Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

"WP:COIN" redirects here. For the WikiProject on articles about coins, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics.

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.
You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:coin-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
Additional notes: This page should only be used when ordinary talk page discussion has been attempted and failed to resolve the issue, such as when an editor has repeatedly added problematic material over an extended period. Do not post personal information about other editors here without their permission. Non-public evidence of a conflict of interest can be emailed to paid-en-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:A&P Talk:James F. Allen (businessman) Talk:American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Talk:American Water Works Talk:Timothy Archambault Talk:Avia Solutions Group Talk:Bastion Collective Talk:BeiGene Talk:Bell Bank Talk:Boku, Inc. Talk:William Bolcom Talk:Doug Bremner Talk:Bruce D. Broussard Talk:Lady Jean Campbell Talk:Mike Cannon-Brookes Talk:Martin Casado Talk:Cboe Global Markets Talk:Sonia Chang-Díaz Talk:Character.ai Talk:Brian Chesky Talk:Cheyne Capital Management Talk:Chicago Board Options Exchange Talk:City of Whittlesea Talk:Cohen Milstein Talk:Crispin Porter + Bogusky Talk:Cyberattack Talk:Dahua Technology Talk:Dark Castle Entertainment Talk:Edmund de Waal Talk:Derby della Lanterna Talk:Paul Devlin (filmmaker) Talk:Discovery Land Company Talk:Michael Douglas Talk:Edelman (firm) Talk:EF Education First Talk:EMarketer Talk:End-user license agreement Talk:Engine No. 1 Talk:ESAB Talk:FairVote Talk:Scott Farquhar Talk:Fastly Talk:Florida Power & Light Talk:Bryan Fogel Talk:Foster and Partners Talk:John Freund (business executive) Talk:Bradley Fried Talk:Steven Furtick Talk:Gibson Dunn Talk:Global Strategy Group Talk:GLX Digital Talk:Colin Goldberg Talk:Grail (company) Talk:Graph database Talk:Green Line (TRAX) Talk:Evan G. Greenberg Talk:Gulfstream Aerospace Talk:Gulliver Preparatory School Talk:Shashi Gupta Talk:Roy Hamilton III Talk:Richard Harland Talk:Eric Hippeau Talk:History of the Jews in Charleston, South Carolina Talk:HOK (firm) Talk:Hong Kong Free Press Talk:Index Ventures Talk:Industrious Talk:Institutional Venture Partners Talk:Barry Irwin Talk:Sultan Al Jaber Talk:Simcha Jacobovici Talk:Valerie Jarrett Talk:Jefferson Awards for Public Service Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies Talk:Amitabh Kant Talk:Jeffrey Katzenberg Talk:KieranTimberlake Talk:Labaton Keller Sucharow Talk:Karl Lagerfeld Talk:Alison Lawton Talk:Kewsong Lee Talk:Lemelson Foundation Talk:Library of Congress Subject Headings Talk:Robert Luciano Talk:Anthony Marinelli Talk:Mascot Books Talk:Masdar Talk:Milwaukee Electric Tool Talk:Monero Talk:Neuroscience Research Australia Talk:NextEra Energy Talk:Norwest Venture Partners Talk:Omaha Steaks Talk:Open Source Initiative Talk:Operating system Talk:Orphan Train Talk:Orphanage Talk:OUTtv (Canadian TV channel) Talk:Pacific Equity Partners Talk:Lubos Pastor Talk:Matthew Pittinsky Talk:Plinabulin Talk:Poster House Talk:Programming language Talk:PureTalk Talk:Qiagen Talk:QIAGEN Talk:Quantitative storytelling Talk:Quarter Pounder Talk:Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership Talk:Marc Rowan Talk:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) Talk:Roland Rudd Talk:Security AppScan Talk:Simprints Talk:Site Number 4 Mnt 85 Talk:Software Talk:Software license Talk:Dragan Šolak (businessman) Talk:SoundExchange Talk:Stichting IKEA Foundation Talk:Stikeman Elliott Talk:Subway (restaurant) Talk:Sysco Talk:Joseph Tabrikian Talk:Tenants and Owners Development Corporation Talk:Tencent Talk:The Culinary Institute of America Talk:The Inter Faith Network Talk:Theatre Development Fund Talk:Titmouse, Inc. Talk:Tricentis Talk:Jean-Pascal Tricoire Talk:Bradley Tusk Talk:Union Pacific Railroad Talk:United Launch Alliance Talk:United States Postal Service Talk:UnitedHealth Group Talk:Versapay Talk:Vow (company) Talk:Dan Wagner Talk:Wasserman (company) Talk:Joey Wat Talk:Wearable cardioverter defibrillator Talk:Maya Wiley Talk:Andy Wright (music producer) Talk:Sam Yagan Talk:Zearn Talk:Zero-day vulnerability Talk:Gediminas Žiemelis Talk:Alice Zorn

Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) and St Helena Magistrates' Court

• Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Griegtupi404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.232.198.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.232.235.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.232.208.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.232.235.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.232.208.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• St Helena Magistrates' Court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bbrown91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Both Griegtupi404 and Bbrown91 are/were 2021 SPAs to establish new articles within a remakably-narrow topic area (no edits outside of St Helena). IP is IPs are likewise single-topic.

Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) appears to be heavily supported by new media based on recent press releases, using images submitted by the subject of the article. The author appears to be conversant with formatting and moreover knows the exact birth details of 15 October 1991 which does not appear publicly (example: deleted from prose in this change, but was left in infobox).

Griegtupi404 was left a standard CoI templated message on 25 October, has edited since but no response at Talk. Bbrown91 has only just been messaged, as just now been found.----Rocknrollmancer (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the exclusive use of PRIMARY SOURCES for St Helena Magistrates' Court I see very little issue with how this is written, and it was accepted into mainspace by an established editor. Even Draft:Ben Brown (lawyer) seems rather neutral, non-promotional and not spammy. It is encouraging to see that they're going through the proper procedures to having it moved to mainspace. The article COI tag should be sufficient for the reviewer.

Of course these articles and editors do warrant being watched should their intentions change. The COI notice on their respective talk pages seem like all that is needed unless they begin controversial edits. TiggerJay (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Two new IPs have been used to delete the CoI top-flag (91.232.235.203, 91.232.208.209 - I can't find a way to include a clear linespace), so three times now. I have no doubt what is going on here. I do not generally use coin, but it was a toss-up with cu formal/informal and spi. I didn't want to, but the recent deletions have forced me to establish a bio Draft Talk. Pinging Tiggerjay, scope_creep.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism IP added attacking my recent worklist, 91.232.235.4.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Another IP range vandal destroying the Draft Talk page, 91.232.208.118.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

And still another IP user just removed this section of the noticeboard - 91.232.235.22. Very obviously the same person, every IP mentioned in this thread geolocates to (what do you know) the island of St. Helena via a telecom provider based in Guernsey. always forever (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've given 91.232.192.0/18 a brief holiday from Wikipedia; unless I messed it up (which is pretty likely), that covers all the IPs mentioned above. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Klaus Schwab

• Klaus Schwab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Petervanham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikeh101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kai_at_BSt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I noticed a heavy marketing and framing drift in the article on Klaus Schwab as Founder of the World Economic Forum. Critical points have been removed, honours have been highlighted excessively and Schwab's former secretary Hilde, which he married, has been re-labelled "first collaborator" (which has a strong taste of linguistic framing).

There have been overall 37 of such edits by User Petervanham, who happens to be the Head of International Media Council and Chairman’s Communications at World Economic Forum. Petervanham highlights the conflict of interest on his user page but the heavy sugartalking on the Klaus Schwab article through his account especially over the last few weeks is beyond measure.

This would almost be a case for the media (better not the one the WEF "works with throughout the year" but the independent one), as this is depicting a heavy impact on Wikipedia as neutral and independent source of knowledge. Polynesia2024 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Polynesia2024: Dude you need to inform the editor that you have posted this here. It is deeply uncool to post an entry here with informing the editor(s) in question. It is against policy as well. We are not the secret police here. scope_creep^Talk 14:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Vexations (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to do it:( scope_creep^Talk 17:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for flagging this case. As I’ve clearly indicated in my profile, I have a conflict of interest regarding Klaus Schwab, and therefore limit myself to making factual submissions to his page. So, taking these allegations one by one:

Did I remove critical points? No. I flagged fake news and misinformation regarding “The Great Reset” conspiracy theory that is making the rounds on the internet, and linked to articles from sources such as Reuters and AFP which clearly state the nature of this fake news.

Did I excessively highlight awards received by Klaus Schwab? No. When users only mentioned the awards received by Klaus Schwab from China and Israel, selectively deleting those from other countries, I added the awards he received elsewhere, such as the UK, France and Germany. Having given only the info on the awards from China and Israel could have given the impression that Mr. Schwab has a special relationship to these countries and their interests.

Third, was Hilde Schwab his “secretary”, and not his assistant and first collaborator? What is the allegation here? Hilde Schwab as first employee of the World Economic Forum in fact acted more like what a COO today does, taking charge of a wide variety of tasks related to the organization.

In sum, I find the allegations presented here very colored and uncalled for, but mostly I wonder what the reason of Polynesia2024 is to open a case on this page. If anyone has factual corrections regarding edits I have made and that were incorrect regarding Klaus Schwab, they can bring them forward on Klaus Schwab’s page Wikipedia directly and change the edits or flag specific issues, right?

What I’m disheartened by, professional and as a person, is the constant steam of fake news and misinformation that is spread on Klaus Schwab, on a variety of channels. My contribution in keeping Wikipedia and his page here a reliable source, is to flag fake news, and add sources on factual information provided about this person.

It is tiring and discouraging to see how often those with an undisclosed agenda try and manipulate Wikipedia pages, and that goes for the page of Klaus Schwab as well. What is encouraging to see is that many other wiki editors correct such efforts at manipulation.

Note also that my last edit was months ago. I thus do not understand the comment on edits made that would be “beyond measure”, “especially in the last few weeks”.

Do please let me know if I need to take any other steps to address this case. I’m happy to provide any sources for the information I provided here. Thank you. Petervanham — Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Petervanham: What is the nature of your coi? Do you know the person directly or for example, telling you what to write or possibly providing information for the article? scope_creep^Talk 20:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep: In short they both work for the WEF, but you should read his user page and COI declaration. --SVTCobra 22:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Yip I saw that. scope_creep^Talk 23:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

First of all my apologies for not having posted the information on the page of Petervanham. There was no intention in bad faith here but I assume the tagging of the user on this page would automatically notify him. In terms of disclosure, he indeed added a conflict of interest badge on your page, as I had indicated in my original text.

But this happened only on 21 June 2021, after having made more than 30 edits to the page since 2020. Notable edits - prior to any disclosure - include:

• +2,942‎ Klaus Schwab ‎ ‎Other activities and awards: Included a full list of honorary doctorates and sourced them with official university and media reports, to avoid disputes
• +1,779‎ m Klaus Schwab ‎ Added some 6 sources on various honorary doctorates, as well as a full overview of all honorary doctorates received.
• +1,180‎ Klaus Schwab ‎ Added citations for Doctorate and Master degrees. Removed summa cum laude, as I couldn't find this honor on university websites (will continue looking). Expanded national distinctions to all P5 and G7 member countries, as well as UN distinction.
• Text sample: WEF and other foundations “Schwab has had a life-long gift for building successful nonprofit foundations.” “Under Schwab's management, the WEF has been keen to promote its image as a driver for reconciliation efforts in different parts of the world, acting as a catalyst of numerous collaborations and international initiatives.”

The bloated honours section led, among others, to a neutrality dispute on the page. Only at that point, the conflict of interest badge had been added. Please do not present yourself as a victim of a misinformation campaign when there is evidence for having written an uncritical marketing text on Klaus Schwab over the last months. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing the discussion here, and for including me in it. I would like to address one more time the accusations levelled against me here. And I would raise the question: what is the allegation, really? That I have made misleading or false edits? Or that I did not disclose my conflict of interest early enough?

If it is about my conflict of interest, I agree I should have done it earlier. I am not an expert contributor, and so it may take me a while to gather experience about best practices. But when I found out it was possible to self-disclose conflicts of interest, I immediately did so. If this means that my prior edits should be revised, I welcome that. My edits have always followed the same principle: they are limited to factual elements and the adding of reliable sources, such as official university pages, or trusted media sources such as Reuters, AFP, etc.

But what I cannot accept, is false accusations. I have not been involved, now or ever, in writing "uncritical marketing" about Klaus Schwab, or to make any non-factual contributions. And the alleged proof that I would have, is simply false. Notably, the text sample Polynesia2024 has included here as "evidence", is one I have nothing to do with:

• Text sample: WEF and other foundations “Schwab has had a life-long gift for building successful nonprofit foundations.” “Under Schwab's management, the WEF has been keen to promote its image as a driver for reconciliation efforts in different parts of the world, acting as a catalyst of numerous collaborations and international initiatives.”

I deeply resent that these kinds of falsehoods are presented on this page. Any Wiki editor can go back in the edit history of Klaus Schwab or any other page, and verify that truthfulness of my claims, and the falseness of the ones Polynesia2024 levels here against me. I do not accept that someone propagates lies about me.

The same goes for the "bloated honours section" leading to a "neutrality dispute" and my subsequent self-declaration of a conflict of interest. This is a fabricated allegation. My self-declaration of a conflict of interest came when I did additional research on the kind of edits an editor could make, after I spotted the umpteenth attempt to add fake news to Klaus Schwab's page, which led me to want to correct these edits. When it comes to the suggestion that Klaus Schwab's page has a "bloated honours section", what exactly does that even mean? It is a verifiable fact that Klaus Schwab received 17 honorary doctorates from universities around the world, and several national distinctions from P5 and G7 countries. Does mentioning those make his honours section "bloated"?

I would argue there is a danger of misinformation in inconsistency. One Wiki editor deleted many of the verifiable honours uploaded on Klaus Schwab's page, only to leave those from China and Israel. What exactly would be the justifiable basis for that? And why would someone like Polynesia2024 support this action? From a quick search on Klaus Schwab, one would be able to find that one reason for making these one-sided edits, is that it fits in conspiracy theories on Klaus Schwab being a friend of (communist) China, or that he would be involved in a Jewish conspiracy for world domination. It would be deeply regrettable if such misleading edits would be left standing in a neutral platform.

Here is a quote from one article regarding Klaus Schwab, and the way groups like QAnon tie him to perceived communist and Jewish interests: "The Great Reset is a concept floated by Prince Charles and World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab, which urges a post-pandemic transformation of the world economy to rebalance inequality and climate progress. It was the headline topic at this January’s WEF, held online rather than in its usual Swiss home of Davos. Believers in the Illuminati, New World Order and, of course, QAnon have subsumed the Great Reset into their own conspiracy theories. It appeals to the anti-globalist right and anti-capital left – and often leads adherents down anti-Semitic rabbit holes." <ref>https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/qanon-conspiracy-theory-germany</ref>

Neutrality rules would instead favor consistency: either all academic titles and national distinctions are mentioned, or none. I opted to add all distinctions, provided evidence and sourcing could be added. Subsequent revisions by other users verified this choice as being in line with Wiki policies. If the community of Wiki editors would instead find it better to instead delete all such honours, in all such Person pages, that too could be a defensible choice. But I would be surprised if any seasons Wiki editor would suggest that leaving only the Chinese and Israeli honours would be appropriate.

You see, I do not believe Polynesia2024 is an unbiased or seasoned contributor, and that he created this page in good faith. I suspect that he has an agenda, and that he does not disclose it. I regret the one-sidedness of this discussion, and the false accusations made. So, may I in turn question the reason of Polynesia2024 for levelling allegations against me here? For example, he alleges in his edit of Klaus Schwab's page, without evidence or sourcing, that Hilde Schwab was Klaus Schwab's "secretary" - and not his "assistant" and first collaborator as written there before. What exactly is the point of that change, which again, is not sourced? To me it suggests an undertone of misogeny. And again, what is his reason for preferring a highly selective list of honours with only titles from China and Israel, rather than a full one?

In closing, I have indicated my conflict of interest, and welcome any and all scrutiny of edits I make, and whether they are suitable. If I should take any other approach in my editing, I also welcome suggestions on that. I believe that together, Wiki editors create a "wisdom of the crowd", and that in most cases they are able to crowd out of lies and falsehoods. That is my experience. But I would hope that we do not allow this page, or any other Wiki page, to become a place for one-sided and false allegations, aimed at destroying a contributor's reputation without cause, and let by a "prosecutor" who does not have a credible track record.

Please let me know what the rest of this "proceeding" will look like. Thank you.

@Petervanham: Firstly you have been here since 2013 and your still not signing your comments. Please use the four tildes ~~~~ to sign your posts. These will be converted into a full signature. Thanks for responding. You didn't quite answer my question. You have declared your coi, however but I think you're too close to the subject to provide a valid platform for WP:NPOV, a core Wikipedia policy. Posting up endless honourary degrees indicates poses a certain level of vanity by the subject or yourself that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Honourary degrees unless given out by a really prestigious university, or been given by a university that has been thinking about it for 20 years, are generally useless, so I have removed them. They're is no information for the reader, there. I think in future you should use the Wikipedia:Edit requests mechanism. Your too close the subject to write a neutral article. scope_creep^Talk 12:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Scope creep:: Thank you for that judgment call. It seems fair to me. As for your question, my COI is what is disclosed: I work as Head of Communications in the Chairman’s Office of the World Economic Forum. In that role, I consult with Klaus Schwab on matters of public engagement. I did inform him that I have made factual corrections to his page. If you think this is too close of a connection to provide a neutral point of view, I will take that into consideration and request an edit rather than make edits for any material edits that are not strictly about adding sources. Let me know if that sounds like the right course of actio to you, or what would be Peter Vanham 12:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Petervanham

Also I am kindly asking for a respectful language without personal attacks. Mentioning that I am "non-credible" and "unseasoned" while I have brought forward a valid concern - supported by references - does not seem like a good style. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yip, I suspected you were very close to the subject. Thanks for explaining that. In the future, please use the edit request mechanism for all edits. It is a collegiate atmosphere were trying to attain here. Personally I really don't mind what people say, but other folk are hurt by it, so leave out the personal attacks, please. Again, sign your comment with four tildes, at the end of your comments. scope_creep^Talk 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree with the notion of factual submissions. I think the editor should edit only on the talk page and stay off the mainspace, just as any other COI editor does. This editor's interpretation of 'factual' is by very definition going to be framed by the COI. This is a controversial article subject and we dont need COI editors to edit it. If the editor cannot agree to stay off the main page I suggest a T-Ban. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Would it make sense to request a general disclosure by WEF staff on possible further Wikipedia COI cases, if applicable? The fact that we had an undisclosed 30+ paid edits for Klaus Schwab alone is concerning. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: extending discussion to User:Mikeh101 & User:Kai_at_BSt, who have also edited the article on a major scale and likewise appears to be from/paid by the WEF. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Frederick D. Sulcer

• Frederick D. Sulcer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ginna Marston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Quinn Marston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Elizabeth Sulcer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wardrobe stylist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Capitola Dickerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Bill Robinson (jazz singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Homelessness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Charlie van Over (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Priscilla Martel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tomwsulcer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tomwsulcer created Frederick D. Sulcer. On the talk page, Tomwsulcer wrote "This is an article about my late father". According to the infobox in that article, Ginna Sulcer Marston is Frederick Sulcer's child. Tomwsulcer created Ginna Marston. Quinn Marston is Frederick Sulcer's grandchild. Tomwsulcer created Quinn Marston. Another article created by Tomwsulcer is Elizabeth Sulcer a fashion stylist who shares the Sulcer name. For some reason, Tomwsulcer chose to give her undue prominence in the article on wardrobe stylists.

In the biography about New Jersey piano teacher Capitola Dickerson, Tomwsulcer has included 18 images, which is clearly excessive. One of the images is captioned "Dickerson with one of her pupils, Samuel Sulcer". One of the sources used by Tomwsulcer is an article in a community newspaper which starts "Community members -- including Thomas Sulcer, Kathy Lucas, Penny and Frank Bolden, and Pamela Paskowitz, Ph.D. -- gathered for a reception...". Tomwsulcer wrote that Dickerson "he was friends with renowned jazz singer Bill Robinson". Tomwsulcer created the article Bill Robinson (jazz singer). All sources appear to be either passing mentions or coverage in local papers, which is not what one would expect for a renowned jazz singer.

Tomwsulcer appears to have used a piece that he wrote for a local paper as a source in Homelessness. I suspect that despite his many years here, Tomwsulcer may not be familiar with policies on conflict of interest. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer has been editing here for a long time and made significant contributions. However, this kind of editing about family members is problematic (and without proper disclosure) - as is the large number of quotes and photos that make these articles look more like obits or personal websites than encyclopaedia articles. However, from a quick look through the archives of the editor's talk page, I can't see any discussion of COI (other than Tomwsulcer telling other people not to edit articles about themselves), so I have left the guidelines and a comment on his talk page now. I have also edited and tagged a couple of the articles that I think have issues. Probably up to Tom to reply here next. Thanks Melcous (talk) 07:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I've been open about my connection to my father. I write about a huge slew of subjects, on politics, biographies, planets, fashion trends, history, philosophy, and I always try to be fair. Almost every sentence I add is referenced, and it's all good stuff, it's all real, not made up. So if other contributors go about removing my good content, in essence, they will be committing a sort of vandalism by removing referenced content. Surely Melcous doesn't think of himself/herself as a vandal when removing referenced content. Sure, it's easy to slap tags on articles, easy to click on revert, but it's hard to do what I do, which is contribute good content to this good encyclopedia, and I've contributed substantially to this project, all volunteering, never getting paid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Tomwsulcer, you have noted your connection on the talk page of the article about your father, but the issue is that you have not abided by the WP:COI policy on a a number of other articles, where you have not properly disclosed your connection. You have also added content to these articles that is not neutral including numerous images, excessive quotes, and links to your family members in articles where they are at best only tangentially related. What is being asked of you now is whether you will refrain from directly editing articles about your family members, instead using the talk pages to request edits? Melcous (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Melcous I'm tangentially related to everybody and everything, family, friends, acquaintances, people I meet on the street, every subject, every idea, my town and state and country (Summit, NJ, USA), my hemisphere (North America), my world, my planet Earth, subjects I've studied or come across or want to learn more about such as History of citizenship (hey I'm a citizen -- a conflict of interest?). And I want to write about everything. If we met at a coffee shop, and I begin to talk to you, Melcous, like I like to talk to pretty much everybody, within a few sentences of our conversation, I'd be wondering, hmmm, how can I get Melcous into Wikipedia? An article? A photo? As a reference? See, would that be a conflict of interest? It's just how I am with what my friends often say is an out-of-control hobby of Wikipedia! It's not about money -- I never take money for any of my 14+ years of contributions, although I sometimes have gotten a 'thank you'. But my contributions, over the years, if I had been, say, a writer for the Encyclopedia Britannica, would have garnered hundreds of thousands of dollars, and Wikipedia gets it for free.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And what often happens with me is that I'm so busy writing about something else that I forget to disclose every connection, but what I'm saying is, I'd have to do this for practically every subject, since, like I said, I'm connected to everybody and everything and every idea. Like, right now, me writing this, I'm thinking what else I could be writing about...--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: your relationship with family members listed here is not tangential. Adding an article you have written as a reference is not tangential. WP:COIADVICE is relevant, particularly the sentence "If another editor objects for any reason, it is not an uncontroversial edit." Perhaps it is time to back away and use the talk page on articles or situations where you have a close connection? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: Pretty much everything is tangential, family members, extended family members, people I know, places I go, things I think -- and pretty much everything in my world is a "close connection" as is the case with all Wikipedia contributors. So if we'd really like to be true to the ideas of conflict-of-interest, maybe I shouldn't write about anything? Maybe nobody should write about anything? Like, I ate once at Fuddruckers; forget what, maybe a hamburger, so if I do a substantial revamp of the article, am I supposed to write on the talk page, hey, I might be biased because I once ate there? The key tests of whether something should stay in Wikipedia revolve around whether something is good information, verifiable, useful, factual, referenced? None of us are truly 'neutral' about anything -- we're all biased, all connected to things. If you examine my contributions, you'll see that it's all real, all good, all referenced, all factual. About my particular family members, those things are written and I don't intend to keep writing about them, and yes I'll try to write on the talk pages first if I do, requesting a comment, although in my experience I doubt much will happen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you *truly* not know the difference between a relationship someone has with a place they ate a burger at and a relationship someone has with one of their relatives or are you simply being playful in conversation? Because if you truly don't, then the community can't simply rely on your goodwill in the future and will need to consider something more formal to slow down your excessive documentation of the Sulcerverse. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Every references has a quote, which also seems a bit excessive. They are linked as a group of articles, with a particular style. Is it MOS compliant to have 33 quotes in an article, for example at so small, which is quite a small article? scope_creep^Talk 12:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment There are reasons why there are quotes within references. First, if the url link becomes unworkable over time, subject to link rot, then the quote within the reference will still be there for other users to see. Second, for readers wanting to check a source, the quote helps them find it within the source. It's all about verifiability, and you, Melcous, removing quotes is a kind of borderline vandalism, thwarting the ability of others to verify the content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment I've sent Capitola Dickerson to Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capitola Dickerson. There is only one obit and two incidental sources with no secondaries visible. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Our culture is highly biased against African-Americans and against women, and here is one who, despite all of these biases, shines; it would be a shame to have her removed, although none of us will even begin to think that there was any racism or sexism involved, since we all assume that you, scope creep are acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tomwsulcer: On Commons, you wrote "I wrote the article about Charlie van Over. He's a notable chef. He's the husband of a friend of mine". Indeed, you created both Charlie van Over and Priscilla Martel. Do you understand why you should not be creating articles about your family, your friends, or your business associates? Do you understand our principles on neutrality and why writing about people you know may lead to articles that are neither neutral nor encyclopedic? What do you think Wikipedia would look like if everyone did what you are doing? Please sign my guestbook (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Given that Tomwsulcer has skipped town and clearly has no real concept of our COI guidelines, nor good sourcing, I recommend that COI tags get applied to all the articles he's a significant contributor to and then evaluated for notability (the above have been tagged, but a more thorough check is probably warranted), before bothering with cleanup efforts that the vast majority at first checking seem to desperately need (and that if Tomwsulcer returns without any effort to address these concerns, he should probably be blocked.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Tom hasn't edited since the 2nd (according to his attempt to speedy delete his talk page, he might be gone for good).

I actually doubt the notability of these pages he's created, a block and/or a cleanup of his edits and at least a few AfDs are needed here. wizzito | say hello! 00:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the substance; just noting, since it doesn't look like anyone has, that this well-formed COIN thread was created by a brand new user as their second edit. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

That user has been blocked indefinitely. [1] Dream Focus 03:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Børge Brende

• Børge Brende (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mikeh101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WhatsUpWorld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There have been several extensive edits for Børge Brende, who serves as President of the World Economic Forum, by Mikeh101. This user, according to his own Wikipedia wall, was Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. He was hence a paid marketing & communications employee of Brende and his team.

While probably unrelated, there seem to have further sock puppet accounts such as WhatsUpWorld that had an additional material impact on the article. It would make sense to take a look at this as we just had a severe case of unhighlighted paid editing for the article of Klaus Schwab as CEO of the World Economic Forum by another member of their Communications team. Polynesia2024 (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "severe", as the person in question had disclosed the conflict of interest on his user page, and after the noticeboard thread quickly agreed to do further edits via edit requests. I do agree that it shouldn't be happening undisclosed, though. jp×g 12:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

World Economic Forum

• World Economic Forum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Mikeh101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The article on the World Economic Forum includes more than 50 edits by User:Mikeh101, who served as Editorial Director at the World Economic Forum since October 2010, and Senior Director, Communications, from July 2013 to October 2018. It is hence a case of paid editing and should be highlighted as such.

This has the touch that the team could see Wikipedia as an extension of their marketing channels, without ever labelling or highlighting the edits made as COI. I am highly concerned.

Is there any way to validate how many further edits have been made by members of the team, given that the team head has made 50+ edits himself alone?

Polynesia2024 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Polynesia2024: You must notify users when you open a discussion here. I have done so for you this time. --SVTCobra 02:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I had notified the user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikeh101#Notice_of_Conflict_of_interest_noticeboard_discussion, apologies in case it got lost. --Polynesia2024 (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I missed that. --SVTCobra 23:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Supermann

• Supermann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Stephen Hogan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Supermann is a editor who from my reading of his history has enthusiasm?/focus? for military film, perhaps sometime to a over-zealous extent that has got him into trouble in the past. Stephen Hogan is a marginal actor with a long career who I think some would argue are borderline for a WikiPedia Article, and Supermann has been zealous in developing Home since this edit Old revision of Stephen Hogan on 18 April 2021. Supermann has doggedly developed the Hogan Article since, Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith. TheBirdsShedTears has been on Supermann/Hogan's case since before the DRV, but at the DRV has been what I might describe as bordering on Wikipedia:Casting aspersions at UPE/COI editing by Supermann but not bringing the case here, even beyond Supermann denying the association. However following Herostratus contributions BusterD gave an explanation here of Supermann needed scrutiny [2] One key COI/UPE point is the article by Dublin!Live on the notable film Sardar Udham featuring Hogan as an interview ... as brought particularly up at [3]. I am somewhat opined Sardar Udham's distributors or Hogan's agent probably set this up (and a similar interview on the Daily Express) without assistance from Supermann; but I am not prepared to bet my last euro that Supermann was not involved. The question is I guess was simply Supermann zealous, was Supermann an out and out COI/UPE editor on Hogan; or has an some point Supermann transitioned from a zealous editor on a subject to having a COI/UPE? (eg Myself and RPSI). Thankyou, and apologies if I've mis-interpreted anything of the drama; the DRV's just gone too far without coming here. 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I like military films. I am a veteran, though never touched a weapon or been to a shooting range here in the United States. Grateful for the U.S. stopping World War II. Guilty as charged on that point. Went to see American Sniper yesterday at AMC Theatres, but didn't think I need to make further edits on that page. Never killed a chicken in life. So I apologize if I want to raise awareness on military films, be them good or bad, incl. Hogan's Starship Troopers 3: Marauder. Grateful for Bliss Media having brought Hacksaw Ridge to the Chinese market, making it the highest grossing foreign war movie. Obviously, Hacksaw can't beat The Battle at Lake Changjin which is now the second highest grossing film in China. My 2,333 edits speak of my passions in a lot of other areas as well, because ultimately, I am a pacifist. Hopefully, no World War III on Taiwan. Please let me know how else I can cooperate. I know TheBirdsShedTears has launched his own investigation to reach out to Dublin Live and Brian Dillon. Good luck on that. Truth will come out. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supermann (talk • contribs) 08:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Well hmmm. It is true that Supermann has an unusual editing history. He started editing 15 years ago, but averaged 13 edits a year his first eight years, so he really only started in 2014. Anyway in all that time he has only 2,391 edts. The pattern is high activity in June and July 2017 and in July-thru-November 2021 and pretty desultory activity in other years. So some thoughts on a pattern like that:

• It would be consistent with a deep troll account being kicked over just enough to appear legit while waiting for the next commission (there's no proof of this of course).
• On the other hand, if Supermann is taking commissions, he's apparently had two in 15 years, and the first was eleven years after he registered... that does show quite a lot of dedication and patience for two small commissions. But certainly possible. The Russians etc do stuff like that all the time on other websites I am told.

And anyway, we do know that Supermann, in his one other burst of activity in 2017, engaged in seriously bad actions. He was blocked twice for seriously bad behavior including sockpuppeting, apparently in the interest of promoting Thomas Price (actor) and Bliss Media, probably for financial considerations (altho those articles both still exist, FWIW). So I mean coming back four years later suddenly all excited about Stephan Hogan does look kind of suspicious.

On the other hand, Supermann's #1 most active article by a good margin is Film censorship in China (208 edits, and 104 on the talk page). A quick look there indicates to me that he's just interested in the subject, not working for the Chinese government or forces opposed to the Chinese government or anything. Willing to be corrected. Of course this could be cover for other, nefarious, activity, but anything could be anything. Or it could be that Supermann has complex motives -- maybe he likes to occasionally edit here for fun but is also available for a commission if one comes up. There have certainly been many editors like that.

Supermann was extensively yelled at recently at ANI, but for unrelated things: having some kind of political agenda (left wing I guess?) and (allegedly) acting badly. On the other hand, haven't we all been dragged to ANI to be yelled at. Somebody is doing it to me right now in fact. And if you're here to make money but you're also showing a high profile and pissing people off with political battlegrounding rather than being low-key and blandly polite, you're not a very good PR flack I'd say. Which, I suppose some people aren't.

All in all, yeah it could be sketchy. I'm not familiar with COI investigations so I don't know what the standards of proof are. But then on the other hand, Stephan Hogan is probably notable enough for an article (fairly easily in my view, but not a slam dunk and others may disagree), and at least the article is not a hagiography, it's just basic facts. So, could be worse?

So what are the next steps here? Not familiar with this page. I see that Supermann was determined to have corruptly created two other articles, yet those articles still exist, so is deleting the article on Stephan Hogan in the cards? And/or is Supermann to be sanctioned? Or what? Herostratus (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Beyond this point, we start to veer away more and more from purely COI considerations into other topics such as the editors combative behavior etc.

[Out of chronology edit to add the section title immediately above retroactively] Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

COI/UPE allegations of Supermann at the AfD, DRV and talk pages seemed to be getting out of hand and disruptive but there emerged historic reasons why people might be concerned about Supermann's current articles; and appeared to be disrupting source/notability based discussions. If there are hard evidence of issue set someone bring them here for scrutiny, if nothing appears here then this can be closed in due course without issue. In the end, roughly speaking, the XfD should close independently of whether Supermann had a COI or not based on sources and based on the fact the article is fairly well, if not perfectly, WP:V. Those are my thoughts anyway. And I'm not too familiar with COIN myself. Djm-leighpark 15:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

To answer, "(left wing I guess?", my limited understanding is military agenda is usually right wing, conservative, Republican stuff. But Desmond Doss proves one could perform military service admirably without killing anyone. No Military–industrial complex on me. Supermann (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Supermann: If I have misrepresented the or meant anything inappropriate about the "zealousness"/"enthusiam" I apologise. It was more meant to try to give one possible explanation for your editing pattern. At the moment I have just taken a hit from @Bbb23's slapdown at ANI so perhaps he'd better consider closing this one as well. Thankyou, Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I don't want to send this back to ANI, in relation to the "extensively yelled at" thread linked earlier, but the behavioral aspect is, to me, more disturbing than the less tangible accusations of COI editing. In particular, the DRV that Sandstein closed recently contains a whole lot of the kind of dramatics that NinjaRobotPirate and HighinBC found so troubling in the ANI thread--and most troubling, to me, is this edit--BusterD is of course the admin who closed that Hogan AfD. If one is looking for "how to deflect and be as uncollaborative as one can be", that DRV has plenty of it, and I am wondering how the editor hasn't been blocked indefinitely already. And Yamla, when you last unblocked them, you said "agreement to stay away from Bliss Media"--they didn't keep to that agreement. Maybe 2020 is water under the bridge, but in my opinion the user has been disruptive for long enough that it's worth looking at the larger picture, which now includes socking, COI editing (Bliss Media), harassment, and putting up yuge smokescreens. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

One of the alternate accounts, Shxiyi (which was renamed from BlissMedia) declared themselves the agent of Thomas Price. See here. I believe there's no doubt that Shxiyi and Supermann are run by the same person, but this edit admits it. I can't say for sure the editor was telling the truth about being an agent for Price. I think there's enough there that I felt it appropriate to unblock only with their agreement to stay away from Bliss Media, broadly construed. I received that agreement, hence the unblock in 2017. --Yamla (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yamla, [4], [5]. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what point you are trying to make. No edits to Bliss Media for 17 months now. The 2018 and 2020 edits are well beyond the block. There is no puffery. Only adding filmography. Right now there is simply none. The length that some people is willing to go is astounding. Luckily, no truth to me ever being paid by Bliss Media to edit on Wikipedia. They simply don't care. That's why NO MORE EDITS!!! And Stephen Hogan has nothing to do with Bliss Media. Please. No more Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. There is no way I am this Thomas Price's agent. I am just a nobody here in NYC. Happy to meet anyone face to face tomorrow in Central Park and do jogging together! Supermann (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Supermann, I'd hoped you'd be out walking the dogs with me, but you were nowhere to be found. Not Ponce De Leon, not on Mastin Lane...are you going to miss dessert and Wonder Years too? Also, you were unblocked in what, June 2017? on the condition that you stay away from Bliss Media, and there you were, three edits. What, you forgot? And after all the hullabaloo, and the notes on the previous AfD and the comments by Sandstein, you still can't stay away from the AfD so it can be judged on its merits? You sure don't act like someone who had a close call at ANI. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure I followed those geographical names you were saying. But as demonstrated in your [34], [35]. The topic ban on them have been removed by the time I made new edits which are minimal. Please stop gross misrepresentation of what happened. It's unbecoming of an admin. Supermann (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"The topic ban on them have been removed by the time I made new edits", this is at least possible and will be easy for you to demonstrate. Can you please show where that happened? It's directly relevant to this discussion. I want to be clear, it's quite possible that you did indeed have your topic ban lifted, I just can't immediately determine that. --Yamla (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yamla: Not sure how much it matters now, since he's currently indeffed, but there was a topic ban on all film articles that ran from August 2017 to August 2018, which would've run course by the time the 2018 edit to Bliss Media was made. The two overlapped, and I suspect he confused lifting the ban from all film articles as also lifting the ban from Bliss Media specifically. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Supermann was indefinitely blocked 2 minutes before this question was asked CiphriusKane (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Drmies It's already back at ANI CiphriusKane (talk) 08:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to add a thought. Getting back purely to the covert-paid-agent thing... Grift is terrible. All grift it terrible. I detest it and tried to start a project against it. BUT, of all grift, this'd be the least bad. My number 1 concern is like BP and Cracker Barrel etc. hiring clever professional PR flacks to spin their articles. My other number 1 concern is people running corrupt schemes -- protection racket, whatever. My number 3 concern is people writing, or hiring someone to write, a one-off hagiography about themselves or their company, particularly if they're not wikinotable. Supermann doesn't fit in any of these categories, as:

• Even if this current complaint is true, it means he's created 3 articles for hire in 15 years. If it's grifting its so low-energy as to be a pretty small problem.
• All three articles have been kept or will be kept, so I guess the entities are notable enough to have articles. It's not like he's putting up unacceptable articles.
• The article in question here (I haven't looked at the two from 2017) isn't a hagiography, at least. It's just a bunch of neutral facts. (I get that the existence of an article alone is promotional, but still.)

If he's a grifter, he's about the most harmless one I've seen. Just pointing this out as a data point is all, take it as you will. Herostratus (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Emunah La-Paz

• Emunah La-Paz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Vhubbard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'd be grateful for more eyes on Emunah La-Paz. I have substantially shortened the article in the last few days, removing first a paid-editor screed, and then a good deal of unsourced or ill-sourced content. It was then nominated for deletion by Timtrent, whose opinion on notability I had sought (my talk, diff on request). It appears that Vhubbard (a) has a very close connection to the subject of the article and (b) is fairly thoroughly incensed at the idea that the page might be deleted. Would some kind person like to try to pour a little oil on the waters? – I don't that would come well from me at this point. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur with @Justlettersandnumbers. I nominated the article for deletion in good faith in order to give the community the opportunity to decide its fate Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk

This article is not in need of shortening please replace what was deleted. If someone deleted an article you worked on would it be a conflict of interest? Wikipedia has added more rules, so not just anyone can edit articles or destroy them. This is clearly a form of harassment. This article for the last 5 years was expanded and approved by verified members of Wikipedia. To have someone shorten this down to two lines, and then a deletion notice, is unacceptable. I am expecting this article to be restored to it's previous form that was not corrupted whatsoever at the time.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhubbard (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

The biography begins "Emunah La-Paz is the nom de plume of Vicki L. Hubbard, an American author". The editor who created the article has the username 'Vhubbard' and has contributed to no other articles. It would seem that this is an autobiography, a form of conflict of interest editing, in which case the author should limit themselves to making edit requests on the article's talk page and not edit the article directly other than as allowed at Wikipedia:Autobiography. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Curb Safe Charmer Deep in the article edit history you will see contributions from declared paid editor Wiki Page Polisher. That edit was neither helpful nor unhelpful, but a paid editor was engaged by someone to work on the article. I can make no assumptions about who that was.

You will also see on the creating editor's talk page that they are failing to understand the difference between having an interest in one's editing in Wilkipedia and a real world conflict of interest. It may be indignation that is fuelling this lack of understanding

It would potentially be helpful if they received a kind explanation. They are making various unfounded accusations of racially inspired motives for deletion, accusations they must feel are genuine, but they are in an aggrieved state.

While I accept this this noticeboard is the wrong forum to deal with the accusations, the correct forum is one of the drama boards, and that would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Kindness is more likely to bear fruit. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 08:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Timtrent: There's no mystery about who the paid editor was working for, they disclose on their user page that they were paid by "Little Ant Productions on behalf of Emunah La-Paz". A google search will show that Emunah La-Paz is the Production Manager at Little Ant Productions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. It follows that the entire thing is a pure advert Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The account Vhubbard has been renamed. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 10:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This has concluded with Hubbard's new ID being blocked for many things, not least of which is sock puppetry and the article deleted. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 11:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Koch Marshall Trio & Guy King

• Lightburst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Greg Koch (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Koch Marshall Trio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Toby Lee Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Guy King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have very good reason to believe that Lightburst has a personal relationship with these musicians he has created articles for. I have no desire to reveal Lightbursts real name here, but he has outed himself on other Wikimedia sites, which makes clear that he has a personal relationship with these musicians. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering, Lightburst has been notified of this post. Lightburst blanks their talk page frequently. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 17:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• It's true that I've met them before. I don't keep in touch or know them on a personal level. I certainly have no close connection to any of them. I don't think it's a COI to write about someone because you've talked with them or admire them - I also wrote Eric Tessmer after meeting him. I'll leave this to the community to make a decision, but I believe that a COI involves some strong personal relationship, which definitely isn't the case here. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Earlier this year Greg Koch tweeted about using one your guitars, calling you "buddy", which was several years after you initially created the article. Can you further elaborate on your relationship with Greg Koch? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You have also described Koch as a "friend" on your personal website. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Several of these articles have the date of birth but they are tagged for work. Where did the date of birth's come from exactly? scope_creep^Talk 12:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I sent Toby Lee Marshall to Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lee Marshall. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

::@Lightburst: Can you please address the questions asked above? Thank you. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC) A review of Lightburst's editing history shows that from January 2018 to January 2019 his editing is almost exclusively about Greg Koch or topics directly related to Greg Koch. During that time period, Lightburst created Greg Koch (musician), Guy King (a musician who plays with Koch sometimes), Toby Lee Marshall (in a band with Koch), Koch Marshall Trio (the band), Dylan Koch (deleted article about third member of trio), Toby Arrives (Koch album), Truth (Guy King album), and Plays Well with Others (Greg Koch album). Those are the first eight articles Lightburst created. The pattern is clear even if the intent is open to interpretation.

I do not wish to run afoul of WP:OUTING here, but as others have already stated, Lightburst has identified himself on other Wikimedia projects. It is therefore very easy to determine that Lightburst does have a conflict of interest here. Lightburst has said "I don't keep in touch or know them on a personal level. I certainly have no close connection to any of them". On Lightburst's personal website he writes "Greg Koch is a friend and lives right here in Wisconsin". In some YouTube videos posted by Greg Koch, he calls Lightburst "a buddy". I believe in giving people a chance to own up to their mistakes and move on, but if Lightburst does not return here to address the questions posed to him, I believe a block is in order. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC) user has been indefinite blocked.

What, exactly, caused you to crawl through another Wikipedian's online identity, website, social media, etc.? I don't see any evidence here that LB has edited these articles to add promotional content, etc., and only an argument that one of them is not notable (it has been nominated for deletion accordingly). I would certainly hope there's some terrible, egregious violation on-wiki that would justify creeping around a user's real-life identity, whether or not that was incidentally revealed on some other project. As an aside, it's pretty common for anyone interested in their local music scene to be acquainted with local musicians, who in turn might thank a fan. It should not be any great shock that articles on music, movies, etc. on Wikipedia are written by fans -- even hard core fans who might live near the subject or who have met that subject. Presumably the accusation is that LB is super-secret-BFFs with this musician such that it makes him unable to write neutrally and justifies some light stalking, but this thread doesn't appear to identify any such pattern of non-neutral editing ... and unless we're talking about paid editing, that comes first. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I don't see any evidence here that LB has edited these articles to add promotional content:

“I believe Greg Koch is pound for pound the best guitar player in the world today. His, tone, feel and style are unrivaled in today’s guitar playing community. He is scary good. It was a true honor to do shows with him.” Joe Bonamassa[16]

- [6] Levivich 21:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And when someone said "that quote is kind of promotional" and/or removed it, did LB argue and edit war over it? What happened when someone brought it up on the talk page? Or to LB directly? This is all rhetorical, of course, because it looks like nobody did any of that (apologies if I've missed it -- I just looked in this thread, on the talk page, in the edit history, and in the recent history of LB's talk page), but instead just started digging up his personal information on another project and crawling through his personal online presence as a first step, with COIN as the second step, and now third comes identifying any actual problematic content. That might not be WP:OUTING, but it's creepy and inappropriate. That he added a couple glowing quotes to an article shows he's guilty of doing what most fans of [whatever] have done when writing on Wikipedia until told that we try not to do that here because it makes the article too promotional. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

:::

The first studio album by the Koch Marshall Trio has received high praise. Pendragon's review of the album borders on hyperbole: "‘Toby Arrives’ is the sort of album you could stack alongside a Thelonius Monk record, a Jeff Beck record or a Mike Landau record. If you went for one of the other three and got this by mistake your day wouldn’t be ruined."

(still there) I think there may be a small issue of neutrality. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC) user has been indefinite blocked.

I saw Hemiauchenia's comments above. I do not know if Lightburst has been paid for his editing, but that is certainly one plausible explanation for a solid year of editing nothing else. This is not the only conflict of interest that Lightburst has, but I am unable to identify the other major area without violating the rules here. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

And what is a plausible explanation of a brand new account created only to edit the conflict of interest noticeboard? :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Everybody has to start somewhere. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Please_sign_my_guestbook You haven't edited much at all. Do you have an alternate account you use? You only edited on November 2nd, November 12, and total on the 19th. I find it unlikely you are a new editor. Dream Focus 22:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unlikely" is an understatement. Now CU blocked. Levivich 23:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please sign my guestbook was definitely lying about how he found out about this thread. Both the Lightburst and Sulcer COIs were something that were initially discussed off-wiki. I have no desire to further press Lightburst on the issue, as long as the problematic content is dealt with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that "Please sign my guestbook" has a strangely and highly suspicious short edit history, don't CU blocks usually come with some kind of note such as "ban evasion" or "sock puppetry"? And if COIN entries are being discussed off-Wiki before they arrive here, shouldn't this notice board be informed of how it is happening, Hemiauchenia? Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Lightburst, could you please respond to Hemiauchenia's and Scope_creep's questions above? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
• Others have stated re revealed himself on other Wikimedia site, what they are missing is that he reviled himself here too. Any who wants to can still see his name here. And this is not the first time he has lied about his connection to a subject he has written about promotionally and edit warred over. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I dunno, Lourdes got really upset when people went to her earliest edits and found out that she was a mildly famous singer, so upset in fact that she got the edits including logs totally wiped from Wikipedia even though they had been declined to be oversighted. My intent here isn't to harass people about their real life identities. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Perhaps it's against my better judgement to get involved here, but don't hold your breath on Lightburst answering you with an explanation here. They have history of avoiding questions and accepting a certain level of responsibility for mistakes (1, 2). You might get them to politely ask you to ignore everything and move on without ever admitting a mistake. And while some may question my role here due to the ARS disputes, all I can say is I've seen the personal web page Hemiauchenia alludes to (I think) and consider it doubtful that LB did not have a COI. I've also written about things I shouldn't have in the past, but I don't do it now. All it would take is for LB to say it was a mistake and they won't do it again. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'd also like to know more about the off-wiki discussions, mentioned by Hemiauchenia: "Both the Lightburst and Sulcer COIs were something that were initially discussed off-wiki." -- GreenC 19:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What happened is Hemiauchenia saw some posts on Wikipediocracy, and decided to effectively proxy (at least according to the strict interpretation of that policy that folks have been advocating for lately) for at least one globally banned user by pasting the allegations directly over to COIN with no diffs of promotional content (which isn't to say none exist, of course), no effort to address the problematic content that does exist, and [apparently] no prior on-wiki communication about the issue. Is there a valid point here? Possibly? Maybe LB is in that gray area of fandom where they start to write a little promotionally. Usually when someone's concern is the content, however, and not just "getting" a Wikipedian, there is a nonzero attempt to identify content specific issues, improve them, and communicate about the issue before submitting a complaint to a noticeboard. Sigh. If you told me a year ago I'd be defending both COI editing (however trivial the COI) and ARS members in multiple threads, I'd say it wouldn't be all that likely, but the way some of these threads are playing out just doesn't sit well with me. I've said my piece and will shut up now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea about the Wikipedia identity about the Wikipediocracy user who brought this up, so I was not knowingly proxying for a globally banned user. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I should say it's possible I'm wrong, and I shouldn't have made the statement about "at least one globally banned user" conclusively. One of the regulars could say better whether the user whose name is very similar to a globally banned user is in fact the same. The bigger point is it does seem like the odds are pretty good that proxying for someone you don't know on a forum which welcomes banned Wikipedians might result in proxying for a banned Wikipedian. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that the 'forum which welcomes banned Wikipedians' also welcomes non-banned ones? Including several past and present ArbCom members... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy has become a powerful and influential group of editors. -- GreenC 17:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, for several reasons. It has however managed on occasion to draw media attention to serious issues that the 'community' itself has been reluctant to deal with. And done so in an open manner, unlike a lot of the coordinated actions of 'groups of editors' wishing to be 'influential'. Not everything that goes on there is always to everyone's liking, but that's the nature of the beast - people hold diverse opinions on the merits or otherwise of Wikipedia and other WMF projects, and likewise have diverse opinions regarding what, if anything, can be done about the project's failings. And as for allowing 'globally banned' Wikipedia contributors to participate there, yes it does, and yes it damn well should, if such people can offer anything of merit to the discussion. Despite what advocates of ArbCom-as-a-fantasy-court might wish to believe, neither the 'community' nor ArbCom has any mandate that extends beyond Wikipedia, and nobody in this project has any right whatsoever to tell anyone who they can or cannot participate in discussions with. Or what they discuss. Which may on occasion involve such things as CoI editing by Wikipedia contributors, and the evident reluctance of the 'community' to do anything about it when said contributors have been around long enough to win over allies. As CoI issues go, the one being discussed here is probably on the minor side of things, compared to some of the more blatant examples discussed on Wikipediocracy, but in my opinion it merited discussion there. And merits discussion here too. Discussion of the actual issue, without attempts to stifle it through vague assertions regarding 'proxying' and attempts to otherwise muddy the waters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• I feel like it's in the spirit of WP:NOTBURO to actually address the issues that we become aware of, and not ignore them because the manner in which they were brought to our attention were contrary to our ideals. Hell, it was Reddit which pointed out that Scots Wikipedia was entirely gibberish. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

India-based IP-hopper + registered account mass-adding clearly paid "Controversies" to small articles

• Brightstar Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Marcelo Claure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ottobock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Hans Georg Näder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• 2402:3a80:10c2:8a92:9191:150f:1021:1a29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2405:205:1289:cb6c:f08c:6c4f:b183:796e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Centrereded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An India-based IP-hopper has, in less than two hours, added 14,000 bytes of poorly and suspiciously sourced "Controversies" to an 8,000-byte article about an American company, BrightStar [7]. The same 14,000-byte mass content was also added to a BLP, Marcelo Claure, by a registered account [8]. The BLP edits were reverted by someone based on WP:ATP, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CSECTION, but the editor added it back.

Looking at the history of the person that added the BLP content, Centrereded, they have in the past tried to create a BLP with highly biased content at Draft:Hans Georg Näder. They then added identical poorly and suspiciously sourced 14,000-byte attack content as a "Controversies" section to Ottobock, another previously small article about a company [9].

I suspect the IPs adding to BrightStar and the registered account adding to Marcelo Claure are the same person. If anyone feels this warrants a Sockpuppet Investigation, please feel free to move forward with that. Adam.Sudo (talk) 19:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As someone who is new too, you know a lot about Wikipedia. Don't revert my edits just like that. My content is well-referenced and states the facts. What do you mean by in less than two hours? Anyone can work on a preview without saving and publish when required. All of my edits are referenced. As for the IP, I can use whatever IP address I want. I am not shackled to one IP address. Using multiple IP address is not allowed only when against the policies.

Also, the noticeboard says to first resolve the issue directly with the editor. I don't have a COI involved. I have tried my best to provide references in support to my edits. Now, if the facts are negative, then I don't know what to do. If there is a reference proving my point, then there shouldn't be any problem.

Those IP addresses are not mine either. I think @Adam.Sudo: is being paid by one of the subjects to defend the negative publicity and the IP addresses could be connected to Adam.Sudo. The account also recently became live as someone activated a sleepingcell. Please look into this. Thanks! Centrereded (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I can't help but notice that the content Centrereded has been adding uses “ and ” rather than Wikipedia's native quotation marks ("). This suggests to me that they are copying and pasting the content from somewhere else rather than typing it. Mlb96 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Eh, you should help yourself about that. I am not saying you are wrong, but keyboards vary around the world. --SVTCobra 06:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like a lot of WP:Primary sources including court papers being used to cite the material being questioned. Slywriter (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Hondor

• Daniel Hondor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

- Significant edits are made by a user whose handle closely resembles the name of an employee. I don't know if it's appropriate to link the username since this could dox the user in question.

- Article is littered with poor grammar and punctuation. I recognize these particular writing patterns as characteristic of the writing of another close Hondor affiliate.

- "The 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games brought him to America" is misleading and suggests that he competed in the 96 Olympics, which he did not.

- Article puffs up achievements, like mentioning that Emily Vermeule won a national championship at 14 without specifying that it was for the Y14 age group. Likewise "Only club on the North American Continent" to send a girl's epeeist to the YOG is not true because Ariane Léonard represented Canada in that event.

- Overall this serves the purpose of making this whole article into an advertisement for his business.

- I have subject matter knowledge to edit the page but I'm not sure if I should go ahead and do so unilaterally because I know and personally dislike Hondor. I can recognize that I am biased, but I do think that these edits need review and at least partial reversion. While I do not see a notability standard for fencers, by analogy with other sports I think it's arguable that Hondor does not meet the notability standard to have a page at all. (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• The creator is now blocked for UPE--but they haven't been here in years so that won't really matter. The rest is just editing--or AfD. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Auriens

• Auriens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• BDCP2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor has been COI editing and removing well-cited content. They have been receiving (and ignoring) COI and other warnings since July. A block seems inevitable. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It is very quite promotional that wee article. Why is it even on here, what purpose does it serve, particularly when it states, Auriens is planning. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A discussion is going on here involving two Pakistani editors and an Indian editor Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff#Casualties, requesting an impartial conflict resolution. Echo1Charlie (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Being a citizen of a country isn't really under the scope of COI, WP:NPOVN is a better bet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Important Notice: Please note that the user who has opened this request (Echo1Charlie) has a history of exhibiting multiple problematic behavioural issues when it comes to not listening to consensus. He also has a history of filing false reports in an effort to mislead others. Users have engaged with him on the talk page of the said article at hand, but he absolutely refuses to listen to consensus simply because he is not getting his way. He is attempting to POV push through WP:CANVASSING now (yet again) through multiple avenues across Wikipedia, despite having been warned not to do so. Furthermore, and now more worryingly, is that he is now bringing race and ethnicity into the matter in a poor attempt to whip up racial and ethnic conflict to try and discredit the users who have been so patient with him and who have been trying to reach consensus with him. He is now clearly accusing me and another editor (Cipher21) of being "Pakistanis" simply because we disagree with him (I do not know the ethnic background of the other user, nor of Echo1Charlie, and I find it absolutely ridiculous and insulting that he is even attempting to brand me with an ethnicity I do not belong to). This is again yet further evidence of his inappropriate behaviour. At this point he is being nothing but disruptive. NarSakSasLee (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

 Administrator notethis, instead moved on to WP:ANI, where I have advised the parties that WP:AE, per WP:ARBIPA, is the appropriate venue. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"One rule for them another for us" at Wikimedia UK

• Wikimedia UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monisha Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rodw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm really staggered that I need to write this but I feel it is vital for transparency that it is documented and discussed. Today, the CEO of WMUK (LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)) decided to update the article to add a highly promotional summary of the organisation's work, remove a summary of various controversies in the lead and also add other unsourced updates. A note was left on the talk page justifying it and declaring a "potential" COI. My revert was then undone by Johnbod who is a member of WMUK with the justification that because the COI was declared, the edit is fine. Further investigations revealed that WMUK trustee Rodw recently created Monisha Shah who was recently appointed as the Chair of the Board at WMUK. I've sent that to AFD it is clear that WP:BIO is a long way from being met and most of the sourcing is terrible. A note was also left declaring the COI. This seems to be a perfect example of why WP:COI strongly discourages editors with a COI from editing articles directly and I find it astonishing that these users have ignored the advice that we routinely give to other editors and introduced poorly sourced BLP content and promotional organisational content into the project. Disclosure of a COI is not a carte blanche to do whatever afterwards, it is the start of the process. It is extremely hypocritical and the optics are terrible. SmartSE (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I am NOT a member of WMUK & haven't been for several years! Please don't spread lies. I haven't bothered to read the rest of the post. I don't see how recording a change of chair is promotional. Lucy Crompton-Reid's COI is declared in her edit summary, on the article talk page, & on her user page. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod, accusing others of spreading lies is a little much, as you have a "This user is a member of Wikimedia UK" userbox on your page. Are you aware that your edit restored much more material than a chair change and removed a summary of controversies the organization has been involved in? Firefangledfeathers 05:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

So I did! Now removed. These were the three changes I restored - & I think I did miss the changes of paras lower down. I'm fine with "controversies" stuff being returned, but you should not revert to restore a chair and trustees who have been gone for some time. Johnbod (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It says in the Wikimedia UK that they had a governance problem in 2013, that was checked by an auditor. It states in the report, trustees' conflicts of interest were poorly managed. Seems they haven't learned in the past seven years. scope_creep^Talk 19:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"a governance problem" is probably the understatement of the year - there is, and I say this with all due respect and entirely mindful of "comment on content, not editors", a serious competence issue at WMUK. Least of all are these ill-advised edits. Perhaps WMUK should take a step back from editing their own articles and instead focus on upgrading their MediaWiki installation to something that isn't EOL and vulnerable. sigh. ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Some of the new content is unobjectionable, but I agree that part of it is overly promotional. Removal of criticism is particularly concerning. I think Johnbod's description of the edits as "just updates to basic info" is overly simplistic, and I'd recommend a self-revert and some more talk page discussion. Firefangledfeathers 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

In the interests of transparency I have reverted Johnbod's edit as promotional and POV. Considering I would have done so for any other organization where a INVOLVED account appears to be adding promotional material I see no reason not to do so here. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 20:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur with the revert. Even aside from any COI concerns, language like create changes in policy and practice that enable open knowledge to flourish is LinkedIn prose that does not belong in an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(Disclaimer as a Paddy who would rather spend an eternity in hell than associate with WMUK, but I am friendly with Johnbod, who has had nothing to do with the assoc in 10 years)....the revert seemed in good faith to me...ie as said above the first series of changes were factual, but sneekingly, those lower down were problematic. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Closer inspection of the article's history shows some interesting reverts, such as this from 2015 by Pigsonthewing ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 21:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Kind of depressing that an organization that, by it's very nature, is supposed to be closely aligned with the goals of this project should have such a poor understanding of those goals. I guess that donor money outweighs the neutrality of the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• If it had happened on a page on my watchlist and I noticed I would have reverted such blatant promotion and whitewashing. Questions about COI are certainly in order and I would say that questions about WP:COMPETENCE are also in order given the circumstances. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• It's absolutely egregious that that edit was marked as "minor" as well... AlexEng^(TALK) 21:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  @AlexEng: There were three edits and that just shows the edit summary for the last one: [10] which was indeed minor. SmartSE (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense. AlexEng^(TALK) 22:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is rather disappointing behavior, and if it had been done by a non-WMF organization we would probably be handing out COI warnings or pblocks without a second thought. Everyone here should have known better (or, if they geniunely did not know better, that is a deeply concerning problem with a WMF affiliate). So, WMUK folks, we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. The easy way is you acknowledging the problem and voluntarily agreeing to behave like normal COI editors (requesting any potentially-contetious changes on talk pages, discussing on talk pages if any edits are challenged, not writing awful LinkedIn blurbs about "vision"). The hard way is the same but enforced via partial blocks. Again: deeply disappointing. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 22:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• The initial edits appear to be a case of an inexperienced editor running into our COI policies, and have been appropriately reverted. That is how it should be handled for any organization adding promotional material. One good-faith COI mistake does not merit an immediate block (although I am less familiar with usual practice on partial blocks). Of course, this summary puts aside that the editor in question is the WMUK Chief Executive, which leads to the question that I think this report raises and should be considered explicitly: should we treat this matter with special interest because it relates to an WMF-affiliate? As it stands, I don't think this is necessary. The promotional edits have been reverted, and the potentially non-notable bio has been sent to AfD. WMUK employees should adhere to our COI policies as should any other editors, and if there are issues with WMUK governance I am not sure what can be done about it here. CMD (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'd essentially concur with CMD, initial edits poor example of how to edit own organisation, concentrating on lead section with content not in the body, more like a newbie edit, despite what was put on the talk page. But was this discussed enough before raising the COIN? Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, it's Lucy here. I'm really sorry to have caused these issues. Several trustees in the past week have mentioned the factual inaccuracies on the Wikimedia UK page and in the interests of expediency (and, I think, for the first time in six years) I edited the page myself. I removed the controversies from the summary as they were over 8 years ago and didn't feel like the most relevant content for that section - however I can see that I overstepped the mark there and understand why they have been reverted. I'm very sorry that I didn't uphold community standards and have caused these concerns. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• @LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) Given your position, is it a concern that you didn't uphold the community standards, or that you were not perhaps aware of them? It's not as if Conflict of Interest is not a fairly major topic and active area of concern across the whole of WP. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• You are right. I'm sorry. I am aware of COI but was busy and tired and acted without enough thought. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• @LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK): that sounds awfully like you were used as a meat puppet by those board members... Can you be specific about which board members and what exactly you were instructed to do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• This isn't the inquisition. She's admitted the error and apologized. I was as taken aback by this as anyone but I don't see a need to interrogate like this. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  Put her in the comfy chair! Levivich 19:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is not the inquisition, but along with admitted the error she also appears to have suggested that the error was the result of their being used as a WP:meatpuppet (that is assuming that any of the board members in question are also wikipedia editors). I don’t believe that we generally allow that sort of covert off-wiki coordination between editors, even of the “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" variety. If they were just a corporate flunky and they said “my bosses who are wikipedia editors told me to do X” I would be asking what their bosses edited under and then talking to those editors. I fail to see how its any different just because they’re Wiki family. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to imply that this was the fault of the trustees that I spoke to (who as it happens are not experienced Wikipedia editors) and certainly didn't mean to deflect responsibility for the lapse in judgement, which was mine alone. LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK) (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification LucyCrompton-Reid (WMUK)! Please keep in mind that coordinated editing should be avoided. Also just to be clear experience doesn’t matter at all in this situation, if they’re a wikipedia editor with one edit or one million its still a serious issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Monisha Shah

• Although my username is included in the list at the top of this discussion I have never edited the Wikimedia UK article. My inclusion seems to be an attempt to establish a pattern which I do not recognise. It was included in relation the article Monisha Shah which I created. In my opinion a clearly notable contributor to many public sector and charitable bodies before she took up a role at Wikimedia UK.— Rod ^talk 15:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  ...who you personally know and work with as fellow WMUK trustee. Do you not see why others might doubt your judgement of her notability? Why did you decide to ignore WP:COISELF and write an article about her yourself, directly in mainspace? Unlike Lucy, you cannot claim inexperience. – Joe (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Rod the bigger problem with your edits is WP:BLP and WP:OR, even if you didn’t have a COI the page you created for Monisha Shah would be an issue. You’re trying to use opinion pieces, blog posts, and primary sources to pad a BLP which shouldn’t exist in the first place. You used meeting minutes [11] to source information about the subject’s brother, another BLP. You tried to use an opinion piece in a blog [12] for a wikivoice statement. I can go on if you really need more. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Mustafa Al-Kadhimi

• Mustafa Al-Kadhimi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Khattab Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Khattab F. Al-Dhafiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Moved from my previous post at ANI, I realized after the fact that it may better fit here.

(Self-described?) media spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Iraq keeps trying to change his article photo, however they are ignoring COI, paid editing, image sourcing requirements and are ban evading to do this.

Accounts in question include User:Khattab Lord, and now User:Khattab F. Al-Dhafiri. In the edit history for Mustafa Al-Kadhimi, they repeatedly claim to be the media spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Iraq, who apparently has requested his article image be changed.

I'm not going to lie, the previous image is pretty bad, and I can understand why the Prime Minister wants it changed (although obviously that's not really how things work around here). I don't think that changing the photograph would be a bad change to the article in principle; however, the user in question is failing to abide by COI declarations/procedure, has ban evaded, and is adding photographs to the article that do not have a clear copyright license attached to them (screenshots and the like).

Honestly the best thing here might be if another editor sources a usable alternative photo and adds it themselves, although of course the media spokesman still needs to declare COI and paid editing, and start requesting changes via talk pages, I would imagine. BlackholeWA (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the image, I changed it to a very recent (and I think not unflattering) image. I also informed Khattab (the not-yet blocked one) of how to contact C:Commons:VRT to verify permission via e-mail for uploads. I do not think that these accounts have been interacted with in an understanding and constructive manner before bringing them here. It is not rare to encounter real representatives. --SVTCobra 04:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Didn't bring it here to shame him in any sense, just felt someone should take a look. I'm hardly an expert in outreach to government representatives, and he has been blocked on multiple accounts even before this, apparently. (The multiple AFC attempts about himself don't help either). BlackholeWA (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User is now apparently multiblocked for sockpuppeting and paid editing. Unsure if he was a spokesperson for the PM or not? Some things don't add up. BlackholeWA (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Albert Bryan (politician)

• Albert Bryan (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2600:1700:1fa0:2120::/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 107.210.161.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IslandVibez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IPv6 range and the IPv4 IP have been editing Albert Bryan (politician) a lot, and in a similar fashion to User:IslandVibez, a user that was blocked for paid editing. I was considering opening an SPI about it, but I'm not really great with SPI cases, so I figured I should have a discussion here first. Invalid^OS_talk 16:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I rolled it back to just after Drmies rolled it all back last time. Some semi-protection probably wouldn't hurt at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I dropped a block or two. Let's semi-protect this if they disagree and find a different range to work from. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Sluka

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Christopher Sluka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 184.177.173.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 2600:387:C:6C18:0:0:0:7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Cherri Gipson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah Hayland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Long term promotional editing by IPs. Recently nominated for deletion, two new accounts have shown up to vote keep. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special:Contributions/Jaiden4

• Jaiden4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new editor, Jaiden4, has majored on creating and/or moving numerous articles and/or drafts on the ABU TV Song Festioval to main space. Many, perhaps all, are unreferenced and ought not to remain in main space, certainly until referenced. Some have been draftified already and have been moved back. This is either a case of over-enthusiasm or is a case of COI, perhaps Paid editing. There are so many of these that any action is likelhy to require admin attention with some sort of bulk edit response.

So why have I not gone to ANI?

Because ANI can result in blocks, and blocks are unlikely to be appropriate. Perhaps I should have gone there. It has been a conscious choice to try to handle this more kindly, and I think, hope, this venue will achieve that. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reported this person at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kidhackr; seems like a pretty obvious sockpuppet to me. Also requested speedy deletion. I think you were right to take a more kind approach, I just happen to know that this person has done the same things many times before with very similar usernames. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees I'm grateful. We learn our "favourite" sock farms as time goes by Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Galaxy Group of Companies

• Galaxy Group of Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Gurgen Khachatryan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Հայկուհի Կարապետյան (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Արմենուհի Կարապետյան (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The two users above appear to be working together to write about a business and one of it's founders. The usernames seem to be real names in Armenian; searching on the surname along with Galaxy Group, one can find an apparent connection with a company executive. It should also be noted that the draft article Draft:Galaxy Group of Companies was declined, and Draft:Gurgen Khachatryan (entrepreneur) was deleted; but despite this, Հայկուհի Կարապետյան created Gurgen Khachatryan in the mainspace anyway, and also moved a user subpage of Արմենուհի Կարապետյան (User:Արմենուհի Կարապետյան/Galaxy Group of Companies) to the mainspace as Galaxy Group of Companies.

This plus similar activity from these editors on the Armenian and Russian Wikipedias leads me to suspect COI and possibly WP:PAID editing. Neither editor has responded to COI notices left on their talk pages. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

John DeLorean

• John DeLorean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Tydelorean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User User:Tydelorean is repeatedly editing the section of John DeLorean's page about a Ty DeLorean claiming to be John DeLorean's illegitimate son. I've warned him several times to go through the talk page and he has not responded. @Starbug22: has been reverting his edits. The overall slant of his edits has been to reinforce Ty DeLorean's claim. Rusalkii (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the mediocre sourcing for the content, I'd say that it was highly questionable that the John Delorean biography should say anything about this supposed 'illegitimate son' at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fairly significant given the ongoing lawsuit but don't really have a horse in this race, I just want the COI editing out of it if it does exist. Rusalkii (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A biography of John DeLorean need not concern itself with lawsuits over possible trademark infringements occurring many years after his death. And I think you can be fairly certain that should this lawsuit come to court, they will consider anything regarding illegitimate descent to be entirely irrelevant to the case. Which leaves Wikipedia with nothing beyond the unverified claims of a single individual who appears have convinced nobody of anything much, and who seems to be using tabloid publicity regarding the claims as a means to market a vehicle of questionable merit. I can't think of any good reason why Wikipedia should assist him in this endeavour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Chanakya Netha

• Chanakya Netha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Satish Chandra (state commissioner) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Aashutosh Srivastava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Himayat Ali Mirza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

#	Page title	Date	Original size	Current size	Assessment	Links	Comments
1	Satish Chandra (state commissioner)	2021-11-20 10:29	6,902	7,766	Unknown	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews	In AfD heading for Delete outcome. Non notable person
2	Fashinza (Company) · (Deleted)	2021-11-08 05:48	6,384	N/A	Unknown	Log	Unambiguous promo for a company
3	Fashinza · (Deleted)	2021-10-25 12:24	7,166	N/A	Unknown	Log	Unambiguous promo for a company
4	The Chocolate Room (cafe)	2021-10-20 11:05	3,922	6,316	Stub	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews	For a company
5	Hybiz Tv	2021-10-07 07:54	3,507	4,240	Unknown	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews	for a company
6	Aashutosh Srivastava	2021-10-01 05:38	5,763	12,027	C	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews	suspected promo BLP of non notable person. At Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aashutosh Srivastava
7	Rajeev Baid · (Deleted)	2021-08-31 14:14	3,651	N/A	Unknown	Log	Promo BLP
8	Himayat Ali Mirza	2021-08-04 09:09	4,852	2,968	Start	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews	Suspected promo BLP of non notable person
9	National Integrated Health Wellness Care Network · (Deleted)	2021-06-14 08:14	4,060	N/A	Unknown	Log	Promo of company
10	India Herald · (Deleted)	2021-06-01 06:48	2,118	N/A	Unknown	Log
11	Pinnacle Blooms Network · (Deleted)	2021-03-14 18:21	9,462	N/A	Unknown	Log	Promo of company
12	Pinnacle Blooms · (Deleted)	2021-03-10 06:27		N/A	Unknown	Log	Promo of Company
13	Narappa	2020-02-03 10:10	3,129	31,720	Start	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews	Created in March 3 months in advance for an upcoming film
14	Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma	2020-01-29 08:11	6,179	5,792	Stub	Log · History · Page History · Top Edits · Pageviews	Suspected UPE Promo BLP of non notable person. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma

I saw this article in AfD and I suspect that the article Satish Chandra (state commissioner) and others are created for undisclosed paymemt. I cannot imagine anyone creating such articles that got deleted some of them for being unambiguous promotional. After an article is deleted, it is recreated with unwanted disambiguation added to evade scrutiny.

In addition to the ones already deleted, I can see that Aashutosh Srivastava, Chilakamarthi Prabhakar Chakravarthy Sharma, Himayat Ali Mirza are non notable and clearly promotional biography of living persons that should not have been created. The user was blocked in past for using wikipedia for promotion. These are the reasons behind my suspicion. Venkat TL (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert Corich

Moved to WP:ANI

RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Florine Stettheimer

More opinions sought for at Talk:Florine_Stettheimer#WP:CITESELF_etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Zeena Schreck

• Zeena Schreck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• DiD001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is reason to believe that DiDoo1 is Zeena Schreck herself or someone very close to her due to the content that the user has been editing and creating since their membership as well as the user's consistent removal of Zeena's son's (Stanton LaVey) name from the information table. The user's reason is a personal one rather than a factual one and therefore does not comply with the guidelines of neutrality. The user's reason is that Stanton was adopted by his grandmother (Diane Hagerty) in 1996 which is information that is not publicly known nor negates that Zeena gave birth to him in 1978 and raised him until 1990. Moreover, it is publicly known that Zeena hated her son, attempted to kill him and disowned him. It would be no surprise that Zeena would not want his name on her Wikipedia page. For these reasons, one would conclude that Didoo1 is Zeena Schreck and violating the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Policy. I ask that this matter be investigated to help ensure that Wikipedia stays neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsidedownVal (talk • contribs) 01:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that DiDoo1 is Zeena Schreck, given that all DiDoo1 is doing is ensure that the article in question complies with Wikipedia policy: See WP:BLPNAME, which explains that we do not normally include names of non-notable relatives of article subjects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

There are actually good reasons to think that there is a COI here, DiD001 has been consistently editing Zeena Shreck and few other articles since 2013, but I agree that the removal isn't an issue per BLPNAME. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyTheGrump, however, Didoo1's reasoning is not that the child isn't notable, but that the child isn't Zeena's child. Not only is that not factual but it a personal reasoning, leading one to conclude COI. And like Hemiauchenia said, this user has been consistently editing Zeena's page as well as pages related to Zeena Schreck since the user's membership in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpsidedownVal (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

We certainly aren't going to include mention of this individual in the article on the say-so of a random contributor, who claims to be basing it on 'information that is not publicly known'. And please read WP:BLP - some of the things you have written above should probably be redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: Both editors seem to be SPAs and making edits based on being too close to the subject of Zeena Schreck and/or the Church of Satan/LaVey family. I don't think the son/grandson (adopted or not, adult now or not) adds anything meaningful to the biography articles of anyone involved. I think the lack of reliable non-primary sources would invoke WP:BLPPRIMARY. Unfortunately, it looks like a mess to strike/redact all the back and forth. NB: This comment is based only on the edit histories and not in-depth research into the topic. --SVTCobra 02:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: I, UpsidedownVal, am not related to nor know Stanton LaVey or anyone in his family or friends personally. I am a fan of occult subjects and have recently been studying the family. I am in the processes of building a page for Stanton LaVey, being as he surprisingly has none. The information of family lineage and associations is important to those who study such topics, practice associated religions, as well as for journalists, being as Wikipedia is a go to source and cited source for information. My interest is in the integrity of Wikipedia infromation. The point of noting everything in my original message is to highlight DiDoo1's potential COI. If the user were adhering to the neutrality guidelines of Wikipedia they would have changed my edit to say "1" rather than the just remove child's name. Instead DiDoo1 gave a personal reason negating the facts.
  • https://www.churchofsatan.com/faq-lavey-and-family/
  • https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/zeena-schreck-35295.php
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Hegarty*
  • https://www.amazon.com/Satanic-Bible-50th-Anniversary-ReVision/dp/1726242641
  • https://books.google.com/books?id=BpE-C2vX2LcC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=stanton%20lavey%20spin%20magazine&source=bl&ots=NUZHqPaiTg&sig=ACfU3U3QfVyuVPb-T0xS8ZDQ6L6hlSd0Kg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidz_X7zK30AhUXKDQIHbs-B6MQ6AF6BAgjEAI&fbclid=IwAR0BDNXFmu6dX_WNDzKwEcEn_Ke4BPjpY8Np-eBuWR7WeEn8kWPrGrkYpxE#v=onepage&q=stanton%20lavey%20spin%20magazine&f=false

UpsidedownVal (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Val, I was not trying to insinuate you have a conflict of interest through knowing any of them. I was just saying, and I think your above statement reflects the same, that you are keenly interested in the topic and perhaps "know" more than what is published in reliable sources. Just look at some of the allegations you are making in the initial submission here. Attempted murder? That is a heavy allegation. I haven't the time to read all your links, but could you point to the one that verifies that? --SVTCobra 04:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that conclusion is formed from this article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and Haaretz

• Reliability of Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Warsaw concentration camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

TLDR: If a newspaper publishes an article critical of an editor's editing, can the editor remove that newspaper article, and content sourced to it, from Wikipedia?

On Oct. 4, 2019, Omer Benjakob of Haaretz, Israel's paper of record, published a story about Wikipedia's coverage of Poland and the Holocaust, including what Benjakob called Wikipedia's longest-running hoax, related to content at the article "Warsaw concentration camp": [13]. In this article, Benjakob interviewed User:Icewhiz and User:Piotrus, among others, and wrote, in the newspaper's voice, content that was critical of Icewhiz, Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and others, as well as Wikipedia as a whole. Here are some relevant excerpts:

• About Wikipedia's coverage of Poland and the Holocaust generally:

  • A review of Icewhiz’s claims reveals what does indeed look like a concerted attempt by a small group of editors to distort the history of the Holocaust along the lines being espoused by the IPN and the Polish regime.

  • The attempt to revise the accepted history of the Shoah on the internet encyclopedia parrots the revised historical narrative currently being trumpeted by the Polish government.

  • “It’s fake history,” says Prof. Havi Dreifuss, a Tel Aviv University historian and Yad Vashem’s expert on Poland and the Holocaust, when asked about gas chambers in Warsaw. Other Holocaust historians share her unequivocal position: “It’s a conspiracy theory,” says Prof. Jan Grabowski, a Polish-Canadian historian from the University of Ottawa, when asked about the legend behind the death toll.

  • Both Dreifuss and Grabowski say that they noticed the attempt to whitewash Wikipedia articles releated to Poland and the Holocaust in recent years.

• About Piotrus:

  • Icewhiz points to another editor, called “Piotrus,” as one who works with Poeticbent and other editors to help exaggerate cases of “Holocaust rescue,” in which Poles saved Jews. Icewhiz claims Poeticbent and Piotrus, for example, were active in rewriting numerous articles dealing with Jewish ghettos, with the goal of including a disproportionate emphasis on heroic rescue of Jews by Poles to overshadow any negative aspects ... That was the case in the article on the Nowy Sacz Ghetto, where the two reworked the article together so that almost half of it would focus on Holocaust rescue. The two also “rescued” the articles for the Sosnowiec Ghetto and the Radom Ghetto.

  • The only editor to respond to a request for comment was Piotrus ... Though [he] said that, “to some degree… there is a grain of truth” in Icewhiz’s claims, he vehemently denied the existence of a Wikipedia conspiracy. He argued that though he does not support the false narrative regarding the existence of a death camp at KL Warschau, he does not think it constitutes a “hoax” – but rather a "fringe theory."

    In a detailed response to the claims presented in this story, [Piotrus] said that any errors that existed in Wikipedia on topics related to Poland and the Holocaust were “minuscule and hardly widespread,” and the result of the fact that this was a “controversial” topic on which there is some disagreement between academics. For example, he said that the issue of Holocaust rescue was “under-researched” by Jewish and Israeli scholars and institutes like Yad Vashem, which he compared to the IPN. Regarding the EEML, [Piotrus] said that the plans detailed there were never actual, and that their publication was likely a “Russian fake news operation.”

• About Volunteer Marek:

  • Despite these claims, Wikipedia reveals that aided by the likes of other editors from the group, like “Volunteer Marek,” some members of the group are also active in downplaying Polish violence against Jews – and in some cases have even accused the Jews of violence against Poles. For example, in the Radzilow article, Volunteer Marek defended the claim that “Jewish militiamen” helped “to send Polish families into exile.”

• About WP:EEML, which Piotrus and Volunteer Marek were parties to:

  • In 2009, WikiLeaks (which is not connected to Wikipedia) released a batch of emails revealing the existence of a group of Wikipedia editors from Eastern European nations that were coordinating their actions and working together to skew content there to push a nationalistic line. When the Polish editors were losing an edit war, according to one exchange of emails, the Estonians came to their assistance. Piotrus, a member of the group, wrote about the need to develop “a plan” to create fake users to help gain votes and manipulate internal elections to get themselves elected to key positions within Wikipedia’s oversight mechanisms. This so-called Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) scandal shook Wikipedia and earned bans for all those involved with it.

    Piotrus, who agreed to speak with Haaretz, denied Icewhiz’s allegations of a group effort. In an email, he suggested that Russia may be behind the EEML leak and made the misleading claim that all the Polish editors active on Wikipedia at the time were banned as part of the case. In reality, only 12 Polish editors (out of more than 100) were banned from editing – including himself. By 2010, half were back to editing and they form the core of the Polish group at the heart of Icewhiz’s claims.

• And a prediction:

  Judging by the battle over Holocaust history, it is very likely that the existence of this hoax too will be struck from the annals of Wikipedia’s history.

As Benjakob predicted, back in 2019, and again in 2021, Piotrus and Volunteer Marek have removed content about the hoax, and the Haaretz article, from multiple Wikipedia pages:

• At WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia:
  • On Sep 6, 2019, before the Haaretz article was published, Piotrus tried to remove this hoax from the List of hoaxes: Special:Diff/914238628 The edit summary says "per talk", and the talk page discussion is at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 2#Is Warsaw number a hoax? (I see consensus to include, not remove, in that discussion.)
  • When the removal was reinstated, Piotrus removed it again on Sep 10, 2019: Special:Diff/914990754
  • It was reinstated (by me) and stayed there for ~two years
  • In 2021, Volunteer Marek removed it on:
    • August 2: Special:Diff/1036807420
    • Three times on August 3: Special:Diff/1036933022, Special:Diff/1036934936, Special:Diff/1036935788 (claiming 30/500 exemption)
  • On Aug 4, 2021, Piotrus removed it again: Special:Diff/1037029783
  • A lengthy discussion ensued, now archived at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 2#warsaw. On that Archive 2 page, Piotrus's signature appears ~50 times, Volunteer Marek's ~20.
  • On September 7, Piotrus started an RFC: Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia#RfC: How to clean-up "Hoax statements in articles" section?
  • On November 9, 2021, Volunteer Marek removed it twice more: Special:Diff/1054355527, Special:Diff/1054368087
• At Warsaw concentration camp (the article where the hoax content had existed for 15 years):
  • On Oct 12, 2019, Piotrus removed mention of the hoax sourced to the Haaretz article: Special:Diff/920898175
  • It was reinstated (not by me) and stayed there for ~two years
  • On Aug 2, 2021, Volunteer Marek removed mention of "hoax": Special:Diff/1036934730
  • On Aug 4, 2021, Piotrus removed mention of "hoax": Special:Diff/1037029591
  • On November 5, an RFC was launched at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp#RfC: Haaretz article on errors in WP article about the Warsaw concentration camp; on that talk page, Piotrus's signature appears 50+ times, and Marek's ~20 times.
• At Reliability of Wikipedia:
  • On Oct 13-21, 2019, Piotrus removed mention of the hoax including the Haaretz source and made other edits: Special:Diff/920990600, Special:Diff/921020220, Special:Diff/921342933, Special:Diff/921673357, Special:Diff/922300589
  • It was reinstated (not by me) and stayed there for ~two years
  • On November 24, 2021 (two days ago), Volunteer Marek removed the content again, four times: Special:Diff/920990600, Special:Diff/1056984056, Special:Diff/1057147236, Special:Diff/1057148945
  • Piotrus removed it also on Nov 24: Special:Diff/1057024319
  • The page has since been full protected, and an RFC is underway at Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory, where Piotrus and Volunteer Marek have both !voted (and Marek has already made 13 comments on that talk page).

I don't know if these are all the pages where this issue has come up, but these are the pages I'm aware of. Because the Haaretz article is critical of them, I do not believe Piotrus and Volunteer Marek should be removing the source, or content sourced to the source, from Wikipedia pages, or !voting (or excessively commenting) at RFCs about this subject. I and others have raised this issue at the RFCs listed above, but Piotrus and Marek continue, as of two days ago, to make these sorts of edits. I don't know if my view has consensus, so I am bringing it here. Thanks in advance for your input. Levivich 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

100% no. The inescapable consequence of such a conclusion is that sources will be able to restrict the editing of critical Wikipedians. Firefangledfeathers 00:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

However, the restriction wouldn’t even be on that topic area (Eastern Europe, for example), it would just be on content presented by that very source. starship.paint (exalt) 01:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The alternative being that Wikipedians will be able to restrict critical sources? François Robere (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Stop it with the false dichotomy FR. The question isn't "either COI or we ban critical sources". As Firefangledfeathers points out, this simply isn't "Conflict of Interest". Volunteer Marek 16:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

When you reply to my messages, what exactly is going through your mind?

• "Stop it" makes no sense, since I only made this argument once. Also, you're not the boss of me, mister.
• Firefangledfeathers's comment is about one sentence long, and nowhere in it does he say this isn't a COI. François Robere (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Francois Robere: Firefangledfeathers (...) nowhere in it does he say this isn't a COI.

Firefangledfeather's: 100% no

It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who will sit there and gaslight you when the evidence is sitting right there in plain view, just few lines above. THIS right here is perfect example why this sorry episode has dragged on for so long on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 22:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

And what was the question - from the OP's original post, if you will? Because I can't see that he asked this anywhere, and I'd loath to put words into FFF's mouth beyond his obvious disagreement with the result. François Robere (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

OMG. Seriously, someone want to explain to me how to have a constructive conversation with someone who will sit there and insist white is black and black is white when everyone can see the damn colors? Volunteer Marek 23:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No. These Wikipedians were directly involved in this dispute before Haaretz wrote a story on it. Why are we arguing about this story, who we know was fed to this journalist by a globally banned user? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Hemiauchenia: - at the time of this article’s publishing, Icewhiz wasn’t globally banned yet, neither was he indefinitely blocked. He was only topic banned. starship.paint (exalt) 01:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, as if that makes this any better? Really? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Why does it matter that the main source was a banned editor? The substantive claims were vetted by the journalist, two professors, and published by the paper. They're also backed by Wikipedia's records (diffs) of the articles and edits mentioned. I haven't actually tried to do this, but should there be doubts about the veracity of what Haaretz is reporting, I think I could provide a diff for any of the specific claims regarding edits to Wikipedia articles. But bottom line, if what the newspaper is reporting is true, who cares if one of the sources is a banned editor? Levivich 02:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

In my view, we shouldn’t use events that happened in 2020 to argue against content written in 2019 by someone else. starship.paint (exalt) 02:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Why does it matter that the main source was a banned editor? Um, this should be kind of obvious, but since apparently you have trouble getting it, the reason is that the "information" that Icewhiz provided to Benjakob was part of his broader harrasment, doxxing and threats campaign that he was waging at the time. Yes, it matters.

The substantive claims were vetted by the journalist, two professors, and published by the paper. This is completely disingenuous. No one has argued about the "substantive claims" made by "two professors". Yes, there's two professors cited in the article FOR OTHER info. There hasn't been arguments about that OTHER info because.... well because the claims made by these two professors about Wikipedia are so blatantly absurd that not even Icewhiz or his friends tried to put them into Wikipedia. One claims that there are "hundreds" of Polish editors secretly working for the Polish government editing Wikipedia (there's actually like 3 or 4 actually active Polish editors). The other ones claims that "Wikipedia article changed before (her) eyes" (ummm.... yes, that's how Wikipedia works). The "substantive claims" at the source of this controversy is all the crap that came from Icewhiz, not some unrelated "two professors" stuff. Volunteer Marek 17:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to try and insert the "fact" that there are "hundreds of editors working for Polish government" somewhere into Wikipedia, we can argue about that too... Volunteer Marek 17:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Seems like a pretty clear cut case of Conflict of Interest, and these editors should not be removing that material from the article. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh jeez, not this again. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like a conflict of interest but I would offer a mode of recourse, that these editors are allowed to start RFCs on this content, to solicit the will of the community, without these editors voting or arguing themselves. starship.paint (exalt) 01:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous, and the account presented above badly misrepresents the case (regarding, in particular, the claim that "Benjakob... wrote, in the newspaper's voice, content that was critical of Icewhiz, Piotrus, User:Volunteer Marek, and others" - no, the account was quite sympathetic to Icewhiz, for reasons one can speculate on but that may have something to do with the fact that Icewhiz, Haaretz and the journalist who wrote the piece are all Israeli, and the boogeyman of "Polish nationalism" that Icewhiz ranted about is a popular straw man in Israeli politics, not helped by the fact that the current Polish government is quite nationalistic indeed and an easy scapegoat for all evils in the world...). Anyway, let's start by remembering who is User:Icewhiz: an indef banned harasser and manipulator, who tried outing people, harassing their families, etc. A crown jewel in his campaign of harassment was duping the said Haaretz journalist into taking his side against "Evil Polish nationalists", a fictional group whose existence Icewhiz was campaigning against; Icewhiz claims were reviewed and discarded by ArbCom (who topic banned him instead, shortly before learning of his harassment campaign which earned him a WMF site ban). In the Haaretz article, the journalist admited that Icewhiz got himself banned, strongly suggesting in the editors voice this was a mistake on ArbCom's part (reporting on Icewhiz's misdeeds as "alleged", but on the "evil Polish editors", without such a qualification) and that he is publishing his story as a call to arms against this evil group responsible for getting the slightly overzealous Israeli activist banned. It's a very sad piece of journalism (build on a kernel of truth about an error on Wikipedia that persisted for some time, but ABFed to the extreme). I was interviewed for the Haaretz piece, lied to by the journalist who before the interview promised that I'll be able to review the final article, then said this impossible due to changing deadlines, subsequently badly misquoted, and Haaretz and the journalist ignored my response letter. Removing this sad excuse for journalism should be in everyone's interest, lest we allow fake news on Wikipedia. Anyway, relevant quotes about Icewhiz include a sympathetic explanation of Icewhiz's ban as a result of the "evil Polish gang" gaining control of Wikipedia's community:

• "If you ask Icewhiz, it’s because [the Poles on Wikipedia] have built strong allies on Wikipedia that currently make them immune to criticism. Icewhiz, on the other hand, has failed to gain much support on Wikipedia. He says the Poles on Wikipedia benefit from an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left – people who are sensitive to claims of victimhood and reluctant to call out anti-Semitism. It is exactly these kinds of claims that have turned many in the Wikipedia community against Icewhiz."

• and the clear admittance that the goal of this article is to give Icewhiz one last hurrah:

  Icewhiz says that he brought his story to Haaretz because he has all but lost the battle against Polish revision on Wikipedia. Having a respected newspaper vet his claims and publish the story of the hoax plays a key role in his attempt to defend history. By reporting on Polish revisionism on Wikipedia, the facts being purged by Polish editors are preserved as true by a verifiable source, granting him ammunition for his last offensive in the footnote war. Despite having history on his side, on September 28, Icewhiz lost his case against the group of Polish editors.... The decision, said one editor with knowledge of the debate behind it, all but gives the Polish revisionists free rein on English Wikipedia.

Seriously, what do you want this to be used as a source for? This is not a COI issue, this is a RS/NPOV one, and the community needs to declare this said piece of writing not fit for any use on Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• • • Wait wait wait! Lemme emphasize what this article actually claims. Here it is again: Poles on Wikipedia benefit from an unholy alliance with editors affiliated with the American left I mean... bwahahahahaha. "Unholy alliance"... what??? With... "the American left"???? Hahahahahha. Seriously, this is this great reliable impeccable source that some people are defending. And yes, this is straight from Icewhiz's mouth. He made similar idiotic claims on reddit and Wikipediocracy and his twitter account (the one that led to his ban). For some reason the author of the article repeated these verbatim. Volunteer Marek 17:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      Icewhiz may voice whatever opinions, but we don't cite them as fact, so I don't get the excitement about it. Do you see an opinion statement in the passage that you want to challenge, apart from "the Wikipedia's longest hoax", which is attributed? And anyway, we aren't speaking of Icewhiz here but of you. Don't deflect the discussion please. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Wait wait wait wait! It gets even better! In reality, only 12 Polish editors (out of more than 100) were banned from editing "more than 100" Polish editors? What? When? How? Wtf? I think at peak there MAY have been like 10 Polish editors active on English Wikipedia. And all 100 of these were supposed to be on this mailing list???? This is supposed to be the "vetting" and "fact checking" by "a journalist" we're being told about? And... TWELVE Polish editors got banned as part of the case? I was part of that case. There weren't twelve editors banned, Polish or not! I have no idea what crazy alternative universe this source pulled this out of. COI or not, Haaretz or not, the honest truth is that this is just super shoddy crap piece of journalism which didn't even do basic fact checking. Yes, we're talking Breitbart territory. Volunteer Marek 18:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The RS/NPOV issues, if there are any, can be addressed and resolved by the Wikipedia community. You have a personal COI in this matter, and thus can not directly participate. It is as simple as that. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you manage to make the 500 edits in the past 3 months to get to participate in this discussion? Volunteer Marek 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not needed, COIN is not extended-protected, secondly, yes, if 500/30 really matters to you regardless, they have just over 2,000 edits starting from July this year. You missed. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, see, the part that concerns me is the “starting from July this year” + the nature of their edit history. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that a hoax existed on WP for a rather long time, documentable to Haaretz, is completely valid, but there is zero need to mention any editor names in the mainspace article. The presentation should be sufficiently concise to explain why it was an issue for us, but should avoid all the behind-the-scenes AN/ANI/Arbcom activity aimed at specific editors. The Hareetz piece captures those events just fine. --Masem (t) 02:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue is entirely whether we can cite the article at all. No one has even suggested mentioning user names in main space. The COI is, in my opinion, more than the editors named above are trying to remove this coverage pretty much everywhere, even though this is precisely the behavior the article is discussing them for. The idea that a journalist was “fed a story by Icewhiz” is the canard that’s been cooked up as cover to remove coverage unflattering to their POV.—Ermenrich (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There should be no issue citing Hareetz, they have a well documented history of fact checking (and it would be very hard to believe they took the story from the banned editor without any attempts to corroborate the facts, which is clear from that article itself) - This isn't like Breitbart News where we have another banned editor that is actually writing stories for them and those show clear bias. Whether this is a COI for the two editors, it's an edge case, but they seem to be clearly acting against consensus to keep. I don't calling for COI is a necessary solution, this is behavior that is totally out of place for experienced editors, and that they are named in the article should be something that they should be playing it far more caution. (it would be different if this article was outing their real names or other info, they would have every right to remove it). --Masem (t) 03:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: they have a well documented history of fact checking Fact... checking... like the idea that there are "hundreds of Polish editors" working for the Polish government on Wikipedia? Or maybe the fact checking that there exists a ... ahem ... an "unholy alliance" (sic) between "Polish nationalists" and "American leftists" on Wikipedia (I mean, J F C!) Or fact checking that there was 100 Polish users on some mailing list but "only" 12 of them got banned? I'm sorry but the whole article is just one absurd fantasy piled on top of another. Let's be explicit here - oftentimes outside of Wikipedia, even people who claim to be "experts" on Wikipedia, have not an iota of a clue of how it works. Volunteer Marek 18:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no consensus to keep though. And yes, this is actually very much like Breitbart News. Your reputation is only as good as the things you publish. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

But consider that 1) we as editors know (now) there was misinformation in the article for many many years and 2) the writeups on the appropriate pages are extremely high-level and neutral to not point fingers or claim who was trying to add or who was trying to removed. Ignoring all the finger-pointing that Hareetz does, it is reporting correctly on this issue (including affirmation from professors that know the truth of the past that it was misinformation). Yes, Haaretz calls this a "hoax" but that's easily dealt with by staying to high level coverage. Hence, for that surface level discussion of the misinformation, its fine. But if we dug any lower in our description, I would completely agree that Hareetz then becomes a poor source for that info, and as best as I've seen, they're the only RS that digs that deep into this. We definitely should not take up the narrative that Hareetz pushes that this was a group of Polish editors trying to force this information. We don't have to explain ourselves or anything like that, just that it was there for 15 years, propagated to the other language Wikipedias and external sources, and subsequently removed when discovered. --Masem (t) 19:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, @Masem: - I always respect your input in these discussions - but now step back and take a comprehensive view. You acknowledge that Haaretz article would be "a poor source for that info" (your words)

So, if someone wanted to put in the idea that "there's an unholy alliance of Polish editors and American leftists on Wikipedia" into some article, the Haaretz source would be unreliable for that. 100% agree.

If someone wanted to put in the idea that "12 Polish editors out of a 100 got banned in the EEML case" into some article, the Haaretz source would be unreliable for that. 100% agree.

If someone wanted to put in the idea that "there are hundreds of Polish editors working for the Polish government on English Wikipedia", the Haaretz source would be unrelable for that. 100% agree.

So obviously the Haaretz article makes many claims which are so absurd that no one could argue with a straight face that it's a reliable source for THOSE claims.

Ok. So why is it reliable for other stuff? Which parts of the Haaretz article are unreliable and which are reliable? How you gonna pick and choose? And then, the whole thing is really UNDUE, so why not just drop it? (also, this has nothing to do with any "COI")22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

How is this an 'edge case'? They are editing an article about a topic with which they have a direct personal involvement. WP:COI:"This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests" Inf-in MD (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

At least based on what has been added and removed in this, the content does not mention or refer to these editors at all. If we were naming specific editors in the text, that would be a more clear COI issue. I still argree that the removal by these two editors is inappropriate, either via edit warring or refuting what is normally an RS simply because a banned editor pointed the situation out to Haaretz. If we were to call this COI, then I would be worried about articles that praise WP for something would become also reviewed under the same light (eg James Heilman/Doc James would be accused of COI if they discussed articles that praised WP's handling of COVID misinformation. The actions of the two here are actionable under other metrics. --Masem (t) 06:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Masem, I agree with you you wrote above, but it is actually not responsive to the question asked here, which is if those editors can actively participate in the editing of the section about them. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

if those editors can actively participate in the editing of the section about them Gee brand new account, there's a section about ME somewhere on Wikipedia? Can you show me where? I would like to know, especially if I have somehow edited it. Hint: there's no section about me on Wikipedia. This is just a dishonest misrepresentation of the situation. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Editor names weren’t mentioned. See Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia#RFC: Warsaw concentration camp theory. starship.paint (exalt) 02:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Piotrus and Marek are removing references to an article that mentions them in a clear case of COI. Regardless of the issues surrounding the sources, they should not be involved in any editing of the information. If you think there are reasons why the Hareetz piece shouldn't be included, obtain community consensus before making edits. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Imagine a reputable newspaper publishes an interview with a convicted criminal, where the said criminal complains about rigged system, conspiracy of others etc. Would that make the newspaper in question an unreliable source? No. Would that specific article make for a good source for wikipedia though? Also no. That's what we are dealing with here. Icewhiz got a life sentence in wikiworld. It is as simple as that. Move on to something more constructive.--Darwinek (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In the real world, convicted criminals testify all the time, and if what they say is true, we don't ignore it. There was in fact a hoax for 15 years. Levivich 02:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    @Levivich - You claimed writing 1000 times that nobody says the article was deliberately created as a hoax.[14]. Now you say --> there was in fact a hoax for 15 years. Here is the definition of the word Hoax - an act intended to trick or dupe [15]

    Make up your mind Levivich, hoax = intended act to trick. So who added the hoax content? Name those editors. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    Whether that article was a "hoax" or "fringe theory" or whatever is actually irrelevant to THIS discussion. Here's the thing EVEN THE HAARETZ article, chuck full of Icewhiz BS as it is, doesn't claim the editors mentioned here had ANYTHING to do with it. So how can there be a COI regarding the issue of whether it was a hoax or not? This "COI" is just some made up baloney, an excuse, and Levivich and FR know it damn well. Volunteer Marek 18:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    You know the answer to this, because we discussed it extensively at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp. Here, Special:Diff/1054411531, on Nov 9, I wrote the details. TLDR: I WP:AGF the creator may not have known it was a hoax when he created it in 2004, but no later than 2006 he knew or should have known it was a hoax, when he made this edit: Special:Diff/45941464. Levivich 04:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    There is "must have known". Many people still don't know anythign about this case even today. There is zero evidence beyond the realm of likely doubt that anyone who added or restored this informationt to Wikipedia knew it was wrong. This was an error, and once a properly formatted talk discussion was held about it years later (by which time the original author was sadly deceased), nobody objected to this being removed. Trying to smear the reputation of an editor that cannot defend himself and who build Wikipedia a decade before you became involved in this project, one who got a number of articles to FA and who was highly active in the community, visiting Wikimania, worked for WMF, and is known under his real name, is apalling. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

    This is not the place to discuss the reliability/ validity of the source or the intentions of the editors who added the sources. Reserve this conversation for obtaining consensus in other areas. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Piotrus and Marek should not be removing that Haaretz article from Wikipedia articles. There's nothing wrong with the Haaretz article; it's perfectly reasonable journalism, especially considering the hoax remained for 15 years. Furthermore, it doesn't mention either of those editors until two-thirds of the way down the nearly 6,000-word article. It doesn't give either of their real names except if they volunteered their name and permission to use to Haaretz. Lastly, it backs up its statements with links to diffs. I don't know how it could be more wiki-compliant. Neither Piotrus or Marek should remove it, and if necessary they should receive TBANs on the subject if they persist. Softlavender (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry @Softlavender: you seem to be arguing the opposite - that I (and Piotrus) don't have COI because we're not even mentioned in relation to the controversy this is actually about (the Warsaw concentration camp) and only in passing. This is correct. The article does not claim that either myself or Piotrus had anything to do with the Warsaw Concentration Camp article. Because we didn't. Even Icewhiz couldn't pull that level of BS off (he could only falsely insinuate it). Volunteer Marek 17:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Marek, you are indeed involved in perpetuating the hoax, as the article and its diffs reveal. The fact that you are trying to engage in sophistry in denying your COI in removing the article from Wikipedia shows a much deeper underlying problem, which is even worse and should probably be reported to a noticeboard if you persist. Softlavender (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      @Softlavender - ??-involved in perpetuating the hoax-?? - which diffs reveal it? Post it here please.

      PS - Did you read the Haaretz article at all? - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      The diffs are in the Haaretz article. Softlavender (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      @Softlavender - Please post it here, perpetrating a hoax is a heavy accusation - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      You're perfectly capable of reading the Haaretz article yourself; the links are clearly identified there. Please don't waste my and the community's time by this endless dithering and bludgeoning. Softlavender (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      I raised Special:Diff/284068613 in August at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Archive 2#warsaw. Levivich 22:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

      @Levivich and @Softlavender - That's one edit from 2009[16] followed by one more[17] also in 2009. Total 2 edits. The next one was on August 3/21 [18]. That's 4 months ago. Two years after Icewhiz's dishonest claims were published by Haaretz.

      Where is the involvement in perpetrating a hoax? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Piotrus, Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount (also mentioned in the source) must refrain from editing the articles mentioning them. I absolutely agree with Softlavender's suggestion; though they may of course provide insights that could be valuable to the discussion, on the talk pages. The very suggestion that the editors may remove the stories simply because they disagree with it personally strikes me as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT situation and must stop immediately. (Plus the all-too-common claims of 500/30 exemptions as a licence to revert something more than 3 times is very suspect behaviour and is greatly concerning).

On a plus side, at least MyMoloboaccount stays away from the mess this topic has become (so far). I hope the other two editors follow them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) (Edit: pinging MyMoloboaccount as they are mentioned in this post).

• Two conflicts of interest: one with the source and the other with Jan Grabowski, with whom Piotrus had a public correspondence after the piece was published.[19][20][21][22][23][24] The editors should avoid editing and voting on both. François Robere (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Clear COI. As I said elsewhere: It's a bit like Trump calling organisations publishing negative stories about him as "[unreliable] fake news" (c.f. WP:MANDY etc). Those appealing to wild hypotheticals (i.e. reliable sources apparently naming Wikipedia editors negatively to get forced recusals) haven't presented any evidence of that happening. Any source that does that probably isn't going to be a reliable source, and reliable sources have better to do than chase after Wikipedia editors to get forced recusals. The default interest of any editor is writing to improve the encyclopaedia. Obviously an editor named negatively by a source has an interest (real or apparent) in preventing the usage of that source. Ergo, there's a conflict of interest, and these editors shouldn't be removing content attributed to the source. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Hum I am not enthusiastic about the notion that externally generated constraints be placed on editors, WP community can manage such things itself. The involvement of a banned editor also leaves a bad taste in the mouth.Selfstudier (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• This isn't COI I'm sorry but all of this is a whole bunch of bad faithed ridiculous HOOEY pushed by Icewhiz's friends and meatpuppets on Wikipedia (since he can't do that himself, seeing as he's indefinetly banned for, among other things, making death threats agains editors' families). These friends - let's put all our cards on the table here - are Levivich and Francois Robere (usually supported in these endeavors by various sock puppets of Icewhiz or other indef banned users). Here is what COI actually is, from WP:COI:
  • "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest."

Sorry. In this instance I am not contributing anything about myself, family, friends, clients, employers (in fact I hadn't even edited the Warsaw Concentration camp article prior to this article coming out, aside from one minor copy edit like eight years prior). I do not have any financial or other relationships with Haaretz or Benjakob. All that has happened here is that an indef banned user went running to Haaretz, fed a journalist a bunch of bullshit, that journalist then reprinted that bullshit (along the way for some reason using and linking an outright hate/shock site as a source for his info) mentioning me in passing. Guess what? Over 11+ years of editing I've actually been mentioned in several outlets:

At Breitbart, another indef banned user wrote a bunch of nonsense about me [can't link] (several times actually). Does that mean I now have "Conflict of Interest" regarding Breitbart or Donald Trump or CNN or other topics that banned editors mentioned in their dumb piece? Hell no.

Similar thing happened with Gateway Pundit [can't link for obvious reasons]. Again, indef banned editors and their buddies in the "media" write a whole slew of nonsense and mention me in that context. Does that mean I have a "Conflict of Interest" with regard to Gateway Pundit? No. Really, seriously, just, no.

I could go on. There've been other several times where someone writes about me externally. In none of those times, including the present one, have I gotten involved in the external discussion (cuz why?) None of these constitute a "conflict of interest" as defined by Wikipedia policy (or even common sense, except in some ridiculously broad sense).

All you got here is that some editors just can't get over the fact that their buddy - Icewhiz - got indef banned, while I still get to edit Wikipedia. Now, this is easily explained by the simple fact that I didn't go making death threats and doxxing people, while their friend did, but somehow they don't seem to understand this, and it really really irritates them. So, in addition to trying to spam this story into as many places on Wikipedia as a form of "revenge" against myself (and Piotrus) they've cooked up this "COI" nonsense.

There's no COI here. There is however some really disturbing meat puppetry. Really, some folks just need to get over the fact that Icewhiz was banned and stop trying to fight his battle and "defend his legacy" or whatever on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek 16:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It is not only one article in Haaretz. There was another one by Daniel Blatman entitled "Israel, It's Time to Call Off the anti-Polish Hunt" ([25]). Everyone who happens to have Haaretz access might want to check it. The article, as you can guess by the title, is quite supportive of Poland and Poles in general, and is actually unflattering of Omer Benjakob's account. Nevertheless, the author points out "if there is truly a guilty side regarding the whole lie of the annihilation by gas in the Warsaw concentration camp – it is Wikipedia, which is not dealing properly with all kinds of contemptible people who succeed in posting stories and lies in its pages that have a clear purpose: to distort and deny the Holocaust." Regrettably, the Wikipedia authorities seem to have failed with handling this issue, cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland which apparently didn't tackle anything. Maybe it's time for them to have a more thorough look? Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hej PjN/Miacek, how many editors do you think have edited the article on an obscure German far-right author over the last ten years? Not many. And out of those, how many have made almost exactly the same edit, ten years apart, but with two different accounts? Not enough? Ok. How many editors do you think have edited the article on an fairly obscure Polish author? Not many. And out of those, how many have made almost exact the same edit, eight years apart, but with two different accounts? Not enough? We also have Witold_Gombrowicz, War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) December 2001 riots in Argentina Alfred-Maurice de Zayas etc. etc. Just go start your new sockpuppet account, and next time pick a less troll-ish account name so as to be less noticed.

(the Blatman article doesn't mention the ArbCom case or any editors, despite the false claim made by this sock puppet). Volunteer Marek 17:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Lol. Quote: "Hej PjN/Miacek, how many editors do you think have edited the article on an obscure German far-right author" over the last ten years? First, Anton Maegerle is not "far-right" as you wrongly allege, but staunchly leftist. Second, he is not "obscure", but he's quite well-known (his best days are behind him, sure, but any German like me or German-speaker like Miacek surely knows him). Honesly, how much more wrong can a guy get it? Similarly, Jerzy Andrzejewski is not "obscure" at all, most people with an interest in Poland know him, and I barely even touched this article. Try some more solid background work next time. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:DFTT. Volunteer Marek 18:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but all of this is a whole bunch of bad faithed ridiculous HOOEY pushed by Icewhiz's friends and meatpuppets on Wikipedia Are you claiming everyone in this section claiming there's a COI here is doing so because they're Icewhiz's friends and/or meatpuppet? If so, that'd be provably false. e.g. I've never interacted with Icewhiz, and wasn't even active on this site during their tenure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I’m not claiming that everyone in this section etc. I’m claiming that this whole absurd idea that there’s COI here was originally connected by Icewhiz’s friends and/or meat puppets. Then you get other editors chiming in, some with better judgement than others. They started the drama and they keep feeding it fuel, but obviously they’re not the only ones who get caught up in it. Volunteer Marek 21:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Other discussion

A banned former Wikipedia editor, Icewhiz, presents a usually reliable newspaper, Haaretz, with disinformation, which the newspaper accepts at face value and publishes on 4 October 2019. Then that newspaper is cited as a reliable source on whether a debunked hypothesis (described as such in the Wikipedia article in question) concerning the World War II German Warsaw concentration camp was a "hoax". The most prominent author of the debunked hypothesis, Maria Trzcińska, had simply been ill-advised and gullible, not a deliberate hoaxer. Wikipedia is supposed to present the public with true information based on reliable sources. An unreliable article in a usually reliable newspaper (Haaretz) has no place as a source on Wikipedia and needed to be removed. The Wikipedia editors who removed it should not now be harassed for having removed it. Nihil novi (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Exactly - more about it can be seen here - [26] - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Also worth stressing that one of the numerous errors in Haaretz is calling this a hoax. There's a difference between an error (nobody is disputing an error was entered into Wikipedia and remained there for many years), calling this a hoax implies, per WP:HOAX and any simple dictionary definition, "a deliberate attempt to mislead" - in other words, that such error had to be created by someone who was aware it was an error but nonetheless decided to promote known falsehood as a fact. Setting aside that Nihil Novi is likely right about Trzcińska - we cannot be sure, of course, but BLP also encourages AGF - this is very much true for the Wikipedia case, where there is zero evidence the editor who added this was aware it was an error (that editor, User:Halibutt, is a former pl-WMF staffer, an editor in good standing, and sadly deceased, so they cannot defend themselves of clarifying anything). Calling this to indicate a hoax is besmirching a memory of our colleague, yet another attempt by Icewhiz to portray "Poles on Wikipedia" (quote from Haaretz, where the term is used with no qualifiers, pigeonholing an entire ethnic group) as problematic. Yes, the article gets some facts correct, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have elements of fake news and hate speech - and it gets many others wrong. Seriously, folks, Icewhiz got banned for a reason - and his harassment was already known and discussed by the community in 2019, including by the journalist who talks about the "alleged Twitter account" operated by Icewhiz (said Twitter was used for personal attacks on some Wikipedians, including me and Marek, for spreading fake news such as calling us Holocaust deniers and so on, and for contacting our family members, co-workers, and other underhanded methods of influencing the situation). As admitted by the article itself (quote above), this article's goal is to be used as ammunition for Icewhiz cause on- and off-wiki. We should have a clear policy not allowing such content. And since this is a COI noticeboard, I think we should also look at the COI involved in using such a source to give the indef-banned harasser a voice. Icewhiz obviously has a COI here too and we should not be enabling him to bypass it by reusing a source that is very sympathetic to him, contains numerous errors, and smears the names of numerous Wikipedians in good standing. Last fun fact: in some cases, the article has been added or restored by Icewhiz himself or known Icewhiz socks (a minority of cases, IIRC, but still...). This entire "story" was started by Icewhiz: [27]. Please stop empowering him. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to start a section looking at the COI involved in using the source. This section, however, is strictly for determining if there is a COI in an editor removing information or an article that is critical of said editor. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

By all means judge the editing of all the editors here (including Levivich) against relevant policy. But the COI policy only serves to prohibit these editors from writing directly about themselves. It doesn't prohibit them from writing about a subject for which they were criticised. If the rule is not interpreted that way, any external actor could "cancel" Wikipedia editors just by publishing articles critical of them. Let's not establish such a dangerous precedent. Zero^talk 11:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, the large amount of Haaretz material quoted here, especially Levivich's 740 words, is an obvious copyvio and someone who hasn't commented should remove it. Zero^talk 11:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

No way. 740 words out of like 6k+ and it's fair use/right to quote anyway. The quotes are needed to rebut arguments like "...which the newspaper accepts at face value..." (not true, the newspaper vetted the claims and checked with two experts). I could add more quotes to rebut the argument that the newspaper was "sympathetic" to Icewhiz, but meh. Levivich 12:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... non-extensive quotes in projectspace aren't copyvio, and don't deprive the copyright holder of any value. If it were, Balfour_Declaration#Notes definitely should be considered copyvio. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• At the very least, the editors mentioned in the Haaretz piece acting to remove any mention of said incident from several articles should be considered unethical. They should leave this issue to others. Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

^^ This is a sock puppet of indef banned user [28], who just barely managed to pass the 500/30 threshold restriction and then immediately jumped into this controversy in order to harass myself and Piotrus. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the WP:SPI case opened yet. Why the delay? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I feel compelled to point out that not a single person above has actually referenced our WP:COI policy as written. Please actually read the policy before commenting. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I just got to say that I am deeply impressed how Levivich managed to write all that without once mentioning that this whole hullabaloo is over an article basically ghost written by a user who has been indefinitely banned for making death threats, doxxing, and harassing people. Like, gee, perhaps that pertinent?

I’m also very impressed by how Levivich managed to write all that without once mentioning that it was he (and Francois Robere, another of Icewhiz’s on wiki friends) who are the ones trying to repeatedly reinstate this material into as many articles as possible. There’s a lot of “VM removes” and “Piotrus removes” in Levivich’s write up but if this stuff gets removed... who is it that keeps putting it back in? Oh, that’s right. It’s Levivich and Francois Robere.

I also like Levivich’s wording here, quote: “I and others have raised this issue at the RFCs listed above”. Who are these “others”? Hmmm, let’s see. It couldn’t be a bunch of sock puppet accounts of indef banned users (not just Icewhiz, he made buddies with a few other toxic indef banned users while hanging out at Reddit’s Gamergate subreddit), could it?

Levivich’s write up is a masterwork of cynical sophistry, strategic omission and manipulation. Volunteer Marek 17:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to back up any of your assertions? That it was "ghostwritten"? That I'm a friend of Icewhiz or a meatpuppet or otherwise acting on his behalf or at his direction? As for COI policy, it says Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself emphasis on yourself. You are written about in this article because you are one of the editors who are implicated. You are called out by name in the newspaper article, with specific examples of your editing. No one is saying you have a COI against all of Haaretz, just that one article. It's also flatly false that FR and I are the ones restoring the content; there are many editors doing that who have lots of edits and are in good standing (not obvious sock puppets). Some are obvious sock puppets, but every time, there are editors in good standing who are replacing the content and "vouching" for it. That's why the content stayed stable for two years--I and other editors in good standing checked the sources and put it back. I assume you won't be providing any evidence of your accusations nor striking these aspersions, but I personally am tired of taking you to noticeboards so I won't be reporting this one. Levivich 17:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I have not edited anything about myself (with or without emphasis). If you have a diff of where I made an about myself, let’s see it. I’d be interested in seeing it, since I take care to not even edit articles related to my professional research area to avoid COI. Diffs or stop making stuff up.

As far as my accusations, it’s not exactly a secret that you supported Icewhiz during the ArbCom case and in subsequent discussions. I mean... if you really want me to I can provide all the diffs where you carried water/ran interference for him or his sock puppets. But as I recall last time I did that you got really upset and falsely claimed I was personally attacking you. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich Are you okay with me plowing the diff’s here where you appear to be shouldering Icewhiz’s edits, including his sockpuppets? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is all barely on-topic. Can all of you save all of these allegations (sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, "cynical sophistry, strategic omission and manipulation", etc., for the appropriate venues (like WP:SPI, WP:ANI, WP:AE, or WP:RFAR). This section seems to just be a simple question relating to conflict of interest; it's becoming a fork of two separate ongoing discussions combined with a lot of unproductive, and so far unsubstantiated, allegations ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)