her thinking and then claims this can't be removed! Then she removes some puffery that was a direct quote from a hard back book by Ivan Hick, "Richard Reames is the biggest name in america...LOL. She knows this, but would rather just remove it, of course. Is there any way to stop this kind of editing? Please look at the edit history of the page. Balckash has just continued for years to try and put me and my work in a box of her choosing. Blackash is a professional rival of mine is simply working to eliminate or redefine my work. Sydney bluegum is a single purpose account that helps her. look at the photos that she replaced with her own drawings. I would rather just be completely removed from Misplaced Pages than to allow her to continue redefining me and my work. Help! My work is not "instant tree shaping" that is a slap in my face invented by my professional rival, to diminish my work. Anyone going to help? Sorry I can not continue on in this battle.Slowart (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Slowart please don't just point the finger give diffs.

• Please go to this link to see a discussion of cited content I've added that Slowart disagreed with. Please note, when asked I've always typed up the text around the cite/reference for other editors to check my interpretation, and I'm always willing to work towards a compromise.
• Slowart, I didn't remember Ivan Hicks saying that, I just added it. But now you've pointed it out, I've found it. On the talk page please give a example of how we can add it in encyclopediclly.
• Slowart I'll ask you again please offer some heading ideas to replace instant tree shaping and lets change it. I bought this up on the talk page.
• The drawings of Slowart's and Dr Chris Cattle's art where added to give examples for the different methods, I left the background out so the trees shape can clearly be seen. The drawings didn't replace any images as they were add to text that had no images.
• As to Sydney bluegum they stated they never intended to edit, but come to find out about how to shape trees. diff diff diff Slowart please WP:DONTBITE the newcomers.
• Slowart, I'm sorry you view Pooktre (Pete and I) as your rival. We don't think of you as our rival, as we are not trying to name the art form. Blackash have a chat 22:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash uploads photos that belong to me to show my work in a poor light. The drawing of my living bench, that appears on the page today is a drawing of the my copyright photo Blackash attempted to upload once. diff more junk added diffBlackash removes all mention of arborsculture.diff one example. Blackash admits to calling an 500 person meat puppet party. Several single purpose editors join in. diffBlackash battles other editors diff Blackash offers help to single purpose account about adding photo of own work onto main space.diff and lastly some words from another independent editor diff Slowart (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I chose photos Richard had used to promote his books. I uploaded Reames/Slowart's photos when I was a newbie and didn't know better. Slowart rightly pointed out I didn't have copyright and removed them.
2. The drawing is not a tracing but was drawn free hand by me, based on multiple photos of Richard's growing bench chair. Richard has used his bench tree heavy in the media as a representation of his art and on the back of his 2nd book. Please note I asked for credit to be given Richard's site. on 7 July 2010 Slowart had commented "I love it." I have some other free hand drawings online here and here
3. As to battling other editors, I asked them to discuss that edit on the talk before reverting other editors changes again. Which lead to them starting a discussion which I have been part of . I've given the reasons behind my edits and offered comprises.
4. 1 July 2010 Duff removed two images of mine stating they had water marks diff I removed the water marks and informed Duff on his talk page and I commented on the Tree shaping talk page.
   1. 10 September 2010 Sydney Bluegum commented on my talk page about the mirror image and that it should be on the main page.
   2. 9 October 2010 I told Sydney Bluegum the file was now uploaded and here a page that may help you upload an image.
   3. 30 January 2011 Sydney comment on my page they had replaced the image.
5. Yes I once send email to Pooktre mailing list about the fact I as talking on the arborsculputre talk page please note in the diff "When we first starting the discussion on the Arborsculpture talk page" that was back in August 2008. It was newbe mistake, I was an editor with only 26 edits under my belt. Slowart are you saying that some 3-4 months later some people from our mailing remembered the email I send out? Which editors are you claiming are only come because of an old email?
6. This diff is not by an neutral editor, 208.59.93.238 self outed as 96.233.40.199 and Griseum. From Griseum's first comments there has been a veiled hostility that would later become downright rude. Here is his first changes diff I disagreed and stated why on the talk page earlier edits. In response he created this section. Blackash have a chat 09:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

96.252.113.188 has removed cited content today. Their diff mirrors Slowarts edits diff which is what brought me to list Slowart in the first place. I've revert 96.252.113.188 changes and left them a message. Blackash have a chat 09:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

66.87.0.71 has revert my edit diff and added a (Tag: references removed). Blackash have a chat 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that Slowart's suggestion of a topic ban for both of you has some merits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban has merit. On one hand this dispute is localised to a single article, and that article has benefited from the dispute both by it drawing attention from other editors to help build it, and by the attention to detail the dispute has encouraged in what is placed in the article. It is a by-product of disputes that they do sometimes hardened and improve an article. The dispute is not aggressive or out of policy as the two main contributors appear to be reasonable people who keep within guidelines. One the other hand, the article has taken up a fair amount of time of various editors. Other solutions have not stopped the dispute, and it could rumble on for ever, drawing others into the affair. While one negative result of a topic ban would be that the article stops developing, the other positive result would be that more time could be spent by the editors otherwise drawn into this dispute on other pressing matters. I would prefer the protagonists to both agree to formal mediation, but if they are not both prepared to do that, then opening a discussion for a topic ban does seem now the most appropriate course. SilkTork * 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a topic ban of both parties from Tree shaping makes sense. There were attempts at mediation in the past but they did not work. The only other alternative I see is full protection of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree to formal meditation if any of the other editors would be interested in going.

I won't agree to a topic ban because:

1. I'm still adding content to the article and finishing Duff's efforts on getting the references checked for reliability, I've been going to the NPOV notice board. I was only editing fortnightly base and would like to go back to that. I also do some Orphan work at these times.
2. I edit with care and use references which I'm always happy to type up the text around the cite/reference for other editors to check my interpretation, and I'm always willing to discuss my reasoning and work towards a compromise.
3. This issue goes further than Slowart and myself some examples:

• Griseum created a pooktre stub with the stated out come of removing the Pooktre content from Tree shaping and then getting the Pooktre article deleted. I listed pooktre article for AFD with my reasoning .
• Colincbn's diff where he is suggesting to edit the article to create a WP:POINT.
• Duff has a commercial interest with arborsculpture, he also added wrong information for example Duff had it that Richard Reames taught Peter Cook (who is Co-founder of Pooktre) how to do tree shaping. If I had agreed to a topic ban at that time most likely this edit plus others wouldn't have been corrected. I also believe Duff tried to manufacture evidence to prove I have a COI. Here is my reasoning
• Colincbn and Martin Hogbin supported the removal of cited content .It wasn't until I pointed out it is not appropriate to support the removal and why, that Colincbn replied and then we sorted it out into a better entry. Though Martin Hogbin didn't feel the need to comment after his support for the removal or to comment about the continued removal of cited content.
• This is to give some insight into why I believe Richard Reames will do what ever he can to influence the content on the page be that though editing as himself, anonymously or somehow get others to do so. Prime example Richard emailed other artists in the field and Quote "Important... The name of this art ! I am trying to unify the field (at least in the English language) with the word Arborsculpture. Please note, the other word are rarely used and Pooktre is only used for Peter Cooks work in AU. His trees would be "Pooktre Arborsculptures". Do you agree with this?

I have other examples of Reames/Slowart's insistence that his word is the name regardless of how others feel about his banding their art. Arborsculpture has a method link to it and arborsculpture leads to Richard Reames.

So I won't agree to a topic ban, but I'm fine with going to formal mediation or if the decision is to protect the page that fine too. I will go back to editing fortnightly and putting up my suggestions on the talk page for discussion, or commenting on others' suggestions for the article until a consensus/comprise is reached to add the new content. Blackash have a chat 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Re SilkTork: mediation - They did agree to formal mediation. Last fall the mediation committee agreed to take the case, but then a mediator never showed up. They reapplied for mediation a few months later, and the request was rejected by the same person who accepted it before. AfD hero (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth

If anyone cares I was taking part in this battle about six months ago as a non involved editor but eventually burned out on it. Simply put Becky/Blackash owns the article and seems to have an endless amount of time to put into keeping it that way. Slowart and her both have CoIs but Slowart seems much more willing to step away from the article, until he gets heated up by seeing Blackash doing whatever she wants with it and he perceives that as her using it as a commercial tool against him. As far as I can see they should both cease editing on the topic in any way for at least six months and probably a year or indefinitely. I think this is the third CoI notice brought up about it with no resolution. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree- topic ban.Slowart (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion started on proposed Topic Ban - Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles. SilkTork * 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Related previous discussion: Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Tree shaping - User:Blackash. – Athaenara ✉ 02:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Growing block universe

• Growing block universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Alengleman2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has added content, mentioning a book with the same author as the username. Worth a look. Kansan (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Rusty Frank

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

Possible editing of one's own article. Kansan (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

LJV Sports Management Limited

• LJV Sports Management Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vladimir LJVSM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Only purpose of this account is to spam for the company and some of the obscure jocks it manages. The name itself is a borderline UAA violation, and the account is clearly COI in purpose. Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Gleeson Group

• The Gleeson Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ledger-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've created a page on The Gleeson Group, but it is only after that i realise there could be a COI issue as I have a business conection with this company. I felt I might just bring it up here just in case another user might flag the issue, thanks. Ledger-91 (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Internationan Association of Project Managers (IAPM)

International Association of Project Managers (IAPM)

Subject: Deletion of the entry for the reason of "unbiased advertising".

IAPM is an international non-profit organization that promotes and supports the art of project management. This is done by the contribution of specialists and scientists, who do not receive any compensation for their contributions. It is felt by the author of the entry that the rationale for the deletion is not justified. The entry is rather an encyclopedic article about an international association, which is globally oriented and not for profit. How could the article be improved to avoid deletion?

Hansunhooked (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The primary question is whether the organization is notable, which briefly defined means that it has received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. I find no results in Google news, and a simple mention in three books on Google books. That doesn't give sufficient material to write anything more about it than "The International Association of Project Managers is an international association of project managers", which is not particularly encyclopedic. Yworo (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Festival Foods

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

This user appears to work for the company discussed on this page. This edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Festival_Foods&action=historysubmit&diff=412035176&oldid=411793437 specifically requests another user to contact the first user at an email address with a domain that looks like it is owned by the company the page discusses. (The edit in question was reverted by a vandalism bot.)

The user has made several changes to this page in January and February 2011 and to no others. Also, the page reads like self-promotion.

Forgot to sign: --BlackAndy (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Svetlana K-Lie

• Svetlana K-Lie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Svetaklie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User name of the creator of the article and the article name appear to be similar. Potentially it is self promotional auto-biography. I am submitting it here for review by other editors for a thorough examination of the situation

abhishek singh (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Pennhurst State School and Hospital

• Pennhurst State School and Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Davidferleger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't think this is too serious, but is unreferenced and raises some questions. Could somebody review this, as well as the user's other 2 edits? I've left a note at User talk:Davidferleger Smallbones (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Mary Turzillo; husband/wp editor Geoffrey Landis

• Mary Turzillo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Geoffrey.landis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Geoffrey.landis is both the creator and by far the primary editor of an article on his wife, Mary Turzillo.

• Landis is engaging in a spirited effort to dispute the tagging of his wife's article (I tagged it for notability, and subsequently when he appeared for COI). This, despite his clear and admitted COI.

• In addition, 18 minutes after I tagged the article, a Cleveland-based IP weighed in with its first edits ever to dispute the tag. That IP and Turzillo's husband (who works at Cleveland's Glenn Research Center) are the only two to do so.

• Landis has also been the # 2 editor of his own article, which though well-written has suffered at times from POV and puffery. Some of the most dramatic claims in the article (such as that he has written 300 articles) are sourced to his own webpage.

I'm not sure, given the confluence of COI and socking issues, if it is best to bring this here or elsewhere (such as the AN/I page). At this point I thought I would start by bringing it here (though if the combination of issues can't be addressed here, perhaps it is better if I move this to AN/I).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment As Landis has declared his COI in this matter, I don't see what the issue is unless he gets particularly uncivil or goes into wp:OWN or similar. Reading over the conversation, I think there were certainly inflammatory comments made on both sides. The article has the COI tag and I think that this is all that is needed. Disclaimer: While Landis and I may have 50 or so mutual friends on facebook, I don't believe we've ever met or had any communication with each other. I came to this page as the COI noticeboard is on my watchlist and I recognised the names Landis and Turzillo and wondered what the fuss was about.Punkrocker1991 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Punkrocker--Your user page indicates that you are highly sensitive to and familiar with our COI rules. You really see no problem with him--as long as he discloses his conflict--being the creator of his wife's article? The # 1 contributor to it. The most vociferous debater by far in favor of it being notable (surely, the COI guideline is right on point here). Tag-teaming with an IP, who appeared 18 minutes after the notability tag appeared, for its first edits ever. With the IP editing from the same location that Landis works from. With Landis failing to answer my direct question, posed four times, as to whether he has ever edited under a different name or under an IP address. With him being the #2 contributor to his own article. The talk page of which reflects puffery/POV issues going back many years. None of this concerns you? Not even in the slightest?

I'm also, frankly, scratching my head as to your sudden arrival at this page and the related one in which you have joined conversation. :You have only 100+ edits lifetime to your name, and had not edited in days. And had never, ever edited the two pages on which you have now joined this conversation. How is that you popped suddenly into this conversation? --Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, I came to this discussion as the COI Noticeboard is on my watchlist. As you noted, I am sensitive to the COI rules and follow discussion on a number of noticeboards in order to learn better how to interract on wikipedia. I read these almost daily, though as you have noted I do not edit daily, as i do not always have the time to edit. I'll also apologise that during the course of this discussion, I have not had time to look at your user profile and so have no idea who you are, or where you are coming from, so I apologise if I make any assumptions in my discourse that do not apply to you. I note that you have raised a number of issues, and before I respond further I would like to ask you something. Do you consider winning the Nebula Award as sufficient to confer notability? Punkrocker1991 (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of good faith, as you may have noticed, I removed the notability tag so that we can focus on what I see as the more important issues that have now surfaced. COI, and possible sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting the notability of the Nebula Awards. As to these new issues, I would suggest that we deal with these individually.

Meatpuppetry I have one question I would like you to answer, that you have raised here and in this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mary_Turzillo&diff=418429063&oldid=418428987 -- do you believe that I am a meat puppet of editor Geoffrey.landis? If you believe yes then we will keep this word in the accusation. If no, we can dispense with this.

Sockpuppetry There appears to be one IP edit, this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Mary_Turzillo&diff=418217541&oldid=418217475 made by an IP address that is probably located in Cleveland, Ohio (pop 400,000). As this IP has only made the one contribution, I would suggest that a course of action to take would be to monitor this IP and if it makes any additional changes to the Turzillo article there may be grounds to take this further. As I understand it, the IP said that the article's subject was notable as she had won a Nebula, and hasn't weighed into the COI debate. While I believe that sockpuppetry is the most serious of the accusations made here, I think the evidence is weak.

COI My understanding of WP:COI is that it strongly argues against what Landis has done in creating this article. That said, it does not explicitly forbid it. Reading the article, 4 paragraphs, I see a lot of issues with it. I see a lack of references, some poor sentence structure, it's barely a stub and could so with a writer template box. Something i don't see is a particular POV. To me, the tone reads quite NPOV. There is very little loaded language, or adjectives, it is quite concise. Should Landis have created this article? Probably not. Should Landis now step away from the article and accept that WP:LUC will occur? Definitely. The subject meets WP:GNG. Landis has done something that he probably shouldn't have, but provided he accept what has happened and move forward and continue to edit productively I do not have a problem. One of the things I have seen said many times on WP:ANI is that blocks should be for prevention, not punishment. It may be a good idea to keep an eye on Landis for a while, but in doing so we should all avoid being antagonistic in our comments and actions. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• COI aside, I am pleased to say that I did not see huge NPOV issues with the article. I did remove some linkspam, but it otherwise seems reasonably in line with what WP expects of a BLP. --Ohconfucius 02:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some replies Sorry I haven't replied to this sooner-- busy weekend. A couple of points to note.

• 1. I wrote that article back in 2005. If you are going to argue "Should Landis have created this article? Probably not", that's ok, and I'm not sure that I don't agree, but I do think that you have to judge it by the COI policy as it was back in 2005 (when it was called the "Vanity articles" policy). This was my very first Misplaced Pages article. The "vanity articles" policy at the time gave this advice: "As Misplaced Pages aspires to be an online encyclopedia of quality, accuracy and integrity, the best rule of thumb while determining whether or not any such edits may contain vanity materials, is to ask one's self, 'Would this same type of material normally be found in a print encyclopedia?'" I had thought I was following that "rule of thumb" by sticking to bare facts, but (per this discussion) it looks like I may have been in error, although it took six years before somebody questioned it.
• 2. One of the comments was that in Mary's talk page I was "The most vociferous debater by far in favor of it being notable." Well, no. In fact, I wrote a single post stating that a Nebula award meets the explicit written criteria for notability. This seemed legit to me at the time; apparently it was not. For what it's worth, I did mention that I was biased. All other posts by me in the topic were replies to attacks on me by another editor. These replies are all off topic in the particular article talk page, since they have nothing to do with Mary. If somebody wanted to move them off this page and onto my talk page, where they would be more appropriate, that would be fine with me. I have since decided to ignore all further taunts from that editor.
• 3. I am not IP editor 76.241.135.35. Sorry: that may be a plausible guess, but it's not me. I don't quite follow the logic of why I would supposedly post anonymously, but then immediately destroy that anonymity by posting under my real name-- but in any case, it was not my edit. Science fiction fandom in Cleveland is not that big a community; an hour or two of detective work should be able to give you some other plausible guesses, if you wanted.
• 4. I stopped editing my own article years ago, except for correcting trivial errors and adding a picture (since replaced by a different picture). As for the note "Some of the most dramatic claims in the article (such as that he has written 300 articles) are sourced to his own webpage." If I actually had been contributing to it, I would have linked to, say, googlescholar (I prefer Science Citation Index, but it's behind a paywall), google scholar search authors=Geoffrey+A.+Landis, which lists 309 publications. Some journals have alternate conventions for names, so I could very likely add a few more by searching on author = Geoffrey Landis (without the middle initial), but I'd have to manually strip out false matches, and likewise by searching on GA Landis.
• Are there any more charges of substance here? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Lfp trademark

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

The user has made several edits to various articles all having to do with Hustler and Larry Flynt Publications. Dismas| 07:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Good

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Virginia Good (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 97.44.225.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 97.44.224.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The subject AFD is about a biographical article about a person named Virginia Good, who is the subject of memoir of questionable notability (for which there is presently no Misplaced Pages article) entitled Ginny Good: A Mostly True Memoir written by an author of questionable author (for whom there is also no Misplaced Pages article) named Gerard Jones (not to be confused with the Gerard Jones for whom there is a Misplaced Pages article).

The listed IPs are both being used by the same person, who has admitted to being Gerard Jones (he signs with his own name prior to having his posts autosigned with the IP address), the author of the book, who is arguing vehemently for retention of the article, despite having been warned here and here about the obvious conflict of interest involved in his arguments. The IP editor has not recused himself from the discussion, but continues to cloud the discussion at the AFD with long verbose arguments over the merits of the book, but with no real arguments about the merits of the present Misplaced Pages article. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 17:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Orlando Figes

• Orlando Figes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• IP:69.86.104.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi

The subject of this article was involved in a controversy a few years ago. Briefly: he wrote hostile reviews of members of his own academic community's (i.e. academic, History, Russia) work on Amazon under an assumed name; then threatened legal action against those newspapers who sought to report on it. It caused quite a stir in the UK, was reported widely both in newspapers and in respected journals like the TLS, and it's listed on Misplaced Pages's sockpuppet entry as a canonical example of that sort of activity.

Editor Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has consistently deleted and argued against this being included in the Misplaced Pages entry from Orlando Figes. I don't know why - it's clearly notable, well sourced, and germane to understanding who Orlando Figes is in the culture. This has been argued cogently and with sources by many people on the Talk page for this article. Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has responded to these with unhelpful and unargued comments asserting that what Figes did was fine - a value judgement that is beside the point, which is to clarify whether Figes's actions can be sourced (yes) and are notable (clearly so; for a leading academic to behave this unethically, and to be unapologetic and aggressive and deceitful when called on his behavior is why the sockpuppetry became a news story in the first place).

Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has been banned from editing entries on Soviet History (I do not know why). Figes is notable as a professor of Russian History, specializing primarily in Soviet History. I suggest that Biophys/Hodja Nasreddin has a conflict of interest with regard to the subject of the Orlando Figes article, and that s/he should not be allowed to remove the material pertaining to Figes' sockpuppetry in the future.

I did not remove anything from this article. Someone else did , and for a very good BLP reason: (you may check how all these IPs are doing right now). They are indeed socks of the same person. Not mentioning this person who said she deleted wrong information about herself. Yes, I am sure there are WP:COI problems around, but this is not me.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's copy-paste here my old message to AVI:

• Vandalism by multiple socks of a recently blocked user . (that was his favorite edit: )
• 93.186.31.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): same edit earlier and also ,
• 93.186.31.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): same edit earlier and it is now active.
• 93.186.23.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This is also him,
• 93.186.23.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 93.186.31.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (look at their talk pages). Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm no IP, vandal, or sock puppet, and I'd never heard of Figes until now, but I think BLP worries are being taken too far here. The Amazon review scandal was widely reported in such media as New York Times, London Times, TLS, The Guardian, etc. We should certainly be careful to say only what is strictly attributable through these good sources, but on the other hand we certainly must give some account of what has been reported so widely. I'm sure there are all kinds of interests sympathetic to Figes that cringe at this, but I can't see the justification for keeping the notable and sourced incidents out of the article. I believe the content should be restored and some better eye kept on this page which is apparently well-patrolled by those who want to celebrate Figes and squelch this part of the story. Wareh (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

And you are very welcome to fix anything in agreement with WP:BLP policy. I know him as author of interesting books (and I actually read these books). I never heard about the "scandal" before reading this WP article. But whatever. There are other articles worse than that. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed it in accord with BLP by undoing the removal you linked. JzG in making this removal did not say there were proven and manifest BLP problems, he said that BLP controversy is best handled by removal pending discussion. In this case, no one brought any significant and specific critiques forward of how that section presents what the sources say. I have invited discussion on the talk page; if the article is guilty of saying more than the sources or not attributing it (and these are the only real BLP crimes), then it can be changed. But it appears such changes will either be wholly unnecessary or quite minor. Wareh (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fine. This is now your responsibility if Ms. Polonsky (real person who was mentioned in the publications) will come again to blame Wikimedia foundation . Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but Ms. Polonsky's only edit was to remove ten words from this section. It was subsequently stated on the talk page, in particular reference to these ten words, "The assertion is supported by the Sunday Times (a high quality source) which presumably checked its veracity..." Ms. Polonsky did not reenter the discussion to contest this or maintain any grievance, as far as I can tell. Wareh (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: This is perhaps resolved, as Hodja has accepted that the Amazon section is sourced and that it may remain (while still maintaining a preference to remove it as relatively unimportant material). In any case, I found the full text of the Sunday Times article and adjusted the statement concerning the words objected to by Ms. Polonsky so that they very strictly only repeat what the article by Appleyard states, and making clear that the notion of threats to report Figes to the police depends solely on Mr. Figes' claim to a reporter. Wareh (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution