On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers@gmail.com> wrote:

I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or a negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation it is also promotional.

I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional, especially in a case like Monmouth Museum.

If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage than their charity work.

As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves some fantasy name making the same arguments, whether they are justified or not. I'd rather know who they are, but YMMV.

It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things underground, they have ceased to exist, and that appearances should be more important than realities.

Andreas